WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 30, NO.

4, PAGES 1153-i171, APRIL 1994

A physically
basedmodelfor the topographic
control
on shallowlandsliding
David R. Montgomery
Department
of Geological
Sciences
andQuaternary
Research
Center,University
of Washington,
Seattle

William E. Dietrich
Department
of Geology
andGeophysics,
University
of California,
Berkeley

Abstract. A model for the topographicinfluenceon shallowlandslideinitiation is

developed by couplingdigital terrain data with near-surfacethroughflow and slope
stabilitymodels.The hydrologicmodel TOPOG (O'Loughlin, 1986)predictsthe degree
of soilsaturationin responseto a steadystaterainfall for topographicelementsdefined
by the intersectionof contoursand flow tube boundaries.The slopestability
component usesthis relative soil saturationto analyzethe stabilityof eachtopographic
elementfor the case of cohesionlesssoils of spatially constantthicknessand saturated
conductivity.The steady state rainfall predictedto causeinstability in each topographic
elementprovides a measure of the relative potential for shallow landsliding.The spatial
distributionof critical rainfall values is comparedwith landslidelocationsmapped from
aerialphotographsand in the field for three study basinswhere high-resolutiondigital
elevationdata are available: TennesseeValley in Marin County, California; Mettman
Ridgein the Oregon Coast Range; and Split Creek on the Olympic Peninsula,
Washington.Model predictionsin each of theseareas are consistentwith spatial
patternsof observedlandslidescars,althoughhydrologiccomplexitiesnot accounted
for in the model (e.g., spatialvariability of soilpropertiesand bedrockflow) control
specificsites and timing of debris flow initiation within areas of similar topographic
control.

Introduction thickness, conductivity, and strength properties; rainfall

intensity and duration; subsurfaceflow orientation; bedrock
The spatialand temporal distributionof shallowlandslid- fracture flow; and root strength. While these factors are
ing are important controls on landscapeevolutionand a important controls, their spatial distribution are difficult to
majorcomponentof both natural and management-related determine. On the other hand, most studies report that
disturbance regimesin mountaindrainagebasins[e.g., Hack shallowlandslidesonly become important above a threshold
andGoodlet,1960;Dietrich and Dunne, 1978;Tsukamotoet hillslopegradient and that these landslides most commonly
al., 1982; Okunishi and Iida, 1983; Dietrich et al., 1986; originatein areas of topographic convergence[e.g., Camp-
Bendaand Dunne, 1987; Crozier et al., 1990].The sudden bell, 1975; Reneau and Dietrich, 1987a; Ellen et al., 1988].
failureandhighspeedof shallowlandslides thatmobilizeas In this paper, we present a quantitative model for assess-
debrisflows make them particularlydestructiveto down- ing the topographicinfluence on shallow landsliding.Models
streamresources,property, and lives [e.g., SmithandHart, for the generationof soil saturation and slope instability are
1982;Ellen and Wieczorek,1988;Brabband Harrod, 1989]. combinedwith digital terrain data to predict the steady state
Debrisflowsmayalsoscoursteepchannelsto bedrockand rainfall necessaryfor slope failure throughout a catchment.
accelerate sedimentdelivery to downstream,lower-gradient Our primary assumptionhere is that while local properties
channels. Increasing pressure to useuplandlandscapes and surely affect the timing, size, and behavior of a shallow
concurrentlyto minimize downstreamimpacts necessitates landslide, the dominant control on where they occur is the
development of objectivemethodsfor assessing the distri- local surfacetopography,as it in turn defineslocal slopeand
butionof potentialdebrisflow sourceareasand run out shallowsubsurfaceflow convergence.The relative simplic-
paths. ity of the model is attractive for the typical case where little
Debrisflowstypicallyoccurduringintensestormsor is known about the spatial variability of the other important
periods of extendedrainfall[e.g.,Caine,1980],reflectingthe factorsthat affect slope stability. The coupled model delin-
effectof elevatedsoilmoistureonsoilstrength. Topography eatesareasof the landscapewith similartopographiccontrol
influences shallowlandslideinitiationthroughbothconcen- on shallow landslide initiation.
trationof subsurfaceflow andthe effectof gradienton slope
stability.Other factorsthat also influencethe spatialand
temporaldistributionof shallow landslidinginclude soil Previous Work

Copyright
1994bytheAmerican
Geophysical
Union. There are many approaches to assessinglandslide haz-
Papernumber93WR02979. ards. The most widely used techniques include (1) field
0043-1397/94/93WR-02979505.00 inspectionusinga check list to identify sites susceptibleto
1!53
 1154 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL

landsliding[e.g., Neely and Rice, 1990];(2) projectionof

future patternsof instabilityfrom analysisof landslidein-
ventories[e.g., Wright et al., 1974;DeGraff, 1985;Degraff
and Canuti, 1988];(3) multivariateanalysisof factorschar-
acterizingobservedsitesof slopeinstability[e.g., Neuland,
1976, 1980; Carrara et al., 1977; Carrara, 1983;Roth, 1982;
Pike, 1988; Mark, 1992]; (4) stability ranking based on
criteria such as slope, lithology, land form, or geologic
structure[e.g., Brabb et al., 1972;Campbell, 1975;Holling-
sworth and Kovacs, 1981;Fowler, 1984; Reneau and Diet-
rich, 1987b;Smith, 1988;Seelyand West,1990;Montgomery
et al., 1991]; and (5) failure probability analysisbasedon
slopestabilitymodelswith stochastichydrologicsimulations
[e.g., Burroughs,1984;Burroughset al., 1985;Dunne, 1991;
Hammond et al., 1992; Sidle, 1992]. Each of these ap-
proachesis valuable for certain applications.None, how-
ever, takes full advantageof the fact that debris flow source
areasare, in general,stronglycontrolledby surfacetopog-
raphy through shallow subsurfaceflow convergence,in-
creasedsoil saturation,and shearstrengthreduction.This
topographicinfluenceon near-surfacehydrologicresponse,
andthusdebrisflow generation,canbe modeledusingdigital
elevation data. z
Two approacheshave been proposedrecentlythat use
digitalterraindatato representspatialdistributions
of slope
instability.One involvesgeneratingtopographic attributes
from digitalelevationdata (e.g., slope)whichcan be com-
binedwith othercharacteristicssuchasvegetation, or lithol- Figure 1. Topographicelementsusedin the programTO-
ogy, in a geographicalinformationsystem(GIS) to identify POG [O'Loughlin, 1986]are definedby the intersections of
hazardous areas based on observed correlations between contours(graylines)andflow tubeboundaries (blacklines).
landslidingandtheseattributes[Carreraet al., 1991].While The upslopecontributingarea a (shaded)is the cumulative
thisapproach mayprovidean effectivemethodfor identify- drainagearea of all topographicelementsdrainingintoan
ingareasin whichdebrisflowsarean important process, it element.Definitions of otherparameters usedin theanalysis
tendsto classifyrelativelylargeareasinto stabilitytypes, are illustrated
in the bottom part of the figure.
rather than resolvefine-scalepatternsof instabilitythat
would be particularly valuablefor hazard assessment
or land
Moreover,suchmodelstendto be sitespecific logicproperties.We have also addeda debrisflow routing
management.
because of the empirical basis of GIS-based multivariate and depositionalgorithm that enhancesthe usefulnessof our
analysis. modelin linkinghillslopeinstabilitywith downslopeconse-
The otherapproachis to usedigitalelevationdatato make quences.
more process-basedpredictionsof site instability.Okimura
and colleagues[Okimuraand Ichikawa, 1985;Okimuraand Model
Nakagawa, 1988]useda grid-baseddigitalelevationmodel
in a finite differencemodel of shallowsubsurfaceflow under In our application the hydrologic model, TOPOG
steadyrainfall.Predictedpore pressurevalueswere usedto [O'Loughlin,1986],usesa steadystaterainfallandmapsthe
gridcellsusinga formof spatial pattern of equilibrium soil saturationbasedon anal-
calculatethe stabilityof individual
the infiniteslopemodel.Most of the scarsin a small(0.1 ysis of upslopecontributingareas, soil transmissivity,and
km2) studycatchment
werecorrectly
identified
by their local slope (Figure 1). The model divides a catchmentinto
model, althoughmany more cells were predictedto be topographicelementsdefinedby the intersectionof contours
unstablethan were actually observed. and flow tube boundariesorthogonalto contours.The net
Here we builduponthisapproach andourpreviouswork rainfall (precipitationless evapotranspirationand deep
[Dietrichet al., 1992, 1993]to explorethe utility of a drainage into bedrock) becomes shallow subsurfaceflow.
process-based slopestabilitymodelto predictthe locationof whichis routeddownflow tubes,allowingcalculation
ofthe
shallow landslidesin three catchmentsin the coastalmoun- localfluxthrougheachtopographic element.The hydrologic
tains of the western United States. We combinea contour- model thus reducesto a calculationof wetness W, whichis
basedsteadystatehydrologic modelwith a simpleslope the ratio of localflux at a given steadystaterainfallto thatat
stabilitymodeland reducethis coupledmodelto its most soil profile saturation:
essentialcomponents. The steadystateassumption allows
isolation of the topographicinfluenceon debrisflow initia-
W = qa/bT sin 0 I l)
tion and thus developmentof a process-based
relativehaz- in which q is the net rainfall rate, a is the contributing
are
ard map. The simplicity of our model is consistentwith the drainingacrossb the contourlengthof the lowerbound to
lack of detailedknowledgeonecanexpectto acquireabout eachelement, T is soiltransmissivity
whensaturated,
and0
the spatialvariabilityof soilthickness,strength,andhydro- is the localslope(in degrees)of the groundsurface{Figure
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1155

1). Whenwetnessexceeds1.0, the groundexperiences .0 a

saturation
overlandflow. If we assumethat the saturated
conductivity
doesnot vary with depthbeneaththe surface,
thenwe canwrite T -- Kz cos 0 and (1) canbe simplifiedfor
thecasewhere W <- 1.0 to
UNCONDITIONALLY
0.5

W= K sinOhcosO/KsinOz cos0 = h/z (2) UNSTABLE

whereK is the saturatedconductivity of the soil, h is the

thicknessof saturated soil, and z is the total soil thickness
[Dietrich
et al., 1993].Thissimplification
allowsusto write
0.0
theinfiniteslopestability model for cohesionless soils(with 0.0 0.5 1,0 2.0

a wetbulk densityof Ps relative to the bulk densityof water slope (tan 0)

Pw)andslope-parallel
seepage
aseither
tan 0 = [1- W(pw/ps)] tan b (3a) 0 , . .

or

W= (ps/Pw)[1 - (tan O/tan qb)]. (3b)

In (3a), wetnesswould be calculatedfrom (1) and if W > UNCONDITIONALLY

1.0, then W is set equal to 1.0, as the remainingwater runs UNCONDITIONALLY UNSTABLE
off as overland flow. Substitution of (1) into (3b) allows this STABLE
failurecriterionto be expressedin terms of drainagearea per UNSTABLE

unit contourlength. Thus topographic elements, where

a/b-> (T/q) sin 0 (ps/p,)[1- (tan O/tan b)] (4)

are predictedto be unstable. In this form, the topographic

variables(a/b, sin 0, and tan 0), hydrologicvariables(T, q),
, , i
and soil variables (tan b and Ps) are clearly defined. Our 10
0.1 1.0
modeldoes not explicitly state that soil depth is spatially slope (tan O)
constant,but the assumptionsof a constant transmissivity Figure 2. Definition of stability fields on plots of (a) wet-
andthat saturatedconductivity doesnot vary with soil depth nessversus slope (tan 0) and (b) contributing area per unit
are mosteasily accomplishedif this is the case. In essence, contour length versus slope (tan 0). Dashed line represents
ourmodelholdsall soil propertiesconstantin spaceandthen threshold of ground saturation.
definesthe topographiccontrol on the location of shallow
landsliding.
We definefour stability classesthat describethe elements of different intensities. For potentially unstable elements,
withina catchmentfor a particularsimulation:uncondition- wetness will increase with increasing q until the stability
ally unstable,unstable, stable, and unconditionallystable. threshold is crossed. Once this threshold is crossed, an
Unconditionally unstableelementsare thosepredictedto be element will remain unstable at greater rainfall rates. Thus
unstableeven when dry. Unstable elementsare thosepre- we may determine the minimum steady state rainfall pre-
dictedto fail accordingto (4). Stableelementshaveinsuffi- dictedto causeinstability, here called critical rainfall (qcr),
cientcatchmentarea (and hencewetness)to fail. Uncondi- in each element by rearranging (4):
tionallystableelements
arethosepredictedto be stableeven
when saturated. qcr= [r sin O(ps/p.)/(a/b)][1 - (tan O/tan 4))]. (5)
Thesestabilitycategoriescanbe definedona plotof either Topographic elements with equal critical rainfall are inter-
wetness,or drainage area per unit contour length versus preted to have equal topographic control on shallow land-
slope(Figure 2). As mentionedabove, wetnesscannot slide initiation. Thus the spatial distribution of critical rain-
exceed1.0 in this model(equation(3a)). Hencethe rangeof fall values expresses the potential for shallow landslide
valuesis from 0.0 to 1.0. Equation(3b) showsthat the initiation.
thresholdof instabilityis definedby a linearrelationship
betweenwetness andgroundslope(tan0).Groundisuncon-
ditionally
stablewhentan 0 -< tan4)[1 - (Pw/P,)].Uncon- Study Areas
ditionally
unstablegroundoccurswheretan 0 > tan Study areas (Figure 3) were selected on the basis of the
Consequently,
theseslopesshouldtendto consist
of ex- availabilityof high-resolutiondigital elevation data in debris-
posedbedrock.The stabilityof eachtopographicelement flow-prone terrain. Previous field work in these areas allows
maybeshownby plottingitspositiononFigure2arelativeto estimationof both the soil and hydrologic parameters re-
theseboundaries. quired by the model, albeit with considerableuncertainty
Differentratiosof soiltransmissivity
to the rainfallrate aboutthe spatialaverage.Althoughthe spatialvariability of
(T/q)alterthe wetnessvaluefor eachelement.For a given each of these parameters could be included in model simu-
soiltransmissivity,
a seriesof simulations
witha rangeof lations, they are treated as spatially uniform because more
steadystate rainfall intensities illustratesthe effect of storms detailedinformationon soil propertiesis unavailable.
1156 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL

interval
inouranalysis
ofthiscatchment.
Unlike
their
Work,
SPLIT
'
CREEK
weplotpotential
instability
asafunction
ofT/q.Wealso
use
a smaller
flownetin TOPOG,whichreduces theextent
of
predicted instability.
Fieldworkinthisandneighboring areas
provides
thebasis
forestimating
valuesforthesoilthickness,
conductivity,
and
bulkdensity.Soilthicknessvariesfrom0.1 to 0.5mon
topographic
noses to depthsof upto 4.0m in topographic
hollows [WilsonandDietrich,1987;Montgomery, 1991].
Thesaturated
conductivity
of the soilvariesfrom10-3rn/s
at soildepths
lessthan1 m to 10-l m/sforsoildepths
TENNESSEE _
between 3and4 m[Montgomery, 1991].
Thetransmissivity
VALLEY
" CAN of thesoilprofileis dominated
thisdramaticdecrease
by near-surface
in conductivity
soilsdueto
withincreasing
s0il
depth.Based ontheseandotherdata,Dietrich etal.[1992]
estimatethe transmissivity
of saturatedsoilprofiles
inthis
? 2,00krn catchmenttobe17m2/d,saturatedbulkdensity
tobe2000
kg/m3,andthefriction
angle
tobeabout
40.Weassume
that
, ,

thesevaluesrepresentthe naturalheterogeneity
withinthis
catchment.
Figure 3. Location map for TennesseeValley, Mettman
Ridge, and Split Creek study areas. Mettman Ridge, Oregon
TheOregon
studysiteconsists
ofa 0.3km2drainage
basin
alongMettmanRidgein the CoastRangejust northof Coos
Marin County, California
Bay, Oregon.As is typicalin the OregonCoastRange,the
The Marin Countycatchmentoccupies1.2 km2 in the areais highlydissected andcharacterized by narrowridge.
TennesseeValley area of the Marin Headlandsjust northof topsand steepslopes.Bedrockconsistsof gentlydipping
San Francisco, California. The area has broad convex hill- Eocenesandstone [BeaulieuandHughes,1975].Thestudy
tops and alluvium-filled major valleys. The catchmentis area was recentlyclear cut and replantedwith Douglasfir,
underlainby stackedthrustsheetscomposed of Cretaceous hasa maritimeclimate,andreceivesapproximately 1500mm
greenstone, greywacke, and chert of the Franciscan Com- of precipitation annually.Shallowdebrisflowsperiodically
plex [Warhaftig,1984].Vegetationis composed of coastal deliverthe colluvialsoilsto the downslopechannelsystem.
scrub and grasslandscommunities. The area has a Mediter- Further descriptions of the geomorphicprocessesactivein
ranean climate with a mean annual rainfall of about 760 mm. this and adjacentcatchmentsare givenelsewhere[Anderson
Burrowing
activityis thedominant
sediment
transport
pro- et al., 1990; Montgomery et al., 1990; Torres et al., 1990;
cesseson convex hillslopesand ridgetops[Lehre, 1982; Montgomery, 1991].
Blackand Montgomery,1991];landsliding is an important Nineteen shallow landslides occurred in the Mettman
sedimenttransportprocesson steepersideslopesand in Ridge catchment between forest clearance in 1987 andthe
topographichollows,andoverlandflowandseepage erosion summer of 1992 (Figure 4b). Six shallow landslideslocated
dominateon lower-gradient slopes[Montgomery andDiet- immediately below a logging road were associatedwith
rich,1988,1989;Dietrichetal., 1993].Furtherdescription
of drainage concentration and/or fill berm failures. The other
geomorphic processes in this catchmentis presentedelse- debris flows occurred within clear cuts and had typical
where [Montgomery, 1991]. dimensions of 5 m by 10 m with a depthof about1.5m.Six
Aerial photographyandfieldinspectionidentified43 scars of these debris flows occurred in hollows at the headsof
(Figure4). Earlieranalysesreported39scars[Dietrichetal., first-orderchannels.Three of the remainingsevenoccurred
1992, 1993],but four more have since beenidentified. Based in subtlehollowsnot depictedon the topographicmap;four
on vegetationregeneration in the scars,we interpretthat occurredon steep slopesnext to channels.Much of the
most of the landslidesoccurredduringor sincestormsin coatset debris was depositedwithin the study catchmcnt,
1974thatcaused debrisflowsin MarinCounty[Lehre,1982]. with most coming to rest at tributary junctions.Storms
The maximum scarsizeis roughly10m wideby 20m long observed to cause shallow landslides in this catchmenthad
and 1 m deep,similarto the findingsof ReneauandDietrich annual or biennial 24-hour rainfall intensitiesof 50-75 mm/d.
[1987a] in a nearby area. Most of the shallow landslides Contemporarysedimenttransportrates from landsliding
involved colluvial soils and some scouredto bedrock. Al- greatlyexceedlong-termrates calculatedfrom the basalage
mostall scarswere locatedin steepportionsof the catch- of colluvialdepositsin topographichollows,indicating
a
ment,typicallyeitherat channelheadsor on sideslopes. significant postlogging increasein sedimenttransportby
Dietrichet al. [1992,1993]generated
high-resolution
dig- debrisflows [Montgomery, 1991].
ital elevationdata for this catchmentfrom low-altitude, Digitalelevationdataweregenerated froma 1:4800 scale
stereoaerial photographs. They also used the program topographicmap of the catchmentconstructed fromlow-
TOPOG to map topographicattributes associatedwith altitudeaerialphotographs obtainedpriorto clearcutting.
thresholdprocesstheoriesand thereby dividedthe catch- During field work, several significantdiscrepancies
were
mentintoareasdominated by diffusivesedimenttransport, notedbetween
theactuallandform andthatportrayed
onthe
overlandflow, nonerosive
overlandflow, and landsliding. basemap;nonetheless,
it is the bestavailable
mapofthe
We usethe samedigitalelevationdata setcontouredat a 5-m catchment.
The vectorizeddata were gridtiedandthen
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1157

2OO m
I I

Contour interval = 5m

Figure 4a. Topographic map of the TennesseeValley study catchment showing distribution of land-
slides,channels,and debrisflow deposits.Landslidesymbolsare shownlarger than scarsare in the field
becauseof uncertaintyassociated
with fieldmapping.In Tennessee
Valley, depositsin majorvalleysare
composed of interstratified alluvial and debris flow deposits.

contouredat the interval of the original base map usingthe about10-3 m/sat thegroundsurfaceto about10-4 m/sat a
programTOPOG, resulting in digital contours that are es- depth of 2 m [MontgomeT, 1991]. Based on these data, we
sentiallyidenticalto the originalcontours.Analysiswas estimatethat an appropriate transmissivityfor use in this
conducted usinga map with a 5-m contourintervalcor.- catchmentis 65 m2/d.Saturated soilbulkdensity is about
structed from this data set. 1600kg/m
3 (R. Torreset al., manuscript
in preparation,
Field work in these catchments and similar areas of the 1993). Reported values of the angle of internal friction for
Oregon CoastRangeprovides constraints
on thesoilbulk soilsdevelopedon sandstones
in the OregonCoast Range
densit5 andtransmissivity.The colluvialsoilin the study vary from about 35 to 44 [Yee and Harr, 1977; Schroeder
areais a siltysandthatrangesin thickness
fromroughly0. I
and Alto, 1983;Burroughset al., 1985],with substantially
to 0.5 m on topographicnosesto greaterthan 2 m in lowervaluesfor saturatedsoilsdue to disaggregation upon
topographic hollows[Montgomeo',1991]. Bedrockcrops
wetting[Yee and Harr, 1977].Root strengthof both conif-
outin man>areaswherethe slopeexceeds45. Saturatederousand understoryvegetationprovidessignificantappar-
hdraulic
conductivity
of the colluvialsoildeclines
from ent cohesionto the soil. Inclusionof the apparentcohesion
1158 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHICCONTROL

lOO m
! i

Contour interval - 5m

Figure 4b. Same as Figure 4a except for Mettman Ridge study catchment.

due to root strength requires local data on soil depth. Colluvial soils developed on sandstonesin this areaare
Although we recognize that the strength effect of cohesion siltysands
witha saturated
bulkdensity
ofabout
1800
kg/rn
3
cannot be fully accounted for by increasing the friction [Schroeder
andAlto, 1983].Soilthickness
averages
about
1
angle, we have no other option in this simple model. Here we m [Schlichte, 1991], although soils are shallower on topo-
adopted a friction angle of 45, increasingthe soil strengthas graphicnosesandthickerin hollows.Schroeder
andAlto
much as 1.4 times the actual frictional strength. [1983]reporteda frictionangleof 36 for a recompacted
Split Creek, Washington sample fromcolluvialsoilsdevelopedon sandstoneinthis
The Olympic Peninsula study area encompassesthe west partof the OlympicPeninsula.Again,we adopta friction
fork of SplitCreek,a 0.6 km2 basinon the northflankof angle of45tocompensate fortheeffective
cohesionprovided
Huelsdonk Ridge on the South Fork of the Hoh River. The by root strengthof the secondgrowthforestandunderstory.
area is characterized by steep, unglaciated tributaries that No dataare available on the hydraulic
conductivity
ofthe
drain into wide, glaciated valleys filled with outwash and colluvial
soilsin thisarea,butbasedonexperience
insimilar
Holocene alluvial sediments. Huelsdonk Ridge is underlain soils
intheOregon
Coast
Range,
weestimate
a transmissivit,
by steeply dipping, folded and faulted Oligocene to upper of about 65 m2/d for this catchment.
Eocene sandstone [Tabor and Cady, 1978]. The area re- Digital
elevation
dataweregenerated
fromcolor
aerial
ceives from 4000 to 5000 mm/yr of rainfall annually and was photographs
usinga stereo-digitizer.
Thegroundsurface
coveredby a primarilywesternred cedarforestpriorto clear sampled
atanaveragespacing
of5 mandcontouredata5-m
cutting of the basin in the 1980s. interval
(Figure
4c).Landslides
visible
oncoloraerial
ph0-
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1159

2OO m
I , !

Contour interval = 5m

Figure 4c. Same as Figure 4a except for Split Creek study catchment.

tographs
flownin 1990were mappedontothis basemap. element. The former approach illustratesmodel perfor-
Landslide frequency
in surrounding
areasincreasedby600- mance, but the latter approach is most useful for hazard
700%in thedecadefollowing forestclearance[Schlichte,assessment.
1991].In thewestforkof SplitCreek,nineshallow debris A seriesof simulationsfor the MettmanRidgecatchment
flowsweremapped. Fiveof thefailuresoccurred
atthehead illustrates the effectof increasing
q on predictedinstability.
offirst-order
channels,
oneoccurred atthebase
ofahillslope At a rainfallintensityof 20 mm/d,mosttopographic elements
alonga channel,andthreeoccurred onsteepsideslopes. lie withinthe stablefieldon a plotof wetnessversusslope
(Figure5a). With increasingrainfall(Figures5b and5c), the
Simulations wetness valuefor each topographicelementincreases,and
progressively moreof the catchmentplots as either unstable
Themodelmaybe run in severaldifferentlbrmats.Ele- or not steep enough to fail. Every element where [1 -
mentstabilitymay be simulatedfor a steadystaterainfall (p.,/p)] tan 4>< tan 0 < tan qbis potentiallyunstablewith a
intensity,
oralternatively,
thecritical
rainfall
necessary
to sufficientlyhigh rainfall rate.
cause
instability
may be determined
for eachtopographic The map distributionof predictedinstabilityprovidesa
1160 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL

10 Relative Failure Potential

a
The mappatternof the criticalrainfallpredicted
by (5}
ABLE
.
providesa predictionof relative potential for shallowland-
slide initiation. Elements with lower qcr are interpretedas
UNCONDITIONALLY more susceptibleto shallow landsliding.Conversely,ele-
( 0.5
UNSTABLE ments with higher q cr are interpreted as more stable,asa
less frequent rainfall event would be required to cause
instability.While the absolutevalue of qcr for anytopo-
graphicelementdependson the valuesof p., tan ,;b,andL
f "'_- .. -1. 3 the topographicparameters (a/b, tan 0) control the relative
o.o
I .:,--''--':/;r?
0.0
'_
-e"'
-' -' ',_., 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 patterns of predicted qcr values if the soil propertiesare
slope (tan O) spatially constant.
The three study catchments differ in the extent of the zone
of potentialinstability(Plate2). The Marin Countystudysite
has predominantly gentle slopes compared to the assumed
friction angle, and only a third of the catchment areais
.'.'.UNS'j',BLE "
potentially subjectto shallow landsliding,even in response
' -: -'- :'...:.'--. to extreme hydrologic events. In contrast, the Mettman
-: -"i,:- '.:::
'-' : ..'...., .'

..:-':-..:-'
<
z
O' ' '" .....
f'
.. . . .; - '. .. ' . .. -':.....

l -'i-'-'.''-:'-.::'*-;"..-
..:'"-'
:-F.".'.
....
%5:',-':t:.-:"-.:'
.- ': '
: ..--'- ,--'.,' ; ..... :" . .
' - ..-.' /:' -. .' : ' -'."
;.-.. -.;--:-:..-',-: ....
':'-.:':-:...--' '- . ..

.

'..
-
IJiqC6NDITIONALLY
UNSTABLE
Ridge and Split Creek catchments are much steeperand
most of these catchments are potentially unstable.
Comparison of observed landslide locations with model
I ..... ::.. ..... . .' predictionsprovides a test of model performance(,Plate 2).
., '....:,.;. ':.. ..' , ' : ..!- ";....'...:._'.-.-, . . ...

"z.'-:-:
i 'i"-'"
'>.-.
3';.:.{
g',4?'
22. i
:...
',-"--.-'.,-
-....-:.m'
"'
'....
0.0 :'' '" "- ,--.r-
'%".'..,'.:.
:::
.....
..'........

'
'
--"- :- - --',, --'.-'7 - : . "--.--' -:
:..-,..,..-'%:-'-.;-'-_';g--"-'
,- ' , ' 7 --'4 '
.... :.'-':.-:-::--.:':....
' . , ' ,
.

,
-
Although it is difficult to precisely compare field observa-
tions and model predictions because the uncertainty associ-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ated with field mapping is of the order of the size of the
slope (tan e)
topographicelementsused in these simulations,we mapped
observed landslides onto a map of predicted critical rainfall
1.0 (Plate 2). Landslide scars are mapped larger than they arein
the field because of this uncertainty, and most occup.
severaltopographicelements.Thus the lowest qcr valuefor
the elements overlain by a mapped landslide was considered
to reflect the value for the landslide.
A simple test of model performance is to comparethe
proportionof landslideswith differentcritical rainfallalues
to the percent of the catchment area with similar values
(Table 1). Better modelperformancewould be reflected ina
disproportionate occurrenceof landslidesin sitespredicted
0.0
to have a lower critical rainfall. In each of the study areas.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
proportionally
morelandslidescarsoccupyareaspredicted
slope (tan 0)
to be least stable (qcr ( 50 mrn/d).
Figure 5. Plots of wetness versus slope for topographic Two thirds of the TennesseeValley catchment is notsteep
elements in MettmanRidgestudycatchment (T = 65 m2/d, enoughto fail according
to the criterionof (4) (Table1).0nl.
tan4' - 45,andp = 1600kg/m3)for(a)q - 20 mm/d;(b)
q - 100 mm/d; and (c) q - 200 mm/d. the steeperslopes alongvalleymargins andat thehead of
hollowsare modeledas susceptible to shallowlandsliding
Theseareasdefinethe generalareasin whichlandslide
sca,s
were observed.Furthermore,manylow-orderchannels
in
these steeperparts of the catchment occupy elementspre-
dictedto be least stable,and a numberof channelhead,
spatial context within which to interpret these simulations, occurin elements in theleaststablecategory. Progressiveh
as well as constraints on reasonable values of q. At 20 mm/d fewerlandslides are locatedin areaswith greatercriticd
rainfall, most of the catchment is stable (Plate la), except for rainfall values (Table 2).
areas of unconditional instability that coincide with the Mostof theMet(manRidgecatchment is predictedtobe
observed pattern of local bedrock outcrops. These zones are unstable at somerainfallrate (Table1). The pattern of
areas where slopes are too steep to allow the accumulation predicted instability,however, changes systematically ith
of significant soil. They are unlikely to generate shallow increasing rainfall.Steepareaspredicted to beuncondition-
landslides. Increasing the rainfall rate to 100 mm/d (Plate allyunstable generally correspond to areaswithbedrock
1b), zones of predicted instability spread to steep, low-order exposed at the ground surface (Plate 2b). These area,
channels, topographic hollows, and base of steep side represent sitesof chronicinstabilitywheresignificant mate-
slopes. Further increasing the simulated rainfall to 200 mm/d rialdoesnotaccumulate. As rainfallincreases to 100turn.d,
(Plate lc) expands the zones of predicted instability away zones ofpredicted instabilityextend tolow-order channel'
from channels, toward drainagedivides, and into topograph- and hollowsand ontothe baseof somesteeper hillside
ically divergent hillslopeswhere debrisflow initiation is rare. Most of the low-orderchannelsin this area lack significant
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1161

stable
unconditionally
stable
unstable
100 rn
unconditionally
unstable
N I
Contour interval - 5m

Platela. Mapofpredictedstability
fortheMettman
Ridgestudycatchment
(tan = 45,T = 65 me/d,
andPs= 1600km/m3) for q = 20 mm/d.

colluvial
valleyfill, andmostshallowlandslidescarsoccurin 2c). At greater rainfall intensities, zones of predicted insta-
hollows
andlow-orderchannels(Figure
4b).Fieldinspectionbility expand farther up hollows and onto the base of
indicates
thateachofthethreescarsmappedasoccurring
on surroundingslopes, eventually extending into topographi-
topographicnosesoccurs in a subtlehollow not reflected on cally divergent hillslopes. All of the observed landslide scars
thetopographic map.Henceourmodelcannotdetecttheir occurin topographichollows or on steep side slopesin areas
instability.
At rainfallratesbetween100and200rnm/d,areas predicted to be least stable (Table 2).
ofpredictedinstabilityexpand fartherintohillslopes
andup In each of these catchments, landslides occurred with
totheheadsof valleysuntiltheyvirtuallyenclose thevalley disproportionate frequency in areas predicted to be least
network.
Topographically
divergentridgelines
andhillslopes stable (Table 2). This comparisonof predicted patterns of
betbeen
valleys
areunstable
onlyat steady
staterainfall
in relative stability and observed patterns of shallow landslid-
excess
of 200mm/d.Roughlyhalfof theobserved landslides ing indicatesthat q cr provides a reasonableproxy for failure
occurred
in areaspredictedto be leaststable(Table2). potential. Furthermore, there are similarities in the pattern
Almost
theentireSplitCreekcatchment alsoispredicted of qcr betweenthe catchments.In general, steepconvergent
to beunstable
at somerainfallintensity(Table1). Again, areas, such as low-order channels and hollows, are most
steep,low-orderchannelsandthe lowerendof topographic susceptibleto failure. Steep side slopes and smaller or
hollows
arepredicted
tobemostsusceptible
tofailure
(Plate lower-gradienthollowsare next, and divergenthillslopesare
1162 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL

stable

unconditionally stable
unstable

unconditionally unstable lOO rn

I ,,!
N / Contour interval - 5m
Plate lb. Same as Plate la except for q = 100 mm/d.

least susceptible to failure. This pattern corresponds well havefailedat sometime in the past.Althoughit als0is
with results of other field surveys, which indicate that the possiblethat the modeloverrepresentsareaspotentially
majority of debris flows originate in topographichollows but subject
toshallow landsliding,
slopemorphologyinzones
of
that a significant percentage also originate on steep side predicted
failuresuggests
thattheyrepresentareasinwhich,
slopes and channel margins [e.g., Okimura and Ichikawa, landsliding
dominatessediment transport
andslope evolu-
1985; Reneau and Dietrich, 1987a; Ellen et al., 1988]. tion. The majorityof slopespredictedto be unstable
are
Shallow landsliding from divergent ridgetops and topo- neitherconvexnorconcave butratherareplanarinprofile.
graphic noses is rare. a shapeconsistent
withlong-termerosion
by landsliding.
In each of the study areas, many more areas are predicted Consequently,
wejudgethatzonesof predicted
instabilin
to be unstable than are observed to have failed in the field. generally
represent
areasin whichlandsliding
is a major
Five years of observationsin the Mettman Ridge catchment sedimenttransportprocessover long timescales.
indicate that small, shallow debris flow scars rapidly heal
and are difficult to detect after as few as 3 years. Our field Constraintson the HydrologicParameters(T/q)
and aerial photo mapping only captures the most recent Observed
areasof soil saturation
effectively
constrain
failures, and many of the areas predicted to be unstable may reasonable
values
ofthehydrologic
parameters
(T/q)and
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1163

I stable

unconditionallystable
unstable

I unconditionallyunstable lOO rn

Contour interval = 5m

Plate lc. Same as Plate la except for q = 200 mm/d.

thusprovideanupperlimitto thecriticalrainfall.In eachof For the Tennessee Valley catchment, the rainfall rate above
thestudycatchments, overlandflow only rarely,if ever, which saturation spreads into divergent elements is about 50
occurs on topographically divergent hillslopes. Conse-
mm/d (T/q = 350 m), whereas for the Mettman Ridge and
quently,a reasonablelimit to the steadystaterainfallfor use
Split Creek catchmentsit is about 200 mm/d (T/q = 325 m)
in slopestabilitysimulations
is provided
by therainfallin (Figure 6). These values of the critical rainfall may be used
excessof which saturated zones expand into divergent as limits for the steady state rainfall used to predict zones of
portionsof the landscape. potential instability. The majority of observed landslidesin
The steadystaterainfallnecessaryto saturatea topo- the study areas are within zones of predicted instability so
graphic
elementqs is givenby determined.
In the Tennessee Valley catchment, 33 of the 43 debris
qs = (bT/a) sin 0. (6) flow scars(78%) identified in the study area includeelements
Thiscriterion
alsomaybeexpressed
interms
oftheratioT/q predictedto be unstableusing the hydrologic constraintfor
saturationof divergent topography (q <: 50 mm/d). For the
T/q = a/b sin 0. (7) Mettman Ridge catchment, 16 out of 19 debris flow scars
1164 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL

2OO rn
I

Contour interval = 5m

criticalrainfall(mm/day)

uncond.stable
> 200
100- 200
50 - 100
O- 50

uncond.
unstable
Plate 2a. Map showingsteady state rainfall intensity [mm/day] necessaryfor slope instability in each
topographic
element
forTennessee
Valley(tanb= 40,T = 17m-/d,Ps= 2000kg/m3).

(84%) include locations predicted to be unstable (q -< 200 sion-dominatedportions of the hillslopes in theseareas.
mm/d). Two of the other three landslide scars were associ- Acquisitionof high-resolution digitalelevationdatafr0rr
ated with road drainage concentration. The final unexplained additionalareaswill allowfurtherexplorationof thisobser-
debris flow scar is located at the downslopeend of a hollow vation.
not portrayed on the topographicbasemapused to create the
digital elevation data. In the Split Creek catchment,all of the Debris Flow Routing
observed scars are in locations that include elements pre- Mobilization of shallow landslides into debris flox,s re-
dicted to be least stable (Table 2). These examplesillustrate flectssoilproperties
[e.g.,EllenandFleming,1987]that
that observed debris flow scars generally occur in locations cannot bepredicteddirectlyfromdigital
elevation
rnodel.
predicted by the model to be susceptible to debris flow However,suchmodelscanbe usedto predictpotential
run
initiation, indicating that this approach provides a simple out pathsin debris-flow-prone
areas.There are manyap-
assessment of relative debris flow initiation hazard. proaches
to delineating
downslopeareaspotentially im-
It is curious, however, that the limiting value of the pacted
bydebrisflows[e.g.,Ikeya,1981;Takahashi,
1981;
hydrologic parameter T/q is similar for each of the study BendaandCundy, 1990;Ellenetal., 1993].
Hereweappb'
areas. While we are not certain of the significance of this simple
algorithmfor delineating
areassubject
to different
observation,
it reflects
thesimilarsizeof theconvex,diffu- styles of debris flow impact.
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1165

criticalrainfall(mm/day)

E uncond.
stable
> 200
100 - 200 100 rn

50 - 100
O- 50
N I
Contour interval = 5m
uncond. unstable
Plate
2b. Same
asPlate
2aexcept
forMettman
Ridge
(,tan
b= 45,T = 65m2/d,
Ps= 1600kg/m3).
-

steeperslopes.Here we definea zoneof likely debrisflow

Relative debris flow hazards differ for initiation, transport,
anddeposition
areas.The flow tubearchitectureof TOPOG depositionas the first set of consecutivetopographicele-
hcilitates determination of debris flow paths and allows mentswithina prescribedsloperangedown a flow tubefrom
grosscharacterization of debris flow behavior along these an element predicted to be unstable. Transport zones are
paths.For a given simulation,elementsthat are unstable delineatedas the topographicelementsalong the flow tube
according to (4) definepotentialsitesof debrisflow initia- between initiation and deposition points.
tion.Potentialdebrisflowpathsaretraceddownflowtubes For the Tennessee Valley study area, this algorithm pre-
untila depositionalcriterionis exceeded.In reality,a debris dicts that the steepchannelsin the basin headwaterstrans-
flowwill be depositedwhenit thinsor flowsontoa slope port debrisflows,while the lower-gradientchannelsin the
gentleenoughthat the forcesdrivingcontinuedmotionare majorvalleysare within depositionalzones(Plate3). These
lessthantheyieldstrength of theflowingmaterial.Thisoften patterns correlatewell with the observeddistributionof
occurs on slopesbetweenroughly3and6[e.g.,Campbell, bedrock channels and Holocene valley fills composed of
1975-lkeya, 1981'Takehashiet al., 1981'BendaandCltndy, interstratified debris flow and alluvial deposits {Figure 4a).
1990],butincorporationof largewoodydebrisintothesnout Channelsin the Mettman Ridge and Split Creek study areas
ofa movingdebrisflow,or momentum extractionassociated are too steepto allow depositionaccordingto the criteria
xithhigh-angle
tributaryjunctions,mayforcedeposition on givenabove.However,a numberof debrisflowdepositsare
1166 MONTGOMERY
AND DIETRICH:MODELFORTOPOGRAPHIC
CONTROL

20O rn
I ' ',

criticalrainfall(mm/day)

[- uncond.
stable
> 200
100 - 200
C
50 - 100
o- 50

uncond.
unstable

Plate 2c. Same

asPlate2aexcept
forSplitCreek(tanb= 45,T = 65 m2/d,Ps= 1800kg/m3).

located at channel confluences or behind log jams. Such Discussion

depositsare subjectto scourby subsequentdebrisflows, and
Thismodelis intendedto be simple;it delineates
th0s,
we have found what appear to be multiple debris flow
depositsin low-gradient reachesat the mouth of the creeks
areasmostproneto shallowlandsliding
dueto surface
draining both the Mettman Ridge and Split Creek study topographic
effectson hydrologic
response.
Thisis most
areas. appropriate
formodeling
topographically
controlled
shal10
This approach provides a preliminary method for predict- landsliding
commoninsteephighly
dissected,
soil-mantled
ing potential debris flow runout paths. More complex algo- topography.
Although
theassumptions
incorporated
inthe
rithms are desirable to represent potential zones of deposi- model,especially
the steadystatehydrologic
model,
pre-
tion at tributary confluences and to account for the effect of clude
itsuseasa tooltopredict
thefrequency
oflandslide
large woody debris. The approach presentedhere provides a initiation,the model does assessrelative stabilityasex-
simple method for characterizing areas potentially subjectto pressed
bythecritical
steady
staterainfall.
Oursteady
state
different styles of debris flow impacts. hydrologic
modelrequires
theassumption
thatthepredicted
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1167

Table 1. Percent of Catchment Area in Each 104

CriticalRainfall Range
CriticalRainfall, mrn/d TV MR sc
Unconditionally
unstable 1 13 9
0-50 8 10 8
50-100 9 7 10
100-200 10 13 19
>200 5 42 44
Unconditionally
stable 67 16 10
m 0
TV, TennesseeValley; MR, Mettman Ridge; SC, Split
Creek.

spatial
patternof porepressures
mimicsthatwhichoccurs
duringan unsteady, landslide-producingrainfall event. This
maynotbe so. Assumptionsregardingthe spatialuniformity
of strengthand hydrologic properties are convenientbut not
necessary.Should such data as the spatial variation in
transmissivityand frictional strengthbe available, they can
be incorporatedinto model simulations.
The specificpattern of landslidingobservedin a catchment
reflectsthe influence of many factors not included in the
model.
Variations
insoilstrength
andtransmissivity
impart
astochastic
component
toshallow
landslide
initiation.
While
these
properties
couldbe assigned
to eachtopographic
elementbyrandomlysampling
froma distribution
ofpoten-
tialvalues,
wefeelthataMonte
Carlo
approach topredicting
the spatialdistributionof soil propertiesonly servesto
obscure
thetopographic
influence
onslope
instability
and
givea falsesense
of relativestability.
Soilthickness
may
exhibit
bothstochastic
localvariability
andsystematic
dif-
ferencesassociatedwith topographicposition. Unfortu-
nately,detailedinformationon soil thicknessis only rarely
available.
The seepage forcenecessary to destabilize
a slope
depends on the flow orientation[Iversonand Major, 1986],
andfieldstudiesin both the TennesseeValley and Mettman
Ridgestudyareasindicatethatthehydrologic characteristics
ofthenear-surface
bedrock
strongly
influence
thepiezomet- i

ricresponsein theoverlyingcolluvium[WilsonandDietrich,
1987;Montgomeryet al., 1990;Montgome.rv,1991].Al-
thoughthisinfluencesslopestability,it is difficultto include i ' 'T/o,
=3250
m
o i o
ina modelwithoutdetailedknowledge of bedrockfracture o o

patterns.The effective cohesionprovidedby root strength

103
xhichhas not been explicitlyincludedalso is spatially

Table 2. Percent of Landslides in Each Critical

o o o c * 90 .
RainfallRange 102
CriticalRainfall,mm/d TV MR SC
Unconditionally
unstable 0 0
0--50 81 47 lOO
50-100 15 26 10'
0.1 1.0
100-200 2 11'
slope
>200 2 16'
Unconditionally
stable 2 0 Figure 6. Plotsof contributingareaper unit contourlength
versusslope (,tan0) for convergent(circles) and divergent
TV, Tennessee Valley;RM, MettmanRidge;SC, Split (crosses)topographicelementsin the (a) TennesseeValley,
Creek
(b) Mettman Ridge, and (c) Split Creek study catchments
*Theselandslideseither were associatedwith road drain- showingthe effectof varyingT/q on the topographicthresh-
ageconcentrationor were in subtletopographichollowsnot olds for soil saturation and slope stability (solid lines).
resolved
in thedigitaltopography. Dashedlinesindicatelimits of the slopestabilitymodel.
1168 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL

200 rn
! !

Contour interval = 5m

initiation

transport
deposition
stable

Plate 3. Map of TennesseeValley studycatchmentshowingpredictedof stabilityand sitesof debrisflow

initiation,
transport,
anddeposition
(q = 50 mm/d;tanb= 40,T = 17m2/d,andPs= 2000kg/m3).

variable and difficult to estimate. Where detailed local infor- based. Unfortunately,many digital terrain modelsonl.
mation about the landscapeand its soilsare unavailable and, generallyresemblethe landscapesfrom which theyare
in practice, too costly to quantify, we propose that this derived.The accuracyandresolutionof the topography are
simple model of the topographiccontrol on landslide initia- especiallyimportant in the steep,finelydissected
terrain
tion and debrisflow run out is useful.In essence,we propose wheredebris flowsareanimportant process.Low-resolution
that even though specific sites of landsliding are largely databiasmodeled slopestoward lowergradients
[Zhangand
unpredictable,relative slope stability can be roughly delin- Montgomery, 1994]andthusmayinfluence predicted
zones
eated. of instability.
Acquisition
of high-quality,
high-resolution
Several additionalqualificationsapply to the applicationof digitalelevation
datais important
to allowresolution
of
digital terrain models to geomorphicprocesses.These con- potential
debrisflowsourceareas.Withouthigh-qualib
cern the quality of the data, the relevance of the model to topographic
data,physically
basedmodels
mayyieldinac-
specific field applications, and the methods employed to curate and misleading results.
evaluate, constrain, or calibrate the model. In general, Estimation
of appropriate
values
forsoilandhydrologic
simulations based on digital terrain models are only as parameters
requirestheexperience
of a geomorphologist
accurate as the digital elevation data upon which they are familiar with landslideand runoff generationprocesses
 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROL 1169

withinthe catchmentof interest.Experienceor fieldmea- Acknowledgments.This projectwas supported

by grantsTFW
surementsare neededto estimatespatiallyaveraged values FY92-010and TFW FY94-004 throughthe CMER and SHAMW
committees
of the WashingtonState Timber/Fish/Wildlife
agree-
for Ps, tan c), and T. Somejudgement
is requiredto ment.Harvey Greenbergand Rob Reissprovidedanalysis,pro-
determine an upperlimit to the steadystaterainfallusedto gramming,
andgraphics
support.
WethankEmmettO'Loughlin
and
definezonesof potentialinstability.In the end, process- the AustralianCenter for CatchmentHydrology for the use of
basedmodelsfor assessment of debrisflowhazardsareonly TOPOG, Jim McKean for generatingthe topographicdata for
TennesseeValley,andDaveSomersfor generating
thetopographic
as valid as the informationused to parameterizethem. dataforSplitCreek.We alsothankthreeanonymousreviewers
for
Nonetheless, we feel it is a stepforwardto havea process- their critique of the manuscript.
basedmodel that appears to have wide applicationsand
whichis basedon only a few parameterswith a finite range
meaningsuchthatfielddatacanbe collected References
anda physical
to estimatetheir value. Moreover, the presentmodel can be
Anderson,S. P., D. R. Montgomery,
R. Torres,W. E. Dietrich,and
mademore realistic by adding estimatesof spatialvariation
K. Loague,Hydrologicexperiments in a steepunchanneled
andtransmissiv- valley,3, Runoffchemistry
ofsoildepth,strength(includingcohesion), dynamics,
EosTrans.AGU, 71, 1342,
1990.
ityandby usinga dynamicratherthansteadystaterainfall. Beaulieu,J. D., and P. N. Hughes,Environmentalgeologyof
It is an open questionwhether the introductionof poorly westernCoosandDouglascounties,Oregon,Bull. Oreg. Dep.
constrained and spatially variable parametersthat this will Geol. Miner. Ind., 87, 148 pp., 1975.
requirewill substantiallyimprovepredictionsof relative Benda,L., andT. W. Cundy,Predictingdepositionof debrisflows
slopestability. in mountainchannels,Can. Geotech.J., 27, 409-417, 1990.
Benda,L., and T. Dunne, Sedimentroutingby debrisflow, in
This model also has implicationsfor long-termlandform Erosion and Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim, edited by R. L.
development in steep,soil-mantledterrain.In particular,our Beschta,T. Blinn, G. E. Grant, F. J. Swanson,and G. G. Ice,
analysesindicatethat the topographiccontrol on shallow IAHS Publ., 165,213-223, 1987.
landslidinginitiation may be similar for hollows and the Black, T. A., and D. R. Montgomery, Sedimenttransportby
lowerportionsof steepvalley wails. This findingis consis- burrowingmammals, Marin County,California,EarthSurf.Pro-
cessesLandforms, 16, 163-172, 1991.
tentwith the hypothesisthat an erosionalthresholddefined Brabb, E. E., and B. L. Hatrod (Ed.), Landslides:Extent and
in terms of drainage area and slope controls the limit to EconomicSignificance,385 pp., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
landscape dissectionand thus valley development[Mont- Netherlands, 1989.
gomeryand Dietrich, 1992]. Brabb, E. E., E. H. Pampeyan, and M. G. Bonilla, Landslide
susceptibility
in San Mateo County, California, scale 1:62,500,
U.S. Geol. $urv. Misc. Field Stud. Map, MF-360, 1972.
Conclusions Burroughs,E. R., Landslide hazard rating for portionsof the
OregonCoastRange,in Proceedings of theSymposium onF_ects
Themodeldescribedabove providesa methodfor assess- of ForestLand Use on Erosionand SlopeStability,Honolulu,
Hawaii, edited by C. L. O'Loughlin and A. J. Pearce, pp.
ingthe relativepotentialfor shallowlandslideinitiationin 265-274,Environmentand Policy Institute, Universityof Hawaii,
steep,soil-mantledterrain underlain by low-permeability Honolulu, 1984. '
material. Field observations and landform provide con- Burroughs,E. R., Jr., C. J. Hammond, and G. D. Booth, Relative
straintson hydrologicparameters,and estimatesof the soil stabilityestimation
for potentialdebrisavalanchesitesusingfield
conductivity,thickness,bulk density,and friction anglemay data, in Proceedingsof the International Symposiumon Erosion,
Debris Flow and Disaster Prevention, edited by A. Takei, pp.
be constrained by field observationsor measurements. In 335-339, Erosion Control Society, Tokyo, 1985.
essence,the modelthenquantifiesthe topographic influence Caine, N., The rainfall intensity-durationcontrol of shallow land-
on shallowslope stability. Portionsof the landscapepre- slidesand debrisflows, Geogr. Ann., 62A, 23-27, 1980.
dictedto be least stable0ow-orderchannels,hollows,and Campbell,R. H., Soil slips,debrisflowsand rainstormsin the Santa
Monica Mountainsand vicinity, southernCalifornia, U.S. Geol.
steepsideslopes)correspond to locations
wheredebrisflows Surv. Prof. Pap., 851, 51 pp., 1975.
typicallyinitiate (seereview by Montgomeryet al. [1991]). Carrara, A., Multivariate models for landslide hazard evaluation,
Temporallyvariablerainfallmaybe accommodated in future Math. Geol., 15,403--426, 1983.
of the modelbut may not be requiredfor relative Carrara, A., E. Pugliese Carratelli, and L. Merenda, Computer-
versions
hazardassessments. Our analysisindicatesthat coupled baseddata bank and statistical analysis of slope instability phe-
nomena,Z. Geomorphol.,21, 187-222, 1977.
hydrologic,
slopestability,anddigitalterrainmodels
provide Carrara, A., M. Cardinali, R. Detti, F. Guzzetti, V. Pasqui, and P.
a powerful tool for assessment of debris flow hazards. Reichenback,GIS techniquesand statisticalmodels in evaluating
Locationsof observedlandslidescarssupportthe inter- landslidehazard, Earth Surf. ProcessesLandforms, 16, 427-445,
199!.
pretationthat elementswith the lowestqcr neededto cause
failureare mostunstable.However,a practicalconsider- Crozier, M. J., E. E. Vaughn, and J. M. Tippett, Relative instability
of co!luvium-filledbedrock depressions,Earth Surf. Processes
ationin usingthismodelis whetherelements requiringvery Landforms, !5,329--339, 1990.
highrainfall to become unstable should still be considered DeGraff, J. V., Using isoplethmaps of landslidedepositsas a tool in
hazardous. Webelievethisquestion canonlybeanswered in timber saleplanning,Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol., 22, 445-453, 1985.
thecontext oftheproblem.Evena sitethattakesanextreme DeGraff, J. V., and P. Canuti, Using isopleth mappingto evaluate
landslideactivity in relation to agricultural practices, Bull. lnt.
rainfallto mobilize as a landslideconstitutesa significant Assoc. Eng. Geol., 38, 61-7!, 1988.
hazard if it liesupslope ofeitheraninhabitedstructure,such Dietrich, W. E., and T. Dunne, Sediment budget for a small
asa privatehome,or a criticalresource,suchan the habitat catchmentin mountainousterrain, Z. Geomorphol. Suppl., 29,
forthreatened andendangered Whileour model 191-206, 1978.
species.
Dietrich, W. E., C. J. Wilson, and S. L. Reneau, Hollows, collu-
appearsto be of generaluse in delineatingthe relative viurn, and landslides in soil-mantled landscapes, in Hillslope
potentialfor shallowlandsliding,the practicalapplicationto Processes,edited by A.D. Abrahams, pp. 36!-388, Allen and
landusedecisions stillneedsevaluationandrequires judge- Unwin, Winchester, Mass., 1986.
ment or values external to the model framework. Dietrich, W. E,, C. J. Wilson, D. R. Montgomery, J. McKean, and
1170 MONTGOMERY AND DIETRICH: MODEL FOR TOPOGRAPHICCONTROL

R. Bauer, Erosion thresholdsand land surface morphology, h6henstufen

derKolumbianischen
Anden,Catena,7, 205-221,
Geology, 20, 675-679, 1992. 1980.
Dietrich, W. E., C. J. Wilson, D. R. Montgomery,andJ. McKean, Okimura,T., and R. Ichikawa,A predictionmethodfor surface
Analysisor erosionthresholds,channelnetworks,andlandscape failures bymovements ofinfiltrated
waterin a surface
soillayer,
morphology usinga digitalterrainmodel,J. Geol.,10I, 259-278, Nat. Disaster Sci., 7, 41-51, 1985.
1993. Okimura,T., and M. Nakagawa,A methodfor predicting
surface
Dunne, T., Stochasticaspectsof the relationsbetweenclimate, mountain
slopefailurewitha digitallandform
model,ShinSabo,
hydrologyand landform evolution,Trans. Jpn. Geomorphot. 41, 48-56, 1988.
Union, 12, 1-24, 1991. Okunishi,K., and T. Iida, Evolutionof hillslopes
including
land.
Ellen, S. D., andR. W. Fleming,Mobilizationof debrisflowsfrom slides, Trans. Jpn. Geomorphol. Union, 2, 191-200, 1983.
soilslips,SanFranciscoBay region,California,in DebrisFlows/ O'Loughlin,E. M., Predictionof surfacesaturationzonesin natural
Avalanches:Process,Recognitionand Mitigation,editedby J. E. catchments
by topographic
analysis,WaterResour.Res.,22,
Costa and G. F. Wieczorek, Rev. Eng. Geol., 7, 31-40, 1987. 794-804, 1986.
Ellen, S. D., and G. F. Wieczorek (Eds.), Landslides,floodsand Pike, R. J., The geometricsignature:Quantifyinglandslide-terrain
marine effects of the storm of January 3-5, 1982, in the San typesfrom digitalelevationmodels,Math. Geol., 20, 491-511,
FranciscoBay region, California, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1988.
1434, 310 pp., 1988. Reneau, S. L., and W. E. Dietrich, Size and location of colhvial
Ellen, S. D., S. H. Cannon, and S. L. Reneau,Distributionof debris landslides in a steepforestedlandscape,IAHS Publ., 165,3949,
flows in Marin County, in Landslides,Floodsand Marine Effects 1987a.
of the Storm of January 3-5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Reneau, S. L., and W. E. Dietrich, The importance of hollowsin
Region,California, edited by S. D. Ellen and G. F. Wieczorek, debrisflow studies;examplesfrom Marin County, California, in
U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1434, 113-13!, 1988. DebrisFlows/Avalanches: Process,Recognitionand Mitigation,
Ellen, S. D., R. K. Mark, S. H. Cannon, and D. L. Knifong, Map of editedby J. E. Costaand G. F. Wieczorek, Rev. Eng. Geol.,7,
debris-flow hazard in the Honolulu District of Oahu, Hawaii, U.S. 165-180, 1987b.
Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 93-213, 25 pp., 1993. Reneau, S. L., W. E. Dietrich, C. J. Wilson, and J. D. Rogers,
Fowler, W. L., Potential debris flow hazards of the Big Bend drive Colluvial depositsand associatedlandslidesin the northernSan
drainage basin, Pacifica, California, Masters thesis, 101 pp., Dep. Francisco Bay area, California, USA, in Proceedingsof IVth
of Appl. Earth Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1984. international Symposium on Landslides, pp. 425-430, !nterna.
Hack, J. T., and J. C. Goodlet, Geomorphologyand forest ecology tional Society of Soil Mechanics and FoundationEngineering,
of a mountain region in the central Appalachians, U.S. Geol. Toronto, Ont., Canada, 1984.
Surv. Prof. Pap., 347, 64 pp., 1960. Roth, R. A., Landslide susceptibilityin San Mateo County, Califor.
Hammond, C., D. Hall, S. Miller, and P. Swetik, Level 1 stability nia, Masters thesis, 87 pp., Dep. of Appl. Earth Sci., Stanford
analysis (LISA) documentationfor version 2.0, Gen. Tech. Rep. Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1982.
INT-285, 190 pp., U.S. Dep. of Agric., For. Serv., Intermountain Schlichte,K., Aerial photo interpretationof the failure historyofthe
Res. Stn., Ogden, Utah, 1992. Huelsdonk Ridge/Hoh River area, report, 17 pp., Washington
Hollingsworth, R., and G. S. Kovacs, Soil slumpsand debrisflows: State Dep. of Nat. Resour., Olympia, 1991.
Prediction and protection, Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol., 18, 17-28, Schroeder,W. L., and J. V. Alto, Soil propertiesfor slopestability
1981. analysis; Oregon and Washington coastal mountains, For. Sci.,
Ikeya, H., A method for designationfor areas in danger of debris 29, 823-833, 1983.
flow, in Erosion and Sediment Transport in Pacific Rim Steep- Seeley, M. W., and D. O. West, Approach to geologichazardzoning
land',IAHS Spec.Publ., 132,576-588,1981. for regionalplanning, Inyo National Forest, CaliforniaandNe-
Iverson, R. M., and J. J. Major, Groundwater seepagevectors and vada, Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol., 27, 23-35, 1990.
the potential for hillslope failure and debris flow mobilization, Sidle, R. C., A theoretical model of the effectsof timber harvesting
Water Resour. Res., 22, 1543-1548, 1986. on slopestability, Water Resour. Res., 28, 1897-1910,1992.
Lehre, A. K., Sediment mobilization and production from a small Smith,T. C., A methodfor mappingrelative susceptibility to debris
mountain catchmerit: Lone Tree Creek, Marin county, California, flows, with an examplefrom San Mateo County, in Landslides,
Ph.D. dissertation,Dep. of Geol. and Geophys., Univ. of Calif., Floods,andMarine Effectsof the Stormof January3-5, 1982, in
Berkeley, 1982. the San FranciscoBay Region,California,editedby S. D. Ellen
Mark, R. K., Map of debris-flow probability, San Mateo County, andG. F. Wieczorek,U.S. Geol.Surv.Prof. Pap., 1434,185-194,
California, scale 1'62,500, U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Invest. Map, 1988.
1-1257-M, 1992. Smith, T. C., and E. W. Hart, Landslidesand related stormdamage,
Montgomery, D. R., Channel initiation and landscapeevolution, January1982,SanFranciscoBay Region,Calif. Geol.,35,139-
Ph.D. dissertation,421 pp., Dep. of Geol. andGeophys.,Univ. of 152, 1982.
Calif., Berkeley, 1991. Tabor,R. W., and W. M. Cady, Geologicmapof the Olympic
Montgomery, D. R., and W. E. Dietrich, Where do channelsbegin?, Peninsula,Washington,scale1:125,000,U.S. Geol. Surv.Map,
Nature, 336, 232-234, 1988. 1-994, 1978.
Montgomery, D. R., and W. E. Dietrich, Source areas, drainage Takahashi, T., K. Ashida,andK. Sawai,Delineationof debris
flow
density, and channel initiation, Water Resour. Res., 25, 1907- hazardareas,in ErosionandSediment Transportin Pacific
Rim
1918, 1989. Steeplands,IAHS PubI., 132,589-603, 1981.
Montgomery, D. R., and W. E. Dietrich, Channel initiation and the Torres,R., D. R. Montgomery,S. P. Anderson,W. E. Dietrich,
and
problem of landscapescale, Science, 255, 826-830, 1992. K. Loague, Hydrologic experimentsin a steepunchanneled
Montgomery, D. R., W. E. Dietrich, R. Torres, S. P. Anderson, valley, 2, Characterization
of unsaturatedresponse,EosTrans.
J. T. Hefther, K. O. Sullivan, and K. Loague, Hydrologic AGU, 7I, 1342, 1990.
experiments in a steep unchanneledvalley, 1, Experimental Tsukamoto, Y., T. Ohta,andH. Noguchi,Hydrological andge0-
design and piezometric response, Eos Trans. AGU, 71, 1342, morphological studies
of debrisslidesonforested hillslopes
in
1990. Japan,
inRecent
Developments
intheExplanationandPrediction
Montgomery, D. R., R. H. Wright, and T. Booth, Debris flow ofErosion
andSediment
Yield,editedbyD. E. Walling,
lAbIX
hazard mitigationfor colluvium-filledswales,Bull. Assoc.Eng. Publ., 137, 89-98, 1982.
Geol., 28, 303-323, 1991. Warhaftig,
C.,Structure
oftheMarinHeadlands
Block,
California:
Neely, M. K., and R. M. Rice, Estimatingrisk of debris slidesafter A progress
report,
inFranciscan
Geology
ofNorthern
CaI[brnia,
timber harvest in northwesternCalifornia, Bull. Assoc. Eng. Publ.43, edited
by M. C. Blake,Jr.,pp.31-50,Society
of
Geol., 27, 281-289, 1990. Economic
Paleontologists
andMinerologists,
Pacific
Coast
Sec-
Neuland, H., A prediction model of landslips, Catena, 3, 215-230, tion, Bakersfield, Calif., 1984.
1976. Wilson,
C. J., andW. E. Dietrich,
Thecontribution
ofbedrock
Neuland, H., Diskriminanzanalytischeuntersuchungenzur identi- groundwater
flowtostormrunoffandhighporepressure
devel-
fikation der aus16sefaktorenfor rutschungenin verschiedenen opmentin hollows,IAHS Publ., 165, 49-59, 1987.
 MONTGOMERY
ANDDIETRICH:
MODEL
FORTOPOGRAPHIC
CONTR
L 1171

Wright,
R. H., R. H. Campbell,
andT. H. Nilsen,Preparation
and W. E. Dietrich,Department
of GeologyandGeophysics,
Univer-
useof isoplethmapsof landslidedeposits,Geology,2, 483-485, sity of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
1974.
D. R. Montgomery, Quaternary
Research
Center,Universityof
Yee,C. S., andR. D. Harr,Influence
of soilaggregation
onslope Washington,Seattle, WA 98195.
stability
in the OregonCoastRanges,Environ.Geol.,1,367-377,
1977.
Zhang,
W., andD. R. Montgomery,
Digitalelevation
modelgrid
size,landscape
representation,
andhydrological
simulations,
Wa- (ReceivedJanuary25, 1993'revisedOctober 13, 1993;
ter Resour.Res., in press, 1994. acceptedOctober 22, 1993.)