|
channel, and road treatments are provided. Coat eati-
<br />matea of no action (lose) versus coat of selected alter-
<br />natives are identified, as well as BAER funds re-
<br />quested and other matching funds. This information
<br />was entered directly into the database.
<br />Interview Survey
<br />Interview forma were developed after consultation
<br />with several BAER specialists. The forma were used to
<br />record information when we interviewed BAER team
<br />members, regional and national leaders. Questions
<br />were designed to address specific HAER projects (i.e„
<br />individual fires), as well ae to elicit opinions regarding
<br />the interviewees' experience with treatments used on
<br />their forests and other fires they had worked on. Prior
<br />to conducting interviews, information such as Burned
<br />Area Report forms and poatfire monitoring reports
<br />was requested to familiarize the interviewer with the
<br />various fires and treatment used. Onsite interviews
<br />were conducted because much of the supporting data
<br />were located in the Supervisor's and District's offices
<br />and could be retrieved during the interviews. At-
<br />tempts were made to ask questions that would allow
<br />for grouping and ranking results, because much of the
<br />information was qualitative. Example interview
<br />forms are included in appendix A.
<br />Prof ectReview Interview Form-Questions were
<br />designed to identify the fire size, area treated, and
<br />treatment. The values at risk (i.e., downstream or
<br />onaite) were identified, and questions were asked
<br />whether the site was tested by a significant storm
<br />event and what damages resulted. We also asked
<br />interviewees to list up to three treatments they felt
<br />were overused, and up to three that in hindsight
<br />shouldhave beenusedmore, on epecificBAERprojects.
<br />Cumulative ratings were determined by totaling the
<br />number of times each treatment was mentioned.
<br />No Action Review Interview Form-For fires
<br />where noBAER actionwasrecommended,interviewees
<br />were asked to identify the rationale used. They were
<br />also asked if the site was tested by a significant storm
<br />and their opinion about what treatments might have
<br />been beneficial in hindsight.
<br />Treatment Actions Interview Form-These
<br />questions identified treatments used on specific fires
<br />and what environmental factors affected success and
<br />failure. Interviewees were also asked questions re-
<br />garding implementation of treatments and whether
<br />any monitoring was completed. For cases where moni-
<br />toring was conducted (either formal or informal),
<br />interviewees were asked to describe the type and
<br />quality of the data wllected (if applicable) and to give
<br />an overall effectiveness rating of "excellent", "good",
<br />"fair", or "poor" for each treatment. Because many of
<br />the answers were qualitative, we synthesized the
<br />responses, highlighting the major points made for
<br />each treatment. We summarized this information into
<br />paragraphs on effectiveness factors, implementation
<br />and environmental factors, and other factors when
<br />they occurred (appendix B).
<br />Interview forma were developed for individual hill-
<br />slope treatments such as aerial seeding, ground seed-
<br />ing, fertilizer, mulch, contour felling, straw wattles,
<br />lop and scatter, silt fences, contour trenching, ripping,
<br />tilling, temporary fencing and erosion control fabric.
<br />Channel treatment forms included straw bale check
<br />dame, log grade stabilizers, rock grade stabilizers, log
<br />dams, inchannel debriabasins, inchannel debris clear-
<br />ing, stream bank armoring, rock cage (gabion) dams,
<br />and straw wattle dame. Road treatment forma in-
<br />cluded road regrading (such as out-sloping), rock in
<br />ditches, culvert removal, culvert upgrades, overflows,
<br />trash racks, armored stream crossing, storm patrol,
<br />and rolling dips and water bare. For each treatment,
<br />specific question were asked regarding the factors
<br />that caused the treatment to succeed or fail, such as
<br />elope classes, soil type, and type of areas treated, as
<br />well as appropriate implementation method questions
<br />for each treatment.
<br />Relative Benefits Interview Form-Interviewees
<br />were asked to rank hillslope, channel, and mad and
<br />trail treatments for the three most effective treat-
<br />ments in each category. Then they were asked For
<br />three overall treatments that provide the greatest
<br />benefits. To obtain cumulative rankings, we totaled
<br />the number of fast, second and third place `~otea" for
<br />each treatment, multiplied by 3 for first, 2 for second,
<br />and 1 for third, then added the adjusted totals to yield
<br />a cumulative preference rating. Final questions were
<br />open-ended to provide an opportunity for program
<br />recommendations or other topics not addressed.
<br />Monitoring Reports
<br />Monitoring reports were requested from Region,
<br />Forest, and District offices. We included administra-
<br />tive trip reports, data collection efforts, sad regional
<br />burn area rehabilitation activity reviews in our re-
<br />quest. We also examined BAER accomplishment re-
<br />ports, when provided, for initial poet-treatment moni-
<br />toring results.
<br />Analysis Methods
<br />Burned Area Reports and Interview Forms-
<br />Burned Area Report data and interview information
<br />were entered into the commercial Microsoft Acceae
<br />database management system. Categorical informa-
<br />tion (such as treatments thatwereover-used orunder-
<br />used)was left unchanged, Ranked information results
<br />22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR~63. 2000
<br />
|