Laserfiche WebLink
100 <br />90 <br />80 <br />d 70 <br />Q 60 <br />c <br />~' S0 <br />m <br />m 40 <br />~ 30 <br />~ 20 <br />10 <br />0 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> mean=40 ~ <br /> <br />^ mean=34 <br />mean=29 n=47 <br />n~1 ~ n=51 ~ <br />~ mean=25 <br />~ _ ~ n- <br />- - - ~ '- i - <br />Metamorphic Sedimentary Granitic Volcanic <br />Geologic Parent Material <br />Figure 13-Fire-induced water repellent soil areas and their geologic parent material for all <br />fires requesting BAER funding. Fire-induced water repellency was not significantly different <br />by parent material (t-test, a = 0.05). <br />productivity, and property. The latter category in- <br />cludeahomes, roads, cultural features, water supplies <br />and reservoirs, and agriculture. <br />Property, water quality, and soil productivity were <br />cited as reasons for conducting BAERprojects in about <br />a third of all projects (table 10). Region 5 (California), <br />with its high population, had the highest response (51 <br />percent) for property, while sparsely populated Region <br />1 had the lowest.In terms ofproperty protection, made <br />and homes were mentioned moat frequently as rea- <br />sons for treatments in Region b (34 and 28 percent of <br />100 <br /> <br />eo <br /> <br />a ~ <br />7 <br />0 <br />0 <br />~ 80 <br />°m <br />60 <br />0_ <br /> <br />0 40 <br />° <br />>, <br />30 <br /> <br />20 <br />0 <br />1 <br /> <br />0 <br />0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <br />Water Repellent Area (%) <br />Figure 14-Fire-induced water repellent soil areas compared <br />to the estimated reduction in infiltration for all fires requesting <br />BAER funding. Regression line shows a poor correlation <br />between inereasetl water repellent soil areas and the reduction <br />in infiltration (R2= 0.31). <br />,:, <br />i <br />~ R~= .31 <br />~ n=125 <br />/ ~ <br />.i. / <br />the BAER project responses, respectively) (table 11). <br />In the other regions, homes constituted a reason for <br />implementing BAER treatments in less than 11 per- <br />cent of the projects. Protection of homes was cited <br />more frequently in the 1990'e as a major fire suppres- <br />sionactivity objective than it was in previous decades. <br />It is very likely that the same will occur for future <br />BAER projects. Cultural features, water supplies, and <br />agriculture were listed as factors in BAER projects in <br />leas than 10 percent of the responses, except For agri- <br />culture in Region 2 (20 percent). Considering the <br />laoooo <br />o", laooo <br />L <br />U 1000 <br />O <br />LL <br />m 100 <br />a <br />~' 10 <br />1 <br /> <br />• ~ <br />~ • i~ <br />: } i ~~ <br />•" <br />•y' : <br /> .. <br />~ <br />~i <br />0 20 40 80 BO 100 <br />Infiltration Reductlon (%) <br />Figure 1 estimated design peakflow change (log scale) due <br />to burned areas related to the estimated reduction In infiltration <br />for ali fires requesting BAER funding. <br />28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTRG3. 2000 <br />