HYDRO20750

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 7/5/2005
• Doc Name: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments
• From: MCC
• To: DMG
• Permit Index Doc Type: Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Table 13-Percentage of BAER teams by Region having personnel from various disciplines

Dlsclptine
Overall
1
2 Reglon
3
4
5
6
------- ----------- --------- --Percent---- -------- ----------- ------
Hydrology 81.1 81.8 85.0 65.2 84.4 83.2 86.1
Soil Science 78.7 87.3 85.0 65.2 82.2 78.2 82.3
Wildlife Biology 61.9 34.5 65.0 59.4 71.1 66.3 65.8
Timber Management 46.4 49.1 60.0 30.4 44.4 43.1 64.8
Engineering 43.4 21.8 45.0 30.4 37.8 55.9 40.5
Range Management 40.6 18.2 70.0 60.9 68.9 26.2 51.9
Geology 31.5 9.1 20.0 15.9 26.7 41.6 40.5
Archeology 23.4 5.5 20.0 17.4 26.7 28.2 27.8
Fire Management 21.7 16.4 35.0 23.2 37.8 19.3 17.7
Ecology 20.9 23.6 25.0 24.6 51.1 12.4 19.0
Fisheries 18.5 21.8 5.0 5.6 40.0 14.4 29.1
Contracting 7.2 3.6 15.0 4.3 22.2 4.5 8.9
Research 5.1 0.0 5.0 2.9 20.0 3.0 7.6
Total No. of BAER Teams 470 55 20 69 45 202 79
photos. We also received 17 published reports, some of
which did not evaluate BAER treatments specifically
but included incidental information as part of another
study. Moat of the published reports were discussed in
the Literature Review section.
The type ofinformation contained in the monitoring
reports varied widely. Quantitative reports on a single
treatment (e.g., seeding) tended to use different mea-
surements (cover, density, biomass, sediment pro-
duced), making tabulation and comparison of the
results from different projects difficult. Treatments
were monitored at varying times after the firee, from
3 months to 12 years. Where °cover" was measured,
the category sometimes included only plants, some-
timeslitter, and sometimes also rock or wood. "Ground
cover density" was sometimes used to refer to plant
cover only where it was rooted in the ground. In other
cases, "ground cover" included the aerial portions of
plants. Many reports did not specify what was in-
cluded inthe category "cover." Often reports contained
data on plant cover or sediment movement, but not
other site variables that could have put the results in
a wider context. In particular, vegetation type, water-
shed size, slope angle, and aspect of monitored sites
were frequently missing from data presentations and
narrative accounts. Moat reports were prepared for
internal use, where these variables would be better
known to likely readers. However, the lack of descrip-
tive site information made the results of monitoring
more difficult to interpret For this analysis.
A wealth of information was recorded in the moni-
toring reports. To capture the considerable but ex-
tremely varied experience represented, qualitative
information from the reports was entered into the
database in various "comments" fields, along with
interview remarks. Comments were aggregated and
used to compose effectiveness and implementation
factor summaries for each treatment (appendix B).
The quantitative reports covered 46 fires, with some
fires covered by multiple reports and some reports
covering several fires in one document. Report dates
ranged from 1967 to 1998. Moat of the data collected
concerned ground cover production or erosion reduc-
tion by seeded species (32 reports), effectiveness of
contour-felled logs (5 reports) or straw bale check
dame (3 reports), and water quality parameters such
as turbidity (6 reports). Reports sometimes covered
more than one treatment. Only a few ofthe monitoring
efforts compared treated areas to untreated areas.
The others based effectiveness conclusions on amount
of plant cover present, whether structures trapped
sediment, and so forth. Many reports simply docu-
mentedsome facet ofhillelope or atreamrecovery after
fire, sometimes in areas that did not receive BAER
treatments.
Nonquantitative reports documented treatment ef-
fectiveness qualitatively or made rough visual esti-
mates of auccessparameter~, such as amount of grass
cover or storage effectiveness of log erosion barriers.
They covered approximately 85 different fires. Many
were trip reports that simply pronounced a treatment
successful or not. Most, however, also analyzed rea-
sonsfor success orfailure and made recommendations
for improving future projects. Those comments were
used extensively to develop treatment effectiveness
and implementation factor summaries (appendix B).
The bulk of the nanquantitative reports dealt with
seeding (54 reports), straw bale check dams (18),
contour-felled logs (15), or channel treatments (16).
Moat reports covered more than one treatment. A
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR~3. 2000 31