HYDRO20750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table 16-BAER treatment effectiveness ratings from individual fires as provided by interviewees. Total responses are listed as percentages in four classes. Only Vestments which received three or more evaluations are included. Hlllslopa Treatment Number Excellent Good Falr Poor ---------- --------Percent- ------------ ---- Aerial Seeding 83 24.1 27.7 27.7 20.5 Contour Felling 35 28.6 37.1 14.3 20.0 Mulching 12 66.8 16.6 16.6 0.0 Ground Seeding 11 9.1 81.8 9.1 0.0 Silt Fence 8 37.5 62.5 0.0 0.0 Seeding and Fertilizer 4 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 Rock Grade Stabilizers 3 0.0 33.3 67.7 0.0 Contour Trenching 3 67.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 Temporary Fencing 3 0.0 67.7 33.3 0.0 Straw Wattles 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 Tilling/Ripping 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 Channel Treatments Strew Bale Check Dams 10 30.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 Log Grade Stabilizers 10 30.0 30.0 10.0 30.0 Channel Debris Clearing 7 0.0 71.4 0.0 28.6 Log Dams 5 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 Rock Grade Stabilizers 3 0.0 33.3 67.7 0.0 Straw WatBe Dams 3 33.3 67.7 0.0 0.0 Road Treatments Culvert Upgrading 6 6.7 66.6 0.0 16.7 Trash Racks 4 50.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 BAER spending on hillslope treatments was com- pared. From 1973 through 1998, over $20 million (in 1999 dollars) was spent on contour-felled logs and on aerial seeding (fig. 17). Less than $1.5 millions was spent on other treatments during the same time pe- riod. Clearly these two treatments were the most popular. In the 1970'x, there was little spending on contour-felled logs, and in the 1980's over $4 million was spent. Spending increased dramatically in the 1990's as this treatment gained popularity (fig. 17). Among Regions, Region 4 (mostly Boise National For- est) spent the moat ($18.7 million) on contour-felling treatments, while Region 5 spent the most on aerial aeeding($8.5 million) (fig.18). Region 6 spentthe most on seeding plus fertilizer and ground seeding. There were enough evaluations ofaerial seedingand contour-felled logs to assess effectiveness by Region for these treatments (table 17). A majority of inter- viewees from Regions 1, 4, and 6 rated aerial seeding as "excellent" or "good." However, in Regions 3 and 5 the majority rated aerial seeding as "fair" or "poor." For contour-felled loge, a majority of interviewees in Regions 1, 3, 4, and 5 believed that its effectiveness was "excellent" or "good." Region 2 evaluations were evenly aplitbetween "good" and "poor."Region 6 evalu- ations of contour-felled logs were evenly balanced. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 37 Comparison of unit costa for contour-felled logs (fig. 19) and aerial seeding (fig. 20) shows that aerial seeding was considerablyleea expensive per unit area. Contour-felling had a wide range of coats due to ter- rain, access, and whether contract or FS labor waa used. Region 5 had an average cost of about $450 ac ' ($1,100 ha 1) (adjusted to 1999 dollars). Regions 4 and 6 costs averaged $260 ac 1($640 ha '). Region 1 costs averaged $165 ac 1 ($410 ha 1), Region 3 costa were $78 ac 1($193 ha 1), Region 2 only used contour-Felled loge four times. Some low unit costa for contour-felled loge were probably due to low density or linear feet per area of loge. The high unit costs were often due to difficult terrain and expensive crew coats. Aerial aeedin~ costa ranged from $4 to $115 ac 1 ($10 to 284 ha-) (adjusted to 1999 dollars). Average cost by Region varied from $25 ac 1 ($62 ha 1) for Region 3 to $47 ac 1($116 ha 1) for Region 2. Region 6 used aerial seedingfor 6b fires, whereas Region 2 used aerial seeding for 16 fires. Channel Treatments-Effectiveness ratings for straw bale check dams and loggrade stabilizers ranged relatively evenly from "excellent" to "poor" (table 16). While moat interviewees (71 percent) thought that channeldebriaclearingeffectivenesafellintothe"good" category, 29 percent rated it "poor." Log dams and