My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HYDRO20750
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Hydrology
>
HYDRO20750
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:41:59 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:44:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
preferences differently. There was no difference in <br />rankings from all interviewees (n =105) compared to <br />those of soil scientists (n = 29) or hydrologists (n = <br />21), who accounted for the majority of interviewees; <br />therefore, rankings were not stratified by discipline. <br />Interviewees did not name over- or underused treat- <br />ments on every fire. <br />The overall rankings show that hillsiope treat- <br />ments are preferred methods for controlling erosion <br />and runoff after fire, comprising five of the top 10 <br />ranked treatments (fig. 25). Contour-felled logs and <br />seeding had scores twice or more as high than any <br />othertreatment. Theseranlringsarereflectedinapend- <br />ing on these methods (fig. 17). Road treatments were <br />neat in overall preference, and only one channel <br />treatment was highly ranked. <br />Aerial seeding had the highest ranking among <br />hillsiope treatments, followed by contour-felled loge, <br />slash spreading, mulch, and temporary fencing. Other <br />treatments received relatively low scores. The high <br />rank for seeding is not surprising considering its high <br />level of use (fig. 26). On the other hand, aerial seeding <br />was listed as the moat overused treatment by far, with <br />ground seeding second (table 18). Seeding also gar- <br />nered afew votes as underused, and it was most often <br />mentioned (three times) as a treatment that should <br />have been used on no-action fires. These seemingly <br />contradictory results reflect the wide differences in <br />opinion about aeeding's effectiveness (table 17) and <br />the on-going controversies surrounding the use of <br />grass seeding as a rehabilitation treatment. <br />co 35 <br />z <br />Y ~ <br />z ~ <br />zo <br />?'~ is <br />r o- <br />5 `" 10 <br />~ s <br />~ o <br />U <br />~°J~~~~(eb~~°aa°~~ °t~~c~i°S Qab bm~9 °`r°rc°jF°,° ate°9`- <br />°. ~c r a ~° .° 33 c0 <br />8°~O ~~°F ,~wy,Ce ~P~°cl~~°~,Kdm~m~ y°~9 ~,01`yde°~S~DQ <br />`~y` ~~fi Oa C d o <br />j9`0t 5~~~ °J\,~ <br />ALL BAER TREATMENTS <br />Figure 2~r-Cumulative ranking of treatment effectiveness for <br />all Vestments combined. Cumulative rankings are taken from <br />interviewees ranking of their top three treatment preferences. <br />The top 14 treatment preferences are shown out of a total of 26 <br />treatments. <br />w <br />~ ~o <br />z <br />Y ~ <br />z <br />~ ~ so <br />> o ~ <br />~a <br />~ V 30 <br />~ za <br />v 1a <br />HILLSLOPE TREATMENTS <br />Figure 26-Cumulative ranking of Vestment effectiveness for <br />hillsiope Vestments. Cumulative rankings are taken from <br />interviewees ranking of their top three treatment preferences. <br />The top 10 preferences are shown out of a total of 16 <br />treatments. <br />Contour-felled loge, the eecond highest ranked <br />hillsiope treatment, was also rated the most often <br />underuaed treatment on project fires and second most <br />on no-action fires. This treatment received the highest <br />overall ranking (fig. 26), barely beating seeding, a <br />trend reflected in its increasing popularity in recent <br />years(fig.17). However, it was listed asoverused twice <br />and, like seeding, received mixed ratings on effective- <br />ness (table 17). <br />Among channel treatments, straw bale check dams <br />received the highest rarilung,followed by log grade <br />stabilizers, rock grade stabilizers, channel clearing, <br />bank and channel armoring, and in-channel felling <br />(fig. 27}. Straw bale check dams ranked ninth in <br />overall preference, the only channel method falling <br />within the top 10 (fig. 25). On the other hand, straw <br />bale check dams were listed as overused twice, more <br />than any other channel treatment, and were not listed <br />ae underused at all (table 18). <br />Rolling dips or water bare and culvert upgrading <br />were by far the moat preferred road treatments, with <br />storm patrol next and other methods ranking lower <br />(fig. 28). Nomad treatments were named as overused, <br />but culvert upgrading was mentioned often ae a treat- <br />ment that should have been used on both project <br />(second highest) and no-action (third highest) fires <br />(table 18). It was the third highest ranked treatment <br />overall. Storm patrol ranked eighth overall and was <br />mentioned twice as a treatment that should have <br />been used on no-action fires. <br />42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63.2000 <br />~~~a``0,\~o,`¢~b°o, J\~`~a °c`°a ~~~mz ~rcA cQQ~~ °~°~ `0+\\mz <br />8°~°o\ayryQ F~a~ yy~ `~<<° V\\r~ 0~ <br />e `eF ~° <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.