risk assessments was difficult because various
<br />methods were used to estimate their values. Little
<br />information and research is available on risk
<br />assessment and coat-risk ratios of various BAER
<br />treatments.
<br />To reduce the threat of road failure, road treat-
<br />ments such as rolling dips, water bars, and relief
<br />culverts properly spaced provide a reasonable
<br />method to move water past the road prism. Storm
<br />patrol attempts to keep culverts clear and close
<br />areas ae needed. This approach shows promise as
<br />a cost effective technique to reduce road failure
<br />due to culvert blockage.
<br />Straw bale checkdama, along with other channel
<br />treatments, should be viewed as secondary miti-
<br />gation treatments. Sediment has already been
<br />transported from the elopes andwill eventuallybe
<br />released though the stream system as the bales
<br />degrade, although the release ie desynchronized.
<br />Recommendations
<br />Based on the findings from this study, we provide
<br />the following recommendations to further our knowl-
<br />edge and understanding of the role of emergency
<br />rehabilitation treatments:
<br />Streamline the Burned Area Report (FS-2500-8)
<br />form to address poatlire waterahedcoat-benefit and
<br />risk analysis in an easily understandable manner.
<br />Provide information to assist decieionmakere to be
<br />able to compare treatment alternatives and under-
<br />standthat the consequences are only going to hap-
<br />pen if we have storm events.
<br />Increase trainiugon methods to calculate and use
<br />design storm intensity and frequency, probability
<br />of success, and erosion risk estimates. These can
<br />be targeted to soil scientists and hydrologists
<br />because they are involved with virtually every
<br />BAER effort.
<br />Increase the number of quantitative studies to
<br />document contour-felled loge effectiveness in re-
<br />ducing erosion. Additional research is needed to
<br />determine whether contour-felling can reduce
<br />rilling, increase infiltration, and decrease down-
<br />stream time to peakflow (slow water velocities).
<br />Rand trenching effectiveness ie another treat-
<br />ment that has not been documented, but maybe
<br />effective and should also be evaluated.
<br />Increase monitoring efforts to determine if treat•
<br />ments are performing as planned and designed.
<br />Monitoring should include measuring effective-
<br />ness inreducing erosion, sedimentation, or down-
<br />stream flooding, but may also include changes in
<br />infiltration, soil productivity, ecosystem recovery
<br />and water quality parameters. Two levels of
<br />monitoring are proposed. Extensive effectiveness
<br />monitoring canbe accomplished at the forest level
<br />with little regional support, thus numerous sites/
<br />fires can be evaluated in different climate re-
<br />gimes. Intensive performance monitoring would
<br />need regional and research support and could be
<br />done on "demonatration° fires for each region
<br />(phyaiographic or Forest Service).
<br />Effectiveness Monitoring: Silt fences placed at the
<br />bottom of hillslope plots are an economical method to
<br />compare hillslope treatments by determining how
<br />much sediment is trapped by each silt fence. Plots can
<br />be eatabliahedto compare hillslope treatments such ae
<br />seeding, contour-felled loge, hand trenches, etc. Silt
<br />fences have a very high trap efficiency (greater than
<br />90-95 percent), and are easily maintained and ser-
<br />viced. For maximum information gain, treated repli-
<br />catedplots should be compared for physically similar
<br />untreated plots.
<br />Performance Monitoring. To compare aedimenta-
<br />tionresponsea ofvarioustreatmente, amallcatchments
<br />need to be monitored for runoff and sediment. This is
<br />a costly and time-consuming technique but does pro-
<br />vide the best results and would need to be conducted
<br />in conjunction with research in order to prevent short-
<br />coming from peat efforts. This method can be used to
<br />compare hillslope or road or channel treatments.
<br />Support Reaeare}1 efforts to improve methodologies
<br />to assess and predict long-term effects ofwildfir+e on
<br />soil and site productivity.
<br />Develop aknowledge-base of peat and current BAER
<br />projects that is easily accessible to others (i.e., Inter-
<br />net). This would include treatment design criteria
<br />and specifications, contractimplementation speci-
<br />fications, example Burned Area Report calcula-
<br />tions, and monitoring techniques.
<br />References
<br />Agee, J. K 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific northwest Forests. Island
<br />Press, Washington, DC. 493 p.
<br />Amaranthus, Michael P. 1889. Effect ofgrass seeding and fertiliz-
<br />ing on surface erosion in two intensely burned sites in soutb-
<br />west Oregon. In; Berg, Neil H., tech, word. Proceedings of the
<br />symposium oa fire and watershed management, October 26-28,
<br />1988, Sacramento, California. Gen. Tech.Rep. PSW-109. Berke-
<br />ley, CA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
<br />Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 148-149.
<br />Amazantbus, Michael P. 1990. Siskiyou National Forest wildfire
<br />and recovery monitoring report. Unpublished report on file at:
<br />U.S. ]]epartmeat of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou Na-
<br />tional Forest, OR. 142 p.
<br />Amarentbus, Michael P.; Trappe, James M.; Perry, David A 1993.
<br />Soil moisture, native revegetation, sad Ptnus iamberttana
<br />seedling survival, growth, and mycanbiza formation following
<br />wildfire and grass seeding. Restoration Ecology. 1(3): 188-196.
<br />Ambos, Narm. 1992. Summary-Dude fire photo points. Unpub-
<br />lished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
<br />Service, Tonto Natioml Forest, AZ. 8 p.
<br />Anderson, wifliam E.; Brooks, Lee E, 197b. Reducing erosion
<br />hazard on a burned forest in Oregon by seeding. Journal of
<br />Range Management. 28(6): 394-398.
<br />54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-83.2000
<br />
|