Laserfiche WebLink
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 />