United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-63

September 2000

Evaluating the Effectiveness

of Postfire Rehabilitation

Treatments

Peter R. Robichaud

Jan L. Beyers

Daniel G. Neary
The Authors ________________________________________

Peter R. Robichaud is a Research Engineer with the Station’s Soil and Water Engineering Research

Work Unit, and is stationed at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1221 South Main St., Moscow, ID 83843.

Jan L. Beyers is a Research Plant Ecologist with the Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Prescribed

Fire and Fire Effects Research Work Unit, and is stationed at the Riverside Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon

Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507.

Daniel G. Neary is a Research Soil Scientist and Project Leader with the Sustainability of Riparian

Ecological Systems Research Work Unit and is stationed at the Southwest Forest Science Complex,

2500 S. Pine Knoll, Flagstaff, AZ 86001.

Robichaud, Peter R.; Beyers, Jan L.; Neary, Daniel G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire

rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 85 p.

Spending on postfire emergency watershed rehabilitation has increased during the past decade. A

west-wide evaluation of USDA Forest Service burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) treatment

effectiveness was undertaken as a joint project by USDA Forest Service Research and National Forest

System staffs. This evaluation covers 470 fires and 321 BAER projects, from 1973 through 1998 in USDA

Forest Service Regions 1 through 6. A literature review, interviews with key Regional and Forest BAER

specialists, analysis of burned area reports, and review of Forest and District monitoring reports were

used in the evaluation. The study found that spending on rehabilitation has increased to over $48 million

during the past decade because the perceived threat of debris flows and floods has increased where fires

are closer to the wildland-urban interface. Existing literature on treatment effectiveness is limited, thus

making treatment comparisons difficult. The amount of protection provided by any treatment is small. Of

the available treatments, contour-felled logs show promise as an effective hillslope treatment because

they provide some immediate watershed protection, especially during the first postfire year. Seeding has

a low probability of reducing the first season erosion because most of the benefits of the seeded grass

occurs after the initial damaging runoff events. To reduce road failures, treatments such as properly

spaced rolling dips, water bars, and culvert reliefs can move water past the road prism. Channel

treatments such as straw bale check dams should be used sparingly because onsite erosion control is

more effective than offsite sediment storage in channels in reducing sedimentation from burned

watersheds. From this review, we recommend increased treatment effectiveness monitoring at the

hillslope and sub-catchment scale, streamlined postfire data collection needs, increased training on

evaluation postfire watershed conditions, and development of an easily accessible knowledge base of

BAER techniques.

Keywords: burn severity, erosion control, BAER, burned area emergency rehabilitation, mitigation,

seeding, monitoring.

Abstract ___________________________________________

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
Acknowledgments _____________

Preparation of this report represents a true partnership

between Forest Service Research and National Forest Systems staffs. Much of the work of collecting, collating, and

tabulating the information contained in this report was conducted by research assistants J. Tenpas, K. Hubbert, and B.

Nelson. We could not have completed it without them. The

cooperation of the six regional Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) coordinators and many Forest BAER team

members was essential to the success of this project, and we

gratefully acknowledge their contributions. Funding for the

project was provided by the Forest Service, Watershed and Air

Staff, with additional contributions from the Rocky Mountain

and Pacific Southwest Research Stations.

Contents_______________________

Page

Introduction ................................................................1

USDA Forest Service Burn Area Emergency

Rehabilitation (BAER) History .......................1

Problem Statement and Objectives .......................2

Definitions ..............................................................2

Literature Review .......................................................5

Fire’s Impact on Ecosystems .................................5

Fire Effects on Watersheds ...............................5

Water Quality .....................................................8

Surface Erosion .................................................8

Sediment Yield and Channel Stability ...............9

Mass Wasting ....................................................9

Dry Ravel .........................................................11

Emergency Watershed Rehabilitation

Treatment Effectiveness .............................11

Hillslope Treatments ........................................11

Channel Treatments ........................................20

Road Treatments .............................................21

Methods ...................................................................21

Burned Area Report Data ....................................21

Interview Survey ..................................................22

Project Review Interview Form ........................22

Page

No Action Review Interview Form ...................22

Treatment Actions Interview Form ..................22

Relative Benefits Interview Form .....................22

Monitoring Reports ..............................................22

Analysis Methods.................................................22

Burned Area Reports and Interview Forms .....22

Monitoring Reports ..........................................23

Results .....................................................................23

Overview of Data Collected .................................23

Fire Severity .........................................................23

Erosion Estimates ................................................26

Hydrologic Estimates ...........................................27

Risk Analysis .......................................................27

Probability of Success .........................................29

Cost of No Action/Alternatives .............................29

BAER Team Members .........................................30

Monitoring Reports ..............................................30

Treatment Effectiveness Ratings .........................36

Hillslope Treatments ........................................36

Channel Treatments ........................................37

Road and Trail Treatments ..............................39

Treatment Rankings ............................................39

Discussion ................................................................44

BAER Assessments .............................................44

BAER Project Monitoring .....................................46

Treatment Effectiveness ......................................47

Hillslope Treatments ........................................47

Channel Treatments ........................................52

Road Treatments .............................................53

Conclusions..............................................................53

Recommendations ...................................................54

References ...............................................................54

Appendix A—Example Data and

Interview Forms...........................................60

Appendix B—Treatment Effectiveness

Summaries ..................................................74

Hillslope Treatments ............................................74

Channel Treatments ............................................79

Road Treatments .................................................83

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label

form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 1

Introduction ____________________

Recent large, high severity fires coupled with subsequent major hydrological events have generated

renewed interest in the linkage between fire and

onsite and downstream effects. Fire is a natural and

important disturbance mechanism in many ecosystems. However, the intentional human suppression of

fires in the Western United States, beginning in the

early 1900’s, has altered natural fire regimes in many

areas (Agee 1993). Fire suppression can allow fuel

loading and forest floor material to increase, resulting

in fires of greater intensity and extent than might

have occurred otherwise (Norris 1990). High severity

fires are of particular concern because they can affect

soil productivity, watershed response, and downstream

sedimentation, causing threats to human life and

property. During severe fire seasons, the USDA Forest

Service and other land management agencies spend

millions of dollars on postfire emergency watershed

rehabilitation measures intended to minimize flood

runoff, onsite erosion, and offsite sedimentation and

hydrologic damage. Increased erosion and flooding

are certainly the most visible and dramatic impacts

of fire apart from the consumption of vegetation.

USDA Forest Service Burn Area

Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) History

The first formal reports on emergency watershed

rehabilitation after wildfires were prepared in the

1960’s and early 1970’s, although postfire seeding

with grasses and other herbaceous species was conducted in many areas in the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s

(Christ 1934, Gleason 1947). Contour furrowing and

trenching were used when flood control was a major

concern (DeByle 1970b, Noble 1965). No formal emergency rehabilitation program existed, and funds for

watershed rehabilitation were obtained from fire

suppression accounts, emergency flood control programs, or appropriated watershed restoration accounts. In response to a Congressional inquiry on

fiscal accountability, in 1974 a formal authority for

postfire rehabilitation activities was provided in the

Interior and Related Agencies appropriation. This

BAER authority integrated the evaluation of fire

severity, funding request procedures, and treatment

options.

The occurrence of many large fires in California and

southern Oregon in 1987 caused expenditures for

BAER treatments to exceed the annual BAER authorization of $2 million. On several occasions inappropriate

requests were made for nonemergency items, and clarifications were issued that defined real emergency

situations warranting rehabilitation treatments. Policies were incorporated into the Forest Service Manual

(FSM 2523) and the BAER Handbook (FSH 2509.13)

that required an immediate assessment of site

conditions following wildfire and, where necessary,

implementation of emergency rehabilitation measures to: (1) minimize the threat to life and property

onsite or offsite; (2) reduce the loss of soil and onsite

productivity; (3) reduce the loss of control of water; and

(4) reduce deterioration of water quality. A concerted

effort was made to train BAER team leaders, and

regional and national BAER training programs became more frequent. At the same time, debates arose

over the effectiveness of grass seeding and its negative

impacts on natural regeneration. Seeding was still the

most widely used treatment, though often applied in

conjunction with other hillslope treatments, such as

contour-felled logs, and channel treatments, including

straw bale check dams. National Forest specialists

were encouraged to do implementation monitoring of

treatment establishment, as well as some form of

effectiveness monitoring of treatment performance,

using regular watershed appropriation funds.

In the mid 1990’s, a major effort was undertaken to

revise and update the BAER handbook. A steering

committee, consisting of regional BAER coordinators

and other specialists, organized and developed the

bulk of the handbook used today. The issue of using

native species for emergency revegetation emerged as

a major topic, and the increased use of contour-felled

logs caused rehabilitation expenditures to escalate.

During the busy 1996 fire season, for example, the

Forest Service spent $11 million on BAER projects.

Improvements in the BAER program in the late

1990’s included increased BAER training and funding

review. Increased needs were identified for BAER

Evaluating the Effectiveness of

Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments

Peter R. Robichaud

Jan L. Beyers

Daniel G. Neary
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

team leader training, project implementation training, and on-the-ground treatment installation training. Courses were developed for the first two training

needs but not the last. Current funding requests are

scrutinized by the Regional and national BAER coordinators to verify that they are minimal, necessary,

reasonable, practicable, cost-effective, and will provide significant improvement over natural recovery.

Also in the late 1990’s, a program was initiated to

integrate national BAER policies across different Federal agencies, as each agency interpreted BAER funding differently. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and

Department of the Interior approved a joint policy for

a consistent approach to BAER in 1998. The new policy

broadened the scope and application of BAER analysis

and treatment. Major changes included: (1) monitoring to determine if additional treatment is needed and

evaluating to improve treatment effectiveness; (2) repairing facilities for safety reasons; (3) stabilizing biotic

communities; and (4) preventing unacceptable degradation of critical known cultural sites and natural

resources. These changes affect the Forest Service, the

Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of

Indian Affairs.

Problem Statement and Objectives

In spite of the improvements in the BAER process

and the wealth of practical experience obtained over

the last several decades, the effectiveness of many

emergency rehabilitation methods has not been systematically tested or validated. BAER team leaders

and decisionmakers often do not have information

available to thoroughly evaluate the short- and longterm benefits (and costs) of various treatment options.

In 1998, at the request of and funded by the USDA

Forest Service Washington office Watershed and Air

staff, a joint study was initiated by the USDA Forest

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and the

Pacific Southwest Research Station to evaluate the

use and effectiveness of postfire emergency rehabilitation methods. The objectives of the study were to:

(1) evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation treatments at reducing postfire erosion, runoff, or other

effects; (2) assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation

treatments in mitigating downstream effects of increased sedimentation and peakflows; (3) investigate

the impacts of rehabilitation treatments on natural

processes of ecosystem recovery, both in the short- and

long-term; (4) compare hillslope and channel treatments in terms of relative benefits, and how they

compare to a no-treatment option; (5) collect available

information on economic, social, and environmental

costs and benefits of various rehabilitation treatment

options, including no treatment; (6) determine how

knowledge of treatments gained in one location can be

transferred to another location; and (7) identify information gaps needing further research and evaluation.

The study collected and analyzed information on

past use of BAER treatments. Specifically, we sought to

determine attributes and conditions that led to treatment success or failure, and the effectiveness of

treatments in achieving BAER goals. Because much

of the information was unpublished and qualitative in

nature, resource specialists were interviewed regarding their BAER activity experiences.

This report is divided into six major sections: (1) a

review of published literature on fire effects and BAER

treatments; (2) information acquisition and analysis

methods; (3) description of results, which include hydrologic, erosion and risk assessments, monitoring reports, and treatment evaluations; (4) discussion of BAER

assessments and treatment effectiveness; (5) conclusions drawn from the analysis; and (6) recommendations.

Definitions

The literature of emergency watershed rehabilitation contains may terms from hydrological, ecological

and fire science disciplines. For clarity the terms used

in this manuscript are defined below.

Aerial Seeding: See Seeding.

Allelopathy: Inhibition of competing plant growth

by exudation of naturally produced, phytotoxic

biochemicals.

Annuals (Annual Plants): Plant that completes its

growth and life cycle in one growing season.

Ash-bed Effect: Stimulation of plant growth caused

by the sudden availability of fire-mineralized

plant nutrients contained in ash residues from

a fire.

Armored Ford Crossing: Road crossing of a perennial or ephemeral stream at or near the existing cross-section gradient that is generally

constructed of large rocks capable of bearing

the weight of the vehicles and resisting transport by the stream.

Armoring: Protective covering, such as rocks, vegetation or engineering materials used to protect

stream banks, fill or cut slopes, or drainage

structure outflows from flowing water.

BAER: Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation.

Best Management Practices: Preferred activities

which minimize impacts on soil, water, and

other resources.

Broadcast seeding: See Seeding.

Burn Severity: Qualitative and quantitative measure of the effects of fire onsite resources such

as soil and vegetation. Fire intensity contributes to severity but does not alone define it.

Chaparral: Shrub-dominated evergreen vegetation

type abundant in low- to mid-level elevations

in California and the Southwest.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 3

Channel Clearing: Removal of woody debris from

channels by heavy equipment or cable yarding.

Channel Loading: Sediment inputs into ephemeral

or perennial stream channels.

Check Dam: Small structure in zero or first order

channels made of rocks, logs, plant materials,

or geotextile fabric designed to stabilize the

channel gradient and store a small amount of

sediment.

Contour-Felled Logs: System for detaining runoff

and sediment on slopes by felling standing timber (snags) along the contour, delimbing and

anchoring the logs, and backfilling to create

small detention basins. Also known as contourfelling, contour log terraces, log erosion barriers

(LEBs). In some regions, contour-felling describes

only felling the standing timber in the direction

of the contour but not anchoring or backfilling.

Contour Furrowing: See Contour Trenching.

Contour Trenching: Construction of trenches on

slope contours to detain water and sediment

transported by water or gravity downslope

generally constructed with light equipment.

These are also known as contour terraces or

contour furrowing.

Cross Drain: A ditch relief culvert or other structure

or shaping of a road surface designed to capture

and remove surface water flow.

Culvert Overflow: Specially designed sections of

roadway that allow for overflow of relief culverts or cross-drain culverts without compromising the integrity of the road surface.

Culvert Riser: Vertical extension of culvert on the

uphill side to create a small pond for detaining

sediment.

Culvert Upgrading: Replacing existing culverts

with large diameter ones. May also include

armoring of inlet and outlet areas.

Debris Avalanche: Mass failure of variably sized

slope segments characterized by the rapid

downhill movement of soil and underlying

geologic parent material.

Debris Basin: Specially engineered and constructed

basin for storing large amounts of sediment

moving in an ephemeral stream channel.

Debris Clearing: See Channel Clearing.

Design Storm: Estimate of rainfall amount and duration

over a particular drainage area. Often used in

conjunction with the design storm return period,

which is the average number of years within

which a given hydrological event is equaled or

exceeded (i.e., 5-year return period).

Ditch Maintenance: Various maintenance activities to maintain or restore the capacity of

ditches to transport water. Activities include

sediment and woody debris removal, reshaping, and armoring.

Dry Ravel: Downhill movement of loose soil and

rock material under the influence of gravity

and freeze-thaw processes.

Ephemeral Stream or Channel: Drainage way

which carries surface water flow only after

storm events or snow melt.

Energy Dissipater: Rock, concrete, or impervious

material structure which absorbs and reduces

the impact of falling water.

Erosion: Detachment and transport of mineral soil

particles by water, wind, or gravity

Fire Intensity: Rate at which fire is producing

thermal energy in the fuel-climate environment in terms of temperature, heat yield per

unit mass of fuel, and heat load per unit area.

Fire Severity: See Burn Severity.

Forb: Herbaceous plant other than grasses or grasslike plants.

Gabion: A woven galvanized wire basket sometimes

lined with geotextiles and filled with rock, stacked

or placed to form an erosion resistant structure.

Geotextile (Geowebbing): Fabric, mesh, net, etc.

made of woven synthetic or natural materials

used to separate soil from engineering material (rocks) and add strength to a structure.

Grade Stabilizer: Structure made of rocks, logs, or

plant material installed in ephemeral channels

at the grade of the channel to prevent

downcutting.

Ground Seeding: See Seeding.

Hand Trenching: Contour trenching done manually

rather than mechanically.

Hydrophobic Soil: See Water Repellency.

In-channel Felling: Felling of snags and trees into

stream channel to provide additional woody

debris for trapping sediment.

Infiltration: Movement of rainfall into litter and the

soil mantle.

Lateral Keying: Construction or insertion of log or

rock check dam 1.5 to 3 ft (0.4 to 1.0 m) into

stream or ephemeral channel banks.

Log Check Dam: See Check Dam.

Log Erosion Barriers (LEBS): see Contour-Felled

Logs.

Log Terraces: See Contour-Felled Logs.

Mass Wasting: Movement of large amounts of soil

and geologic material downslope by debris

avalanches, soil creep, or rotational slumps.

Mg ha–1: Metric ton per hectare or megagram per

hectare, equivalent to 0.45 tons per acre

(0.45 t ac–1).

Monitoring: The collection of information to determine effects of resource management or specific

treatments, used to identify changing conditions or needs.

Monitoring, Compliance: Monitoring done to assure

compliance with Best Management Practices.
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Monitoring, Effectiveness: Monitoring done to determine the effectiveness of a treatment in

accomplishing the desired effect.

Monitoring, Implementation: Monitoring done to

verify installation of treatment was accomplished as specified in installation instruction

documents.

Mulch: Shredded woody organic material, grass, or

grain stalks applied to the soil surface to protect mineral soil from raindrop impact and

overland flow.

Mychorrhizae: Fungi which symbiotically function

with plant roots to take up water and nutrients,

thereby greatly expanding plant root systems.

Outsloping: Shaping a road surface to deflect water

perpendicular to the traveled way rather than

parallel to it.

Peakflow: Maximum flow during storm or snow melt

runoff for a given channel.

Perennials (Perennial Plants): Plants that continue to grow from one growing season to the

next.

Perennial Stream and Channel: Drainage ways in

which flow persists throughout the year with

no dry periods.

Plant Cover: Percentage of the ground surface area

occupied by living plants.

Plant Species Richness: Number of plant species

per unit area.

Ravel: See Dry Ravel.

Re-bar: Steel reinforcing bar, available in various

diameters, used to strengthen concrete or anchor straw bales and wattles.

Regreen: Commercially available sterile wheatgrass

hybrid used to stabilize slopes immediately

after a fire but not interfere with subsequent

native plant recovery.

Relief Culvert: Conduit buried beneath road surface to relieve drainage in longitudinal ditch

at the toe of a cut slope.

Return Interval: Probabilistic interval for recurrence

(1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years etc.) of stormflow,

rainfall amount or rainfall intensity.

Rill: Concentrated water flow path, generally formed

on the surface of bare soil.

Riparian Area: Area alongside perennial or ephemeral stream that is influenced by the presence

of shallow groundwater.

Ripping: See Tilling.

Risk: The chance of failure.

Rock Cage Dam: See Gabion or Check Dam.

Rolling Dip: Grade reversal designed into a road to

move water off of short slope section rather

than down long segment.

Rotational Slump: Slope failure characterized rotation of the soil mass to a lower angle of repose.

Runoff: Movement of water across surface areas of a

watershed during rainfall or snowmelt events.

Sediment: Deposition of soil eroded and transported

from locations higher in the watershed.

Sedimentation: Deposition of water, wind, or gravity

entrained soil and sediment in surface depressions, side slopes, channel bottoms, channel

banks, alluvial flats, terraces, fans, lake bottoms, etc.

Sediment Trap Efficiency: Percent of contour-felled

log length showing accumulated sediment

relative to available length of log. Or percent of

sediment accumulated behind logs relative to

available storage capacity of the logs. Or percent of sediment stored behind logs relative to

sediment that was not trapped and moved to

the base of a hillslope.

Sediment Yield (Production): Amount of sediment

loss off of unit area over unit time period usually expressed as tons ac–1

 yr

–1 or Mg ha–1 

yr

–1.

Seeding: Application of plant seed to slopes by aircraft (Aerial Seeding or Broadcast Seeding), or

by ground equipment or manually (Ground

Seeding).

Silt Fence: Finely woven fabric material used to

detain water and sediments.

Slash Spreading: Dispersal of accumulations of

branches and foliage over wider areas.

Slope Creep: Slow, downhill movement of soil material under the influence of gravity.

Soil/Site Productivity: Capability of a soil type or

site to produce plant and animal biomass in a

given amount of time.

Soil Wettability: See Water Repellency.

Storm Duration: Length of time that a precipitation

event lasts.

Storm Magnitude: Relative size of precipitation event.

Storm Patrol: Checking and cleaning culvert inlets

to prevent blockage during storm runoff.

Straw Bale Check dam: Check dam made of straw

or hay bales often stacked to provide additional

storage capacity. Designed to store sediment

and/or prevent downcutting.

Straw Wattle: Woven mesh netting (1 ft diameter by

6 to 20 ft in length, 0.3 m diameter by 1.8 m to

6.1 m in length) filled with straw or hay and

sometimes seed mixes, used to trap sediment

and promote infiltration.

Stream Bank Armoring: Reinforcing of streambank

with rock, concrete, or other material to reduce

bank cutting and erosion.

Streamflow: Movement of water in a drainage

channel.

Temporary Fencing: Fencing installed on a grazing

allotment or other unit to keep cattle or native

ungulates out of burned area.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 5

Terracette: See Contour-Felled Logs.

Tilling: Mechanical turning of the soil with a plow or

ripping device. Often used to promote soil infiltration by breaking up water repellent soil

layers.

Trash Rack: Barrier placed upstream of a culvert to

prevent woody debris from becoming jammed

into the inlet.

Ungulate: Herbivorous animals with hooves, e.g., cow,

elk, deer, horses, etc.

Water Bar: Combination of ditch and berm installed

perpendicular or skew to road or trail centerline

to facilitate drainage of surface water; sometimes nondriveable and used to close a road.

Water Repellency: Tendency of soil to form a hydrophobic (water resistant) layer during fire that

subsequently prevents infiltration and percolation of water into the soil mantle.

Watershed: An area or region bounded peripherally by ridges or divides such that all precipitation falling in the area contributes to its

watercourse.

Water Yield: Total runoff from a drainage basin.

Literature Review _______________

Our evaluation of BAER treatment effectiveness

began with the published scientific literature. The

general effects of fire on Western forested landscapes

are well documented (Agee 1993, DeBano and others

1998, Kozlowski and Ahlgren 1974). Conversely, many

of the processes addressed by BAER treatments have

not been extensively studied, and relatively little information has been published about most emergency

rehabilitation treatments with the exception of grass

seeding. To put BAER treatment effectiveness into

ecosystem context, we summarize the scientific literature on postfire conditions that are relevant to BAER

evaluations. Then we examine published studies on

specific BAER treatments.

Fire’s Impact on Ecosystems

All disturbances produce impacts on ecosystems.

The level and direction of impact (negative or positive)

depends on ecosystem resistance and resilience, as

well as on the severity of the disturbance. The variability in resource damage and response from site to

site and ecosystem to ecosystem is highly dependent

on burn or fire severity.

Burn severity (fire severity) is a qualitative measure

of the effects of fire onsite resources (Hartford and

Frandsen 1992, Ryan and Noste 1983). As a physicalchemical process, fire produces a spectrum of effects

that depend on interactions of energy release (intensity), duration, fuel loading and combustion, vegetation type, climate, topography, soil, and area burned.

Fire intensity is an integral part of burn severity,

and the terms are often incorrectly used synonymously. Intensity refers to the rate at which a fire is

producing thermal energy in the fuel-climate environment (DeBano and others 1998). Intensity is measured in terms of temperature and heat yield. Surface

temperatures can range from 120 to greater than

2,730 °F (50 to greater than 1,500 °C). Heat yields per

unit area can be as little as 59 BTU ft–2 (260 kg-cal m–2)

in short, dead grass to as high as 3700 BTU ft–2

(10,000 kg-cal m–2) in heavy logging slash (Pyne and

others 1996). Rate of spread is an index of fire duration and can vary from 1.6 ft week–1 (0.5 m week–1)

in smoldering peat fires to as much as 15 mi hr–1

(25 km hr–1) in catastrophic wildfires.

The component of burn severity that results in the

most damage to soils and watersheds, and hence

ecosystem stability, is duration. Fast moving fires in

fine fuels, such as grass, may be intense in terms of

energy release per unit area, but do not transfer the

same amounts of heat to the forest floor, mineral soil,

or soil organisms as do slow moving fires in moderate

to heavy fuels. The impacts of slow moving, low or

high intensity fires on soils are much more severe and

complex. The temperature gradients that develop can

be described with a linked-heat transfer model

(Campbell and others 1995) and are a function of

moisture and fuel loadings.

Some aspects of burn severity can be quantified,

but burn severity cannot be expressed as a single

quantitative measure that relates to resource impact.

Therefore, relative magnitudes of burn or fire severity, expressed in terms of the postfire appearance of

litter and soil (Ryan and Noste 1983), are better criteria

for placing burn or fire severity into broadly defined,

discrete classes, ranging from low to high. A general

burn severity classification developed by Hungerford

(1996) relates burn severity to the soil resource response (table 1).

Fire Effects on Watersheds—Soils, vegetation,

and litter are critical to the functioning of hydrologic

processes. Watersheds with good hydrologic conditions and adequate rainfall sustain stream baseflow

conditions for much or all of the year and produce little

sediment. With good hydrologic condition (greater

than 75 percent of the ground covered with vegetation

and litter), only about 2 percent or less of rainfall

becomes surface runoff, and erosion is low (Bailey and

Copeland 1961). When site disturbances, such as severe fire, produce hydrologic conditions that are poor

(less than 10 percent of the ground surface covered

with plants and litter), surface runoff can increase

over 70 percent and erosion can increase by three

orders of magnitude.

Within a watershed, sediment and water responses

to wildfire are often a function of burn severity and the
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Table 1—Burn severity classification based on postfire appearances of litter and soil and soil

temperature profiles (Hungerford 1996, DeBano et al. 1998).

Burn Severity

Soil and Litter Parameter Low Moderate High

Litter Scorched, Charred, Consumed Consumed

Consumed

Duff Intact, Surface Deep Char, Consumed

Char Consumed

Woody Debris - Small Partly Consumed, Consumed Consumed

Charred

Woody Debris - Logs Charred Charred Consumed,

Deeply Charred

Ash Color Black Light Colored Reddish, Orange

Mineral Soil Not Changed Not Changed Altered Structure,

Porosity, etc

Soil Temp. at 0.4 in (10 mm) <120 °F 210-390 °F >480 °F

(<50 °C) (100-200 °C) (>250 °C)

Soil Organism Lethal Temp. To 0.4 in (10 mm) To 2 in (50 mm) To 6 in (160 mm)

occurrence of hydrologic events. For a wide range of

burn severities, the impacts on hydrology and sediment loss can be minimal in the absence of precipitation. However, when a precipitation event follows a

large, moderate- to high-burn severity fire, impacts

can be far reaching. Increased runoff, peakflows, and

sediment delivery to streams can affect fish populations and their habitat (Rinne 1996).

Fire can destroy accumulated forest floor material

and vegetation, altering infiltration by exposing soils

to raindrop impact or creating water repellent conditions (DeBano and others 1998). Loss of soil from

hillslopes produces several significant ecosystem impacts. Soil movement into streams, lakes, and riparian zones may degrade water quality and change the

geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics of these

systems. Soil loss from hillslopes may reduce site

productivity.

Total water yields across the Western United States

vary considerably depending on precipitation, evapotranspiration (ET), soil, and vegetation. The magnitude of measured increases in water yield the first

year after fire can vary greatly within a location or

between locations depending on fire severity, climate, precipitation, geology, soils, topography, vegetation type, and proportion of the vegetation burned.

Because increases in water yield are primarily due to

elimination of plant cover, with subsequent reductions in the transpiration component of ET, flow

increases are greater in humid ecosystems with

high prefire ET (Anderson and others 1976). Elevated streamflow declines through time as woody

and herbaceous vegetation regrow, with this recovery period ranging from a few years to decades.

Increases in annual water yield after wildfires and

prescribed fires are highly variable (table 2). Hibbert

and others (1982) reported a 12 percent increase in

water yield after prescribed fire in an Arizona pinyonjuniper forest. A wildfire in the mostly ponderosa pine

Entiat watershed in Washington produced a 42 percent increase in water yield the first postfire year

(Helvey 1980). The first-year increase in water yield

after a prescribed burn in a Texas grassland was 1,150

percent of the unburned control watershed, but the

increase over the control was only 400 percent where

a rehabilitation treatment (seeding) was done after

the fire (Wright and others 1982). Seeding also shortened the recovery period from 5 to 2 years. In Arizona

chaparral burned by wildfire, the first-year water

yield increase exceeded 1,400 percent (Hibbert 1971).

Where soil wettability becomes a problem, water yield

increases can be very high due to greater stormflows.

The effects of fire disturbance on storm peakflows

are highly variable and complex. They can produce

some of the most profound watershed and riparian

impacts that forest managers have to consider. Intense short duration storms that are characterized by

high rainfall intensity and low volume have been

associated with high stream peakflows and significant

erosion events after fires (Neary and others 1999). In

the Intermountain West, high intensity, short duration rainfall is relatively common (Farmer and Fletcher

1972). Five minute rainfall rates of 8.4 to 9.2 in hr–1

(213 and 235 mm hr–1) have been associated with
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 7

Table 2—Effects of prescribed fires and wildfires on water yield based in different vegetation types.

Flow Recovery

Location Precipitation Flow Added Period Reference

(in) (mm) (in) (mm) (%) (years)

Douglas-fir, OR 98 2480 Bosch and Hewlett 1982

Control 74 1890 — —

Cut 82%, Burned 88 2230 20 >5

Douglas-fir, OR 94 2390 Bosch and Hewlett 1982

Control 54 1380 — —

Cut 100%, Burned 72 1840 34 >5

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir, WA 23 580 Helvey 1980

Control (Preburn) 9 220 — —

Wildfire (Postburn) 12 315 42 ?

Chaparral, AZ 29 740 Davis 1984

Control 3 75 — —

Prescribed Fire 6 155 144 >11

Chaparral, AZ 23 580 Hibbert and others 1982

Control 3 75 — —

Wildfire 5 130 59 ?

Chaparral, AZ 26 655 Hibbert 1971

Control 0 0 — —

Wildfire 5 125 >99 >9

Control 0.7 20 — —

Wildfire 11 290 1421 >9

Pinyon-Juniper, AZ 19 480 Hibbert and others 1982

Control 1 25 — —

Prescribed Fire 1.5 40 12 5

Juniper-Grass, TX 26 660 Wright and others 1982

Control 0.1 2 — —

Prescribed Fire 1 25 1150 5

Rx Fire, Seeded 0.4 10 400 2

Aspen-Mixed Conifer Bosch and Hewlett 1982

Control 6 155 — —

Wildfire 8 190 22 5

peakflows from recently burned areas that were increased 556 percent above that for adjacent areas

(Croft and Marston 1950). Anderson and others (1976)

produced a good review of peakflow response to disturbance (table 3). Wildfires generally increase

peakflows. Peakflow increases of 500 to 9,600 percent

are common in the Southwest, while those measured

in the Cascade region are much lower (Anderson and

others 1976). For example, the Tillamook burn in 1933

in Oregon increased the total annual flow of two

watersheds by 9 percent and increased the annual

peakflow by 45 percent (Anderson and others 1976). A

310 ac (127 ha) wildfire in Arizona increased summer

peakflows by 500 to 1,500 percent, but had no effect on

winter peakflows. Another wildfire in Arizona produced a peakflow 58 times greater than an unburned

watershed during record autumn rainfalls. Peakflow

increases following wildfires in Arizona chaparral of

up to 45,000 percent have been reported (Glendening

and others 1961). Watersheds in the Southwest are

prone to these enormous peakflow responses because

of climatic, topographic, and soil conditions. These

include intense monsoon rainfalls common in that

region at the end of the spring fire season; steep

terrain; shallow, skeletal soils; and water repellency,

which often develops in soils under chaparral vegetation. Recovery times can range from years to many

decades. Studies have shown both increases (+35 percent) and decreases (–50 percent) in snowmelt

peakflows following fires (Anderson and others 1976).

Burned watersheds generally respond to rainfall faster

than unburned watersheds, producing more “flash

floods” (Anderson and others 1976). Water repellent

soils and cover loss will cause flood peaks to arrive

faster, rise to higher levels, and entrain significantly

greater amounts of bedload and suspended sediments.

Flood warning times are reduced by “flashy” flow, and

the high flood levels can be devastating to property and

human life. Although these concepts of stormflow timing are well-understood within the context of wildland
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

hydrology, some studies have confounded results because of the combined changes in volume, peak and

timing at different locations in the watershed, and the

severity and size of the disturbance in relation to the

size of watershed (Brooks and others 1997).

Water Quality—Increases in streamflow after fire

can result in substantial to little effect on the physical

and chemical quality of streams and lakes, depending on

the size and severity of the fire (DeBano and others

1998). Higher streamflows and velocities result in additional transport of solid and dissolved materials that can

adversely affect water quality for human use and damage aquatic habitat. The most obvious effects are produced by suspended and bedload sediments, but substantial changes in anion/cation chemistry can occur.

Undisturbed forest, shrub, and range ecosystems

usually have tight cycles for major cations and anions,

resulting in low concentrations in streams. Disturbances such as cutting, fires, and insect outbreaks interrupt or temporarily terminate uptake by vegetation

and may affect mineralization, microbial activity, nitrification, and decomposition. These processes result in

the increased concentration of inorganic ions in soil

which can be leached to streams via subsurface flow

(DeBano and others 1998). Nutrients carried to streams

can increase growth of aquatic plants, reduce the

potability of water supplies, and produce toxic effects.

Most attention relative to water quality after fire

focuses on nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) because it is

highly mobile. High NO3-N levels, in conjunction with

phosphorus, can cause eutrophication of lakes and

streams. Most studies of forest disturbances show

increases in NO3-N, with herbicides causing the largest increases (Neary and Hornbeck 1994, Tiedemann

and others 1978).

Surface Erosion—Surface erosion is the movement of individual soil particles by a force and is

usually described by three components: (1) detachment, (2) transport, and (3) deposition. Inherent

erosion hazards are defined as site properties that

influence the ease which individual soil particles are

detached (soil erodibility), slope gradient and slope

length. Forces than can initiate and sustain the

movement of soil particles include raindrop impact

(Farmer and Van Haveren 1971), overland flow

(Meeuwig 1971), gravity, wind, and animal activity.

Protection is provided by vegetation, surface litter,

duff, and rocks that reduce the impact of the applied

forces and aid in deposition (Megahan 1986, McNabb

and Swanson 1990).

Erosion is a natural process occurring on landscapes at different rates and scales, depending on

geology, topography, vegetation, and climate. Natural erosion rates increase as annual precipitation

increases (table 4). Landscape disturbing activities

such as mechanical site preparation, agriculture,

and road construction lead to the greatest erosion,

which generally exceeds the upper limit of natural

geologic erosion (Neary and Hornbeck 1994). Fires

and fire management activities (fireline construction, temporary roads, heli-pad construction, and

postfire rehabilitation) can also affect erosion.

Table 3—Effects of harvesting and fire on peakflows in different habitat types (from Anderson and

others 1976).

Location Treatment Other Information Peakflow Change

(%)

Douglas-fir, OR Clearcut Fall Storms +90

Clearcut Winter Storms +28

Douglas-fir, OR Clearcut, 100% Burn +30

Clearcut, 50% Burn +11

Douglas-fir, OR Wildfire +45

Chaparral, CA Wildfire +2282

Chaparral, AZ Wildfire Summer Flows +500

Wildfire Summer Flows +1500

Wildfire Winter Flows 0

Chaparral, AZ Wildfire Fall Flows +5800

Ponderosa Pine, AZ Wildfire Summer Flows +9605

Mixed Conifer, AZ Wildfire (Rich 1962) Low Summer Flow +1521

Wildfire (Rich 1962) Inter. Summer Flow +526

Wildfire (Rich 1962) High Summer Flow +960

Aspen-Conifer, CO Clearcut, 100%
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 9

Table 4—Natural watershed sediment losses in the USA based on published literature.

Location Watershed Conditions Sediment Loss Reference

(t ac–1

) (Mg ha–1)

USA Geologic Erosion Schumm and Harvey 1982

Natural Rate, Lower Limit 0.3 0.6

Natural Rate, Upper Limit 7 15

Eastern USA Forests, Lower Baseline 0.05 0.1 Patric 1976

Forests, Upper Baseline 0.1 0.2

Western USA Forests, Lower Baseline 0.0004 0.001 Biswell and Schultz 1965

Forests, Upper Baseline 2 6 DeByle and Packer 1972

Sediment yields 1 year after prescribed burns and

wildfires range from very low, in flat terrain and in the

absence of major rainfall events, to extreme, in steep

terrain affected by high intensity thunderstorms

(table 5). Erosion on burned areas typically declines in

subsequent years as the site stabilizes, but the rate

varies depending on burn or fire severity and vegetation recovery. Soil erosion after fires can vary from

under 0.4 to 2.6 t ac–1

 yr

–1 (0.1 to 6 Mg ha–1

 yr

–1) in

prescribed burns and from 0.2 to over 49 t ac–1 yr

–1

(0.01 to over 110 Mg ha–1 yr

–1) in wildfires (Megahan

and Molitor 1975, Noble and Lundeen 1971, Robichaud

and Brown 1999) (table 5). For example, Radek (1996)

observed erosion of 0.1 to 0.8 t ac–1 (0.3 to 1.7 Mg ha–1)

from several large wildfires that covered areas ranging from 375 to 4,370 ac (200 to 1,770 ha) in the

northern Cascades mountains. Three years after these

fire, large erosional events occurred from spring rainstorms, not from snowmelt. Most of the sediment

produced did not leave the burned area. Sartz (1953)

reported an average soil loss of 1.5 in (37 mm) after a

wildfire on a north-facing slope in the Oregon Cascades.

Raindrop splash and sheet erosion accounted for the

measured soil loss. Annual precipitation was 42 in

(1070 mm), with a maximum intensity of 3.5 in hr–1

(90 mm hr–1). Vegetation covered the site within 1 year

after the burn. Robichaud and Brown (1999) reported

first-year erosion rates after a wildfire from 0.5 to

1.1 t ac–1 (1.1 to 2.5 Mg ha–1) decreasing by an order of

magnitude by the second year, and to no sediment by

the fourth, in an unmanaged forest stand in eastern

Oregon. DeBano and others (1996) found that following a wildfire in ponderosa pine, sediment yields

from a low severity fire recovered to normal levels

after 3 years, but moderate and severely burned

watersheds took 7 and 14 years, respectively. Nearly

all fires increase sediment yield, but wildfires in steep

terrain produce the greatest amounts (12 to 165 t ac–1,

28 to 370 Mg ha–1) (table 5). Noble and Lundeen (1971)

reported an average annual sediment production rate

of 2.5 t ac–1 (5.7 Mg ha–1) from a 900 ac (365 ha) burn

on steep river breaklands in the South Fork of the

Salmon River, Idaho. This rate was approximately

seven times greater than hillslope sediment yields

from similar, unburned lands in the vicinity.

Sediment Yield and Channel Stability—Firerelated sediment yields vary, depending on fire frequency, climate, vegetation, and geomorphic factors

such as topography, geology, and soils (Swanson 1981).

In some regions, over 60 percent of the total landscape

sediment production over the long-term is fire-related.

Much of that sediment loss can occur the first year

after a wildfire (Agee 1993, DeBano and others 1996,

DeBano and others 1998, Rice 1974, Robichaud and

Brown 1999, Wohlgemuth and others 1998). Consequently, BAER treatments that have an impact the

first year can be important in minimizing damage to

both soil and watershed resources.

After fires, suspended sediment concentrations in

streamflow can increase due to the addition of ash and

silt-to-clay sized soil particles in streamflow. High

turbidity reduces municipal water quality and can

adversely affect fish and other aquatic organisms. It is

often the most easily visible water quality effect of

fires (DeBano and others 1998). Less is known about

turbidity than sedimentation in general because it is

difficult to measure, highly transient, and extremely

variable.

A stable stream channel reflects a dynamic equilibrium between incoming and outgoing sediment and

streamflow (Rosgen 1996). Increased erosion after

fires can alter this equilibrium by transporting additional sediment into channels (aggradation). However, increased peakflows that result from fires can

also produce channel erosion (degradation). Sediment

transported from burned areas as a result of increased

peakflows can adversely affect aquatic habitat, recreation areas, roads, buildings, bridges, and culverts.

Deposition of sediments alters habitat and can fill in

lakes and reservoirs (Rinne 1996, Reid 1993).

Mass Wasting—Mass wasting includes slope creep,

rotational slumps, debris flows and debris avalanches.

Slope creep is usually not a major postfire source of
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Table 5—Published first-year sediment losses after prescribed fires and wildfires.

Location Treatment Sediment Loss Reference

(t ac–1

) (Mg ha–1)

Mixed Conifer, WA Wildfire 130 300 Sartz 1953

Mixed Conifer, WA Control 0.01 0.03 Helvey 1980

Wildfire 1 2

Mixed Conifer, WA McCay Wildfire 0.8 2 Radek 1996

Bannon Wildfire 0.6 1

Thunder Mtn. Wildfire 0.2 0.5

Whiteface Wildfire 0.2 0.3

Ponderosa Pine, CA Control <0.0005 <0.001 Biswell and Schultz 1965

Prescribed Fire <0.0005 <0.001

Chaparral, CA Control 0.02 0.04 Wells 1981

Wildfire 13 30

Chaparral, CA Control 2 6 Krammes 1960

Wildfire 25 60

Chaparral, CA Control, Steep Slope 0.0009 0.002 DeBano and Conrad 1976

Rx Fire, Steep Slope 3 7

Control, Gentle Slope 0 0

Rx Fire, Gentle Slope 1 3

Chaparral, AZ Control 0 0 Pase and Lindenmuth 1971

Prescribed Fire 2 4

Chaparral, AZ Control 0.04 0.1 Pase and Ingebo 1965

Wildfire 13 29

Chaparral, AZ Control 0.07 0.2 Glendening and others 1961

Wildfire 91 204

Ponderosa Pine, AZ Control 0.001 0.003 Campbell and others 1977

Wildfire 0.6 1

Ponderosa Pine, AZ Wildfire, Low 0.001 0.003 DeBano and others 1996

Wildfire, Moderate 0.009 0.02

Wildfire, Severe 0.7 1.6

Mixed Conifer, AZ Control <0.0004 <0.001 Hendricks and Johnson 1944

Wildfire, 43% Slope 32 72

Wildfire, 66% Slope 90 200

Wildfire, 78% Slope 165 370

Juniper-Grass, TX Control 0.03 0.06 Wright and others 1982

Prescribed Fire 7 15

Prescribed Fire, Seed 1 3

Juniper-Grass, TX Control 0.006 0.01 Wright and others 1976

Burn, Level Slope 0.01 0.03

Burn, 20% Slope 0.8 2

Burn, 54% Slope 4 8

Larch/Douglas-fir, MT Control <0.0004 <0.001 Debyle and Packer 1972

Slash Burned 0.07 0.2

Ponderosa-pine/Douglas-fir, ID Wildfire 4 6 Noble and Lundeen 1971

Ponderosa-pine/Douglas-fir, ID Clearcut and Wildfire 92 120 Megahan and Molitor 1975

Ponderosa-pine/Douglas-fir, OR Wildfire, 20% Slope 0.5 1.1 Robichaud and Brown 1999

Wildfire, 30% Slope 1.0 2.2

Wildfire, 60% Slope 1.1 2.5
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 11

sediment. Rotational slumps normally do not move

any significant distance. Slumps are only major problems when they occur close to stream channels, but

they do expose extensive areas of bare soil on slope

surfaces. Debris flows and avalanches are the largest,

most dramatic, and main form of mass wasting that

delivers sediment to streams (Benda and Cundy 1990).

They can range from slow moving earth flows to rapid

avalanches of soil, rock, and woody debris. Debris

avalanches occur when the mass of soil material and

soil water exceed the sheer strength needed to maintain the mass in place. Steep slopes, logging, road

construction, heavy rainfall, and fires aggravate debris avalanching potential.

Many fire-associated mass failures are correlated

with development of water repellency in soils (DeBano

and others 1998). Chaparral vegetation in the Southwestern United States is a high hazard zone because

of the tendency to develop water repellent soils. Water

repellency also occurs commonly elsewhere in the

West after wildfires. Sediment delivery to channels by

mass failure can be as much as 50 percent of the total

postfire sediment yield. Wildfire in chaparral vegetation in coastal southern California increased debris

avalanche sediment delivery from 18 to 4,845 yd3

mi–2 yr

–1 (7 to 1,910 m3 km–2

 yr

–1) (Wells 1981).

Cannon (1999) describes two types of debris flow

initiation mechanisms, infiltration soil slip and surface runoff after wildfires in the Southwestern United

States. Of these, surface runoff which increases sediment entrainment was the dominate triggering

mechanism.

Dry Ravel—Dry ravel is the gravity-induced downslope surface movement of soil grains, aggregates, and

rock material, and is a ubiquitous process in semiarid

steepland ecosystems (Anderson and others 1959).

Triggered by animal activity, earthquakes, wind, and

perhaps thermal grain expansion, dry ravel may best

be described as a type of dry grain flow (Wells 1981).

Fires greatly alter the physical characteristics of

hillside slopes, stripping them of their protective cover

of vegetation and organic litter and removing barriers

that were trapping sediment. Consequently, during

and immediately following fires, large quantities of

surface material are liberated and move downslope

as dry ravel (Krammes 1960, Rice 1974). Dry ravel can

equal or exceed rainfall-induced hillslope erosion after

fire in chaparral ecosystems (Krammes 1960,

Wohlgemuth and others 1998).

Emergency Watershed Rehabilitation

Treatment Effectiveness

Early burned area emergency rehabilitation efforts

were principally aimed at controlling erosion. Work by

Bailey and Copeland (1961), Christ (1934), Copeland

(1961, 1968), Ferrell (1959), Heede (1960, 1970), and Noble

(1965) demonstrated that various watershed management techniques could be used on forest, shrub, and

grass watersheds to control both storm runoff and

erosion. Many of these techniques have been refined,

improved, and augmented from other disciplines (agriculture, construction) to form the set of BAER treatments in use today.

With the exception of grass seeding, relatively little

has been published specifically on the effectiveness

and ecosystem impacts of most postfire rehabilitation

treatments. We discuss the BAER literature by treatment categories: hillslope, channel, and road treatments. BAER treatments will be categorized in this

manner throughout this report.

Hillslope Treatments—Hillslope treatments include grass seeding, contour-felled logs, mulch, and

other methods intended to reduce surface runoff and

keep postfire soil in place on the hillslope. These treatments are regarded as a first line of defense against

postfire sediment movement, preventing subsequent

deposition in unwanted areas. Consequently, more

research has been published on hillslope treatments

than on other methods.

Broadcast Seeding—The most common BAER practice is broadcast seeding of grasses, usually from aircraft. Grass seeding after fire for range improvement

has been practiced for decades, with the intent to gain

useful products from land that will not return to

timber production for many years (Christ 1934,

McClure 1956). As an emergency treatment, rapid

vegetation establishment has been regarded as the

most cost-effective method to promote rapid infiltration of water, keep soil on hillslopes and out of channels and downstream areas (Miles and others 1989,

Noble 1965, Rice and others 1965). Grasses are particularly desirable for this purpose because their extensive, fibrous root systems increase water infiltration and hold soil in place. Fast-growing non-native

species have typically been used. They are inexpensive

and readily available in large quantities when an

emergency arises (Agee 1993, Barro and Conard 1987,

Miles and others 1989).

Legumes are often added to seeding mixes for their

ability to increase available nitrogen in the soil after

the postfire nutrient flush has been exhausted, aiding

the growth of seeded grasses and native vegetation

(Ratliff and McDonald 1987). Seed mixes were refined

for particular areas as germination and establishment

success were evaluated. Most mixes contained annual

grasses to provide quick cover and perennials to establish longer term protection (Klock and others 1975,

Ratliff and McDonald 1987). However, non-native species that persist can delay recovery of native flora and

potentially alter local plant diversity. More recently

BAER teams have recommended nonreproducing
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

annuals, such as cereal grains or sterile hybrids, that

provide quick cover and then die out to let native

vegetation reoccupy the site.

Chaparral: Chaparral is the shrub-dominated vegetation type abundant in the low to middle elevation

foothills in California and the Southwestern States

(Cooper 1922, Keeley and Keeley 1988). Chaparral

stands are often located on steep slopes, burn with

generally high intensity, and typically develop waterrepellent soils. They become candidates for postfire

seeding due to the threat of increased runoff and

sediment movement (Ruby 1989).

Concern over impacts of postfire seeding has focused

on chaparral ecosystems because a specialized annual

flora takes advantage of the light, space, and soil

nutrients available after fire (Keeley and others 1981,

Sweeney 1956). Some of the dominant shrub species

regenerate after fire only from seed (Keeley 1991,

Sampson 1944). Most published research on chaparral

comes from California (tables 6 and 7).

Brushfields prone to fire and erosion occur at the

urban/wildland interface, where growing population

centers in lowland valleys have encroached on foothills and steep mountain fronts. The societal impacts

of wildfire and subsequent accelerated erosion in

California chaparral are enormous, as are the pressures to treat burned hillsides with grass seed to

protect life and property (Arndt 1979, Gibbons 1995).

Foresters in southern California began seeding

burned-over slopes with native shrubs in the 1920’s.

After finding that seeded shrubs emerged no earlier

than natural regeneration (Department of Forester

and Fire Warden 1985), they experimented with introduced herbaceous species such as Mediterranean

mustards in the 1930’s and 1940’s (Gleason 1947).

Mustards proved to be unpopular weeds with downslope

orchardists and suburbanites, so other species were

tested, including native and non-native subshrubs

and non-native grasses (Department of Forester and

Fire Warden 1985). By the late 1940’s annual ryegrass

(Lolium multiflorum, also called Italian ryegrass), a

native of temperate Europe and Asia, had became the

primary species used for postfire seeding. Like mustard, it was inexpensive, could be broadcast easily

from aircraft, was available in large quantities, and its

fibrous root system appeared effective at stabilizing

surface soil (Barro and Conard 1987).

The effectiveness of broadcast grass seeding for

erosion control on steep chaparral slopes has been

questioned (Conrad 1979), but relatively few data on

erosion response exist. The first watershed-scale rehabilitation experiment was set up at the San Dimas

Experimental Forest after a wildfire in 1960, including annual and perennial grass seeding. The first

winter after the fire was one of the driest on record

with negligible grass establishment (Corbett and Green

1965). The treatments were reseeded, and the next

year seeded grasses did not affect peak streamflow

during four recorded storm events. The high-rate

annual grass treatment produced 8 percent grass

cover by the time of the last large storm event and

resulted in a 16 percent reduction in sediment production over the season (Krammes and Hill 1963). Contour planting of barley, which included hand-hoed

rows and fertilization, had the greatest impact on

sediment production (Rice and others 1965). All seeded

treatments had lower cover of native plants than

unseeded controls (Corbett and Green 1965).

Data collected by the California Department of

Forestry showed that ryegrass establishment was

typically poor in interior southern California and more

successful in cooler, northern or coastal locations

(Blanford and Gunter 1972). An inverse relationship

between ryegrass cover and native herbaceous plant

cover was observed, and Blanford and Gunter (1972)

felt that more data were needed to properly evaluate

the competitive effects of seeded ryegrass on native

herbs. Range improvement studies found that high

seeded grass cover could reduce shrub seedling density (Schulz and others 1955). Blanford and Gunter

(1972) did not observe major failure of shrub regeneration, though no quantitative measurements were made.

A general negative relationship between ryegrass cover

and erosion was observed using erosion pins. Blanford

and Gunter (1972), like Krammes and Hill (1963) and

Rice and others (1965), concluded that postfire annual

grass seeding was an appropriate rehabilitation

method because its low cost made occasional seeding

failure an acceptable risk.

Cover or biomass of native chaparral vegetation,

especially herbaceous species, tended to be lower on

plots with high ryegrass cover, both in operationally

seeded areas (Keeley and others 1981, Nadkarni and

Odion 1986) and on hand-seeded experimental plots

(Gautier 1983, Taskey and others 1989). Native plant

species richness was lower on plots containing ryegrass

(Nadkarni and Odion 1986, Taskey and others 1989).

Gautier (1983) and Taskey and others (1989) found

lower density of shrub seedlings, especially species

killed by fire, on seeded plots, and warned that longterm chaparral species composition could potentially

be affected by grass seeding. Taskey and others (1989)

also noted bare areas appearing in seeded plots where

ryegrass died out after 3 years, resulting in lower cover

than on unseeded plots. These studies suggested that

ryegrass grows at the expense of native vegetation.

During a year in which total rainfall was exceptionally high compared to average, Gautier (1983) measured less erosion from plots in which ryegrass seeding increased total plant cover. On the other hand,

Taskey and others (1989) found no effect of ryegrass

on first-year postfire erosion with average rainfall and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 13 Table 6—Published first-year seeded grass species cover and total plant cover in various ecosystems. Erosion reduction effectiveness is given if it was tested in the study. Cover Location Vegetation Seeded species Slope - - - - - - - - - Rate - - - - - - - - - Seeded Total Erosion2 Source (%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) (s ft–2 ) (s m–2 ) - - - - (%) - - - - Otay Mts., So. CA mixed chaparral annual ryegrass 44 8.0 9.0 35-80 40-85* 31% less Gautier 1983 control 44 0 0 — 20-35 Santa Lucia Mts., CA chamise chaparral annual ryegrass 40-55 13.1 17 37 400 37 71.4* ns Taskey and others 1989 control 40-55 0 0 0 0 — 57.7 Santa Ana Mts., CA mixed chaparral Blando brome nd3 7.5 8.4 3 15-25 — Conard and others 1995 Zorro fescue nd 7.5 8.4 2-5 20-25 — annual ryegrass nd 7.5 8.4 3-5 18-25 — native forb mix nd 7.5 8.4 3-8 25 — control nd 0 0 0 0 — 12-30 — Santa Monica Mts., CA mixed chaparral annual ryegrass 54 8 9 12 30 ns Beyers and others 1998a; control 54 0 0 0 0 — 35 Wohlgemuth and others 1998 Santa Ana Mts., CA mixed chaparral annual ryegrass 65 8 9 5 20 ns same control 65 0 0 0 0 — 20 Santa Lucia Mts., CA chamise chaparral annual ryegrass 52 8 9 2 5* ns same control 52 0 0 0 0 — 3 Santa Monica Mts., CA mixed chaparral annual ryegrass 49 8 9 5 30 ns same control 49 0 0 0 0 — 35 Santa Ynez Mts., CA mixed chaparral annual ryegrass 63 8 9 12 75 ns same control 63 0 0 0 0 — 75 Siskiyou Mts., OR Douglas-fir annual ryegrass 40-50 24 27 49 50* ns Amaranthus 1989 —early winter control 40-50 0 0 0 0 4 9 Siskiyou Mts., OR Douglas-fir annual ryegrass 40-50 24 27 85.2 87.1* ns —late spring control 40-50 0 0 0 0 8.2 23.6 near Loman, ID Douglas-fir seed mix5 nd 8.21 9.2 48 520 1 14 — Geier-Hayes 1997 control nd 0 0 0 0 — 15 near Loman, ID ponderosa pine seed mix5 nd 4.39 4.8 27 292 3 10 — same control nd — 11 (con.)
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 near Loman, ID subalpine fir seed mix5 nd 5.36 6 31 334 tr 7

— same

control nd

— 9

near Greenville, CA mixed conifer seed mix6 gentle tr 6

— Roby 1989

control 7

Entiat Exp. Forest, WA ponderosa pine-

 Douglas-fir seed mix7 nd 5.89 6.6 3.3 10.3

— Tiedemann and Klock 1973

seed mix + fert. nd 5.89 6.6 1.4, 2 7.5, 10.8

—

control nd 0 0 0 0 tr 5.6

Snow Basin, OR pine-mixed fir seed mix8 gentle 10 11.2 12 44*

— Anderson and Brooks 1975

control nd 0 0 0 0

— 12

Santa Lucia Mts., CA coulter pine- annual ryegrass 25-65 8 8.96 37 400 5-70 10-75

— Griffin 1982

sugar pine unseeded4 nd 0 0 0 0

— 5

1Asterisk (*) next to total cover value indicates that seeded plots had significantly greater total cover than unseeded plots. Statistical significance was not tested in all studies. 2For studies in which erosion was measured, “ns” means there was no significant difference between seeded and unseeded plots; if erosion was significantly less, amount of reduction is given. 3

“nd” indicates no data provided for a given category in the publication. 4Unseeded plot was in slightly different area, avoided during seeding because of rare plant concerns.

Seed mixes included: 5 Intermediate wheatgrass, timothy, orchardgrass, and smooth brome.

6 Orchardgrass, tall fescue, timothy, slender wheatgrass + fertilizer. 7 Hard fescue, orchardgrass, perennial ryegrass, timothy, yellow sweetclover. 8 Intermediate wheatgrass, timothy, hard fescue, legumes.

Table 6 (Con.)

Cover

Location Vegetation Seeded species Slope - - - - - - - - - Rate - - - - - - - - - Seeded Total Erosion2 Source

(%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) (s ft–2 ) (s m–2 ) - - - - (%) - - - -
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 15 Table 7—Published second-year seeded grass species cover and total plant cover in various ecosystems. Erosion reduction effectiveness is given if it was tested in the study. Cover Location Vegetation Seeded species Slope - - - - - - - - - Rate - - - - - - - - - Seeded Total Erosion2 Source (%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) (s ft–2 ) (s m–2 ) - - - - (%) - - - - San Gabriel Mts., CA mix chaparral annual ryegrass nd3 20 22.4 9.9 10.3 16% less Rice and others 1965 Blando brome control 0 0 — 7.7 Santa Ana Mts., CA mix chaparral Blando brome nd3 7.5 8.4 10-15 40-60 — Conard and others 1995 Zorro fescue nd 7.5 8.4 3-8 45-55 — annual ryegrass nd 7.5 8.4 5-15 45-60 — native forb mix nd 7.5 8.4 10-20 45-60 — control nd 0 0 — 35-50 — Santa Monica Mts., CA mix chaparral annual ryegrass 54 8 9 4 50 ns Beyers and others 1998a; control 54 0 0 — 48 Wohlgemuth and others 1998 Santa Ana Mts., CA mix chaparral annual ryegrass 65 8 9 35 80 ns same control 65 0 0 — 78 Santa Lucia Mts., CA chamise chaparral annual ryegrass 52 8 9 20 55* ns same control 52 0 0 — 45 Santa Monica Mts.,CA mix chaparral annual ryegrass 49 8 9 25 78 ns same control 49 0 0 — 80 Santa Ynez Mts., CA mix chaparral annual ryegrass 63 8 9 15 65 ns same control 63 0 0 — 70 Siskiyou Mts., OR Douglas-fir annual ryegrass 40-50 24 27 0 live 91* — Amaranthus 1989 (84 mulch) control 40-50 0 0 — 46 Salmon River, CA mixed conifer seed mix5 64 nd nd 85* ns Van de Water 1998 control 64 0 0 — 20 Salmon River, CA mixed conifer seed mix5 82 nd nd 60* 80% less same control 82 0 0 — 40 near Loman, ID Douglas-fir seed mix6 nd 8.21 9.2 48 520 8 47 — Geier-Hayes 1997 control nd 0 0 — 47 near Loman, ID ponderosa pine seed mix6 nd 4.3 4.8 31 334 10 31 — same control nd — 48 near Loman, ID subalpine fir seed mix6 nd 5.3 6 2 31 — same control nd — 34 (con.)
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 Table 7(Con.) Cover Location Vegetation Seeded species Slope - - - - - - - - - Rate - - - - - - - - - Seeded Total Erosion2 Source (%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) (s ft–2 ) (s m–2 ) - - - - (%) - - - - near Greenville, CA mixed conifer Seed mix7 gentle nd 10 24 ns Roby 1989 control

— 27

Entiat Exp. For, WA ponderosa pineDouglas-fir Seed mix8 nd 6.5 6.6 nd 20

— Tiedemann and Klock 1973

above mix + fert. nd 6.5 6.6 nd 17-23

—

control nd 0 0 nd 16

Snow Basin, OR pine-mixed fir Seed mix9 nd low 10 11.2 30 57

— Anderson and Brooks 1975

control nd 0 0

— 49

Santa Lucia Mts., CA coulter pine- annual ryegrass 25-65 8 9 37 400 30-90 75-95

— Griffin 1982

sugar pine unseeded4 nd 0 0

— 25

1Asterisk (*) next to total cover value indicates that seeded plots had significantly greater total cover than unseeded plots. Statistical significance was not tested in all studies. 2 For studies in which erosion was measured, “ns” means there was no significant difference between seeded and unseeded plots; if erosion was significantly less, amount of reduction is given. 3

“nd” indicates no data provided for a given category in the publication. 4Unseeded plot was in slightly different area, avoided during seeding because of rare plant concerns.

Seed mixes included: 5Kentucky bluegrass, red clover, cereal grain.

6Intermediate wheatgrass, timothy, orchardgrass, and smooth brome.

7Orchardgrass, tall fescue, timothy, slender wheatgrass + fertilizer.

8Hard fescue, orchardgrass, perennial ryegrass, timothy, yellow sweetclover

9Intermediate wheatgrass, timothy, hard fescue, legumes.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 17

no intense storms, despite higher average cover on

seeded plots. Higher dry season erosion was measured

on seeded plots the following year, which was attributed to pocket gophers attracted to the site by the

abundant ryegrass. Similar densities of pocket gopher

mounds were found in operationally seeded areas

(Taskey and others 1989).

The most extensive study of annual ryegrass effects

on erosion and vegetation response was conducted on

five sites burned in hot prescribed fires and a winddriven wildfire in coastal southern California (Beyers

and others 1998a, 1998b; Wohlgemuth and others

1998). Data on prefire vegetation and hillslope sediment movement were gathered, and greater replication was used than in most previous studies. Fire

severity varied among sites from moderate to very

high, and postfire precipitation varied from half of

normal to very high. Only plots that showed severity

effects great enough to trigger operational seeding

were retained in the study. At all five sites, postfire

erosion was greatest during the first year after fire and

was not significantly affected by ryegrass seeding

(Wohlgemuth and others 1998). Seeding increased

total plant cover the first year at only one site, by about

1.5 percent, probably accounting for the lack of difference in erosion rates (Beyers and others 1998a). Average ryegrass cover reached 15 to 30 percent on some

sites during the second year after fire. Native herbaceous plant cover and species richness were lower on

seeded plots when ryegrass cover was high (Beyers

and others 1994, 1998b). Unlike some earlier studies,

Beyers and others (1998a) did not find significantly

lower shrub seedling density on seeded plots. In later

postfire years, some sites had significantly less erosion on seeded than on unseeded plots, but this happened only after erosion rates had dropped to prefire

levels, which occurred in as little as 2 years on some

sites (Wohlgemuth and others 1998). Dry season erosion (ravel) accounted for a high proportion of firstyear sediment movement on sites that burned during

early or mid summer. Grass seeding does not affect the

channel loading that occurs by this process (Beyers

and others 1998b, Wohlgemuth and others 1998).

These studies concluded that postfire annual ryegrass

seeding is unlikely to reduce postfire hillslope sediment movement the first year after fire in southern

California chaparral and has minimal impact on total

erosion from a burn site.

Grass species other than annual ryegrass have

been used for postfire rehabilitation. Blando brome

(Bromus hordaceous cv “Blando”), promoted for use

in drought-prone areas, did not produce cover as well

as annual ryegrass (Blanford and Gunter 1972).

Conard and others (1995) tested several non-native

grasses and a native forb mix; only the native forb

mix significantly increased total plant cover, and

then only on a north-facing slope. After the 1993

firestorms in southern California, Keeley and others

(1995) found complete failure where native perennial

needlegrass (Nasella) species were used, and relatively low levels of grass cover (1 to 23 percent)

produced by non-native annuals such as Zorro fescue

(Vulpia myuros cv “Zorro”) and Blando brome, used to

avoid the competitive problems associated with annual ryegrass. The highest seeded cover, 40 percent,

occurred on a site seeded with a mix of native species

and annual ryegrass. However, natural regeneration

of native and naturalized plants provided much more

cover than the seeded species. Although no direct

erosion measurements were made, Keeley and others

(1995) concluded that seeding was ineffective as a

sediment control measure in the cases examined

because it contributed very little to total plant cover.

No quantitative studies on the impact of grass seeding on postfire erosion in chaparral have been published from northern California or Arizona. Because

annual ryegrass and other grasses typically establish

cover more successfully in northern California (Barro

and Conard 1987, Blanford and Gunter 1972), they

would be more likely to reduce erosion there. The

impact of grass seeding on native chaparral vegetation

in other areas, aside from suppression of shrub seedlings at very high grass densities (Schultz and others

1955), is largely unknown.

Conifer Forest: High intensity fire may be outside

the range of natural variability for many conifer plant

communities that have been subject to fire suppression for the last century (Agee 1993). The loss of former

understory seed banks due to overgrazing and canopy

densification may also reduce the likelihood of rapid

regeneration of ground cover after fire. Seeding mixes

used in conifer stands often include legumes such as

white clover (Trifolium repens) or yellow sweet clover

(Melilotus officinalis) to enhance nitrogen status of

the soil. Both annual and perennial grasses may be

used in mixes with non-native forage species originally tested for range improvement purposes (Christ

1934, Forsling 1931, McClure 1956).

Orr (1970) examined plant cover and erosion for

3 years after fire in the Black Hills of South Dakota

in an area operationally seeded with a mixture of

grasses and legumes. Most of the sediment production

occurred in two summer storms shortly after erosionmeasuring apparatus was set up. Sediment production was inversely related to plant cover. Summer

storm runoff was 50 percent less on plots with high

plant and litter cover than on those with sparse cover.

Regression analysis showed that the decrease in runoff and sediment production with increasing ground

cover leveled off at 60 percent cover, similar to results

presented by Noble (1965). Orr (1970) concluded that

seeded species were essential for quickly stabilizing
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

the sites. However, unseeded plots were not included

in the study.

Seeded grasses provided greater cover than natural

regeneration in a burned area in Oregon (Anderson

and Brooks 1975). Litter and mulch also developed

more rapidly on the seeded sites. After 4 years, however, all sites had more than 70 percent ground cover.

Legume species included in the seeding mix for

wildlife forage generally did not survive. Seeded grasses

appeared to suppress growth of native shrubs and

annual forbs, particularly in the second and third

year after fire. Erosion amounted to only 5 t ac–1

(5.5 Mg ha–1) during the first 2 years after fire on

seeded sites. The unseeded site was not measured but

also appeared to experience little erosion (Anderson

and Brooks 1975).

In contrast, Dyrness (1976) measured negligible

cover produced by seeded species on severely burned

plots in Oregon. Total vegetation cover was only 40

percent after 2 years even on lightly burned sites. He

suggested that nitrogen fertilization might have improved vegetation growth. Earlier work by Dyrness

(1974) found that grass vigor decreased 4 years after

seeding along forest roads for erosion control, and

refertilization in year 7 reinvigorated perennial grasses

in the plots. On disturbed firelines, Klock and others

(1975) seeded various grasses and legumes and

found that fertilization greatly increased initial cover

of most species tested. Fertilization with 45 lb ac–1

(50 kg ha–1) drilled urea significantly increased native

plant regrowth, but not production of seeded species,

on granitic soil in Idaho (Cline and Brooks 1979).

Seeding and fertilizer treatments were compared on

separate watersheds in the Washington Cascades

after a fire swept through the Entiat Experimental

Forest (Tiedemann and Klock 1973). Seeding increased

plant cover at the end of the first growing season by

about one third, from 5.6 percent on the unseeded

watershed to 7. 5 to 10.8 percent on the seeded watersheds. Seeded grasses made up 18 to 32 percent of total

cover on seeded sites. Nitrate concentration in streams

increased immediately after fertilizer application, but

subsequently fertilized and unfertilized watersheds

had similar stream nitrogen dynamics (Tiedemann

and others 1978). Later that summer, record rainfall

events caused massive flooding and debris torrents

from treated and untreated watersheds alike (Helvey

1975). In the second year after fire, average total plant

cover increased to 16.2 percent on the unseeded watershed and 16.4 to 23 percent on the seeded watersheds.

Seeded grasses comprised about 7 percent cover on

seeded watersheds (Tiedemann and Klock 1976). On

south-facing slopes, the unseeded watershed had as

much or more cover than the seeded ones. Although

fertilization did not affect plant cover either year,

Tiedemann and Klock (1976) felt that it increased

seeded grass vigor and height.

From an erosion standpoint during the first winter

after fire, the amount of seeded grass present at the

time major storms occur is more important than the

amount present at the end of the growing season,

when it is usually assessed in studies. In southern

Oregon, annual ryegrass seeding and fertilization

did not significantly increase plant cover or reduce

erosion by early December, when that winter’s major

storms occurred (Amaranthus 1989). The seeded and

fertilized plots had significantly less bare ground

than the unseeded plots. Erosion was low and not

significantly different between treatments, though it

trended lower on the seeded plots. Amaranthus (1989)

pointed out that timing of rainfall is critical to both

grass establishment and erosion, and that different

rainfall patterns could have produced different results from the study.

In contrast, grass seeding plus fertilizer did not

significantly increase total plant cover during the first

5 years after a northern Sierra Nevada fire (Roby

1989). Seeded grass cover did not exceed 10 percent

until 3 years after the fire, when total cover on unseeded

plots was greater than 50 percent. There was no

difference in erosion between the seeded and unseeded

watersheds during the first 2 years after fire. Roby

(1989) concluded that grass seeding was ineffective as

a ground cover protection measure in that location.

Geier-Hayes (1997) also found that total plant cover

did not differ between seeded and unseeded plots for

5 years after an Idaho fire. Seeded plots had lower

cover of native species. Erosion was not measured.

Several species commonly used for postfire seeding,

because of their rapid growth and wide adaptability

(Klock and others 1975), have been found to be strongly

competitive with conifer seedlings in experimental

plots. Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), perennial

ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and timothy (Phleum

pratense) reduced growth of ponderosa pine seedlings

in tests conducted in California (Baron 1962).

Orchardgrass and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum) reduced ponderosa pine growth in Arizona

(Elliot and White 1987). Field studies on aerial

seeded sites in California found low pine seedling

densities on most plots with annual ryegrass cover

higher than 40 percent (Conard and others 1991,

Griffin 1982).

Amaranthus and others (1993) reported significantly

lower survival of planted sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) seedlings in plots heavily seeded with annual ryegrass than in unseeded controls during the

first postfire year in southern Oregon. Soil moisture

was significantly lower and pine seedlings showed

significantly greater water stress in the seeded plots.

Ryegrass cover was 49 percent when tree seedlings

were planted and 85 percent by mid-summer, while

total plant cover was only 24 percent at mid-summer

on the control plots. The next summer, a second group
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 19

of planted pine seedlings had significantly greater

survival and lower water stress on seeded plots than

on controls. By then, dead ryegrass formed a dense

mulch on the seeded plots, but no live grass was found.

Native shrub cover was significantly greater on the

unseeded plots the second year and soil moisture was

lower (Amaranthus and others 1993). Ryegrass thus

acted as a detrimental competitor to tree seedlings the

first year after fire, but provided a beneficial mulch

and reduced competition from woody plants the second year. Conard and others (1991) also suggested

that seeded ryegrass could benefit planted conifer

seedlings if it suppressed woody competitors and

could itself later be controlled. In their study, however, live ryegrass cover was exceptionally high in

many plots during the second year after fire (Conard

and others 1991).

The studies examined suggest that grass seeding

does not assure increased plant cover during the first

critical year after fire (table 6). A wide variety of

grass species or mixes and application rates were

used in the reported studies, making generalization

difficult. Over 50 years ago, southern California foresters were urged to caution the public not to expect

significant first-year sediment control from postfire

seeding (Gleason 1947). Better cover and, consequently, erosion control can be expected in the second

(table 7) and subsequent years.

Measuring erosion and runoff is expensive, complex,

and labor-intensive, and few researchers have done it.

Such research is necessary to determine if seeded

grasses control erosion better than natural regeneration. Another goal of postfire grass seeding on timber

sites, soil fertility retention, does not appear to have

been investigated. Grass establishment can clearly

interfere with native plant growth, and grass varieties

that will suppress native shrubs but not conifer seedlings have not yet been developed (Ratliff and McDonald

1987). The impacts of recent choices for rehabilitation

seeding, including native grasses and cereal grains, on

natural and planted regeneration in forest lands have

not been studied extensively.

Mulch—Mulch is material spread over the soil surface to protect it from raindrop impact. Straw mulch

applied at a rate of 0.9 t ac–1 (2 Mg ha–1) significantly

reduced sediment yield on burned pine-shrub forest in

Spain over an 18-month period with 46 rainfall events

(Bautista and others 1996). Sediment production was

0.08 to 1.3 t ac–1 (0.18 to 2.92 Mg ha–1) on unmulched

plots but only 0.04 to 0.08 t ac–1 (0.09 to 0.18 Mg ha–1)

on mulched plots. Kay (1983) tested straw mulch laid

down at four rates—0.5, 1, 1.5, and 4 t ac–1 (1.1, 2.2,

3.4, and 9.0 Mg ha–1)—against jute excelsior, and

paper for erosion control. Straw was the most costeffective mulch, superior in protection to hydraulic

mulches and comparable to expensive fabrics. Excelsior was less effective but better than paper strip

synthetic yarn. The best erosion control came from

jute applied over 1.5 t ac–1 (3.4 Mg ha–1) straw. Miles

and others (1989) studied the use of wheat straw

mulch on the 1987 South Fork of the Trinity River fire,

Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Wheat

straw mulch was applied to fill slopes adjacent to perennial streams, firelines, and areas of extreme erosion

hazard. Mulch applied at rates of 2 t ac–1 (4.5 Mg ha–1),

or 1 t ac–1 (2.2 Mg ha–1) on larger areas, reduced erosion

6 to 10 yd3 ac

–1 (11 to 19 m3

 ha–1). They considered

mulching to be highly effective in controlling erosion

(table 8). Edwards and others (1995) examined the

effects of straw mulching at rates of 0.9,1,8, 2.7, and

3.6 t ac–1 (2,4,6, and 8 Mg ha–1) on 5 to 9 percent slopes.

Soil loss at 0.9 t ac–1 (2 Mg ha–1) mulch was significantly greater (1.4 t ac–1, 3.16 Mg ha–1 of soil) than at

1.8 t ac–1 (4 Mg ha–1) mulch (0.9 t ac–1, 1.81 Mg ha–1 of

soil loss). Above 1.8 t ac–1 (4 Mg ha–1) mulch there was

no further reduction in soil loss.

Table 8—Comparison of slope and channel BAER treatments, South Fork Trinity River fires, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, CA,

1987 (modified from Miles et al. 1989). Costs are shown in 1999 dollars.

Cost Efficacy Install

Treatment Type ($ yd–3) ($ m–3) ($ ac–1) ($ ha–1) Category Rate Risk of Failure

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - $$1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Slope Treatment Summary

Aerial Seeding $23 $23 $79 $196 Moderate1 Rapid Moderate

Mulching $50 $52 $504 $1245 High2 Slow Low

Contour Felling $180 $183 $720 $1778 Low2 Slow High

Channel Treatment Summary

Straw Bale Check Dams $105 $107 $158 $392 High2 High Low

Log and Rock Check Dams $33 $33 $1346 $3325 High2 Slow Moderate

1

Soil loss estimated using Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).

2

Soil loss estimated using on-site measurements.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Contour-Felled Logs—This treatment involves felling logs on burned-over hillsides and laying them on

the ground along the slope contour, providing mechanical barriers to water flow, promoting infiltration

and reducing sediment movement; the barriers can

also trap sediment. The terms “log erosion barriers” or

“log terracettes” are often used when the logs are

staked in place and filled behind. Logs were contourfelled on 22 ac (9 ha) of the 1979 Bridge Creek Fire,

Deschutes National Forest in Oregon (McCammon

and Hughes 1980). Trees 6 to 12 in (150-300 mm) d.b.h.

were placed and secured on slopes up to 50 percent

at intervals of 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m). Logs were staked

and holes underneath were filled. After the first storm

event, about 63 percent of the contour-felled logs were

judged effective in trapping sediment. The remainder

were either partially effective or did not receive flow.

Nearly 60 percent of the storage space behind contour-felled logs was full to capacity, 30 percent was

half-full, and 10 percent had insignificant deposition.

Common failures were flow under the log and not

placing the logs on contour (more than 25° off contour

caused trap efficiency to decrease to 20 percent). Over

1,600 yd3

 (1,225 m3) of material was estimated

trapped behind contour-felled logs on the 22 ac, or

about 73 yd3 ac

–1 (135 m3

 ha–1). Only 1 yd3 (0.7 m3) of

sediment was deposited in the intake pond for a

municipal water supply below. Miles and others (1989)

monitored contour-felling on the 1987 South Fork

Trinity River fires, Shasta-Trinity National Forest in

California. The treatment was applied to 200 ac (80 ha)

within a 50,000 ac (20,240 ha) burned area. Trees

<10 in (250 mm) d.b.h. spaced 15 to 20 ft (4.5 to 6 m)

apart were felled at rate of 80-100 trees ac–1 (200-

250 trees ha–1). The contour-felled logs trapped 0 to

0.07 yd3 (0 to 0.05 m3) of soil per log, retaining 1.6 to

6.7 yd3 ac

–1 (3 to 13 m3

 ha–1) of soil onsite. Miles and

others (1989) considered sediment trapping efficiency

low and the cost high for this treatment (table 8).

Sediment deposition below treated areas was not

measured, however.

Contour Trenching—Contour trenches have been

used as a BAER treatment to reduce erosion and

permit revegetation of fire-damaged watersheds. Although they do increase infiltration rates, the amounts

are dependent on soils and geology (DeByle 1970b).

Contour trenches can significantly improve revegetation by trapping more snow, but they don not affect

water yield to any appreciable extent (Doty 1970,

1972). This BAER treatment can be effective in altering the hydrologic response from short duration, high

intensity storms typical of summer thunderstorms,

but does not significantly change the peakflows of low

intensity, long duration rainfall events (DeByle

1970a). Doty (1971) noted that contour trenching in

the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) portion (upper 15

percent with the harshest sites) of a watershed in

central Utah did not significantly change streamflow

and stormflow patterns. The report by Doty (1971) did

not discuss sediment. Costales and Costales (1984)

reported on the use of contour trenching on recently

burned steep slopes (40 to 50 percent) with clay loam

soils in pine stands of the Philippines. Contour trenching reduced sediment yield by over 80 percent, from

28 to 5 t ac–1 (63 to 12 Mg ha–1).

Other Hillslope Treatments—Treatments such as

tilling, temporary fencing, installation of erosion

control fabric, use of straw wattles, lopping and

scattering of slash, and silt fence construction are

used to control sediment on the hillslopes. No published quantitative information is available about

the efficiency and sediment trapping ability of these

treatments after wildfires.

Channel Treatments—Channel treatments are

implemented to modify sediment and water movement in ephemeral or small-order channels, to prevent

flooding and debris torrents that may affect downstream values at risk. Some in-channel structures

slow water flow and allow sediment to settle out;

sediment will later be released gradually as the structure decays. Channel clearing is done to remove large

objects that could become mobilized in a flood. Much

less information has been published on channel treatments than on hillslope methods.

Straw Bale Check Dams—Miles and others (1989)

reported on the results of installing 1300 straw bale

check dams after the 1987 South Fork Trinity River

fires, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California. Most

dams were constructed with five bales. About 13 percent of the straw bale check dams failed due to piping

under or between bales or undercutting of the

central bale. Each dam stored an average 1.1 yd3

(0.8 m3) of sediment. They felt that filter fabric on the

upside of each dam and a spillway apron would have

increased effectiveness. They considered straw bale

check dams easy to install and highly effective when

they did not fail (table 8). Collins and Johnston (1995)

evaluated the effectiveness of straw bales on sediment retention after the Oakland Hills fire. About

5000 bales were installed in 440 straw bale check

dams and 100 hillslope barriers. Three months after

installation, 43 to 46 percent of the check dams were

functioning. This decreased to 37 to 43 percent by

4.5 months, at which time 9 percent were side cut, 22

percent were undercut, 30 percent had moved, 24 percent were filled, 12 percent were unfilled, and 3 percent

were filled but cut. Sediment storage amounted to

55 yd3

 (42 m3) behind straw bale check dams and

another 122 yd3 (93 m3) on an alluvial fan. Goldman

and others (1986) recommended that the drainage

area for straw bale check dams be kept to less than
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 21

20 ac (8 ha). Bales usually last less than 3 months, flow

should not be greater than 11 cfs (0.3 m3 s

–1), and bales

should be removed when sediment depth upstream is

one-half of bale height. More damage can result from

failed barriers than if no barrier were installed

(Goldman and others 1986).

Log Check Dams—Logs 12 to 18 in (300 to 450 mm)

diameter were used to build 14 log check dams that

retained from 1.5 to 93 yd3

 (mean 29 yd3) (1.1 to 71 m3,

mean 22 m3) of sediment after the 1987 South Fork

Trinity River fires on the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest, California (Miles and others 1989). While log

check dams have a high effectiveness rating and 15 to

30 year life expectancy (Miles and others 1989), they

are costly to install (table 8).

Rock Dams and Rock Cage Dams (Gabions)—Properly designed and installed rock check dams and rock

cage (gabion) dams are capable of halting gully development on fire-disturbed watersheds, and reducing

sediment yields by 60 percent or more (Heede 1970,

1976). Although these structures are relatively expensive, they can be used in conjunction with vegetation treatments to reduce erosion by 80 percent and

suspended sediment concentrations by 95 percent

(Heede 1981). While vegetation treatments such as

grassed waterways augment rock check dams and are

less expensive, their maintenance costs are considerably greater. Check dams constructed in Taiwan watersheds with annual sediment yields of 10 to 30 yd3

 ac

–1

(19 to 57 m3 ha–1) filled within 2 to 3 years. Sediment

yield rates decreased upstream of the check dams,

but were offset by increased scouring downstream

(Chiun-Ming 1985).

Other Channel Treatments—No published information was found on the effectiveness of straw

wattle dams, log grade stabilizers, rock grade stabilizers, in-channel debris basins, in-channel debris

clearing, stream bank armoring or other BAER channel treatments.

Road Treatments—BAER road treatments consist of a variety of practices aimed at increasing the

water and sediment processing capabilities of roads

and road structures, such as culverts and bridges, in

order to prevent large cut-and-fill failures and the

movement of sediment downstream. The functionality

of the road drainage system is not affected by fire, but

the burned-over watershed can affect the functionality of that system. Road treatments include outsloping,

gravel on the running surface, rocks in ditch, culvert

removal, culvert upgrading, overflows, armored stream

crossings, rolling dips, and water bars. The treatments are not meant to retain water and sediment, but

rather to manage water’s erosive force. Trash racks

and storm patrols are aimed at preventing culvert

blockages due to organic debris, which could result in

road failure that would increase downstream flood or

sediment damage.

Furniss and others (1998) developed an excellent

analysis of factors contributing to the failure of

culverted stream crossings. Stream crossings are very

important, as 80 to 90 percent of fluvial hillslope

erosion in wildlands can be traced to road fill failures

and diversions of road-stream crossings (Best and

others 1995). Since it is impossible to design and build

all stream crossings to withstand extreme stormflows,

they recommended increasing crossing capacity and

designing to minimize the consequences of culvert

exceedence as the best approaches for forest road

stream crossings.

Comprehensive discussions of road-related treatments and their effectiveness can be found in Packer

and Christensen (1977), Goldman and others (1986)

and Burroughs and King (1989). Recently the USDA

Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Program has developed a Water/Road Interaction Technologies Series (Copstead 1997), which covers design standards, improvement techniques, and

evaluates some surface drainage treatments for reducing sedimentation.

Methods _______________________

This study was restricted to USDA Forest Service

BAER projects in the Western continental United

States (Regions 1 through 6). We began by requesting

Burned Area Report (FS-2500-8) forms and monitoring reports from the Regional headquarters and Forest Supervisors’ offices. Our initial efforts revealed

that information collected on the Burned Area Report

forms and in the relatively few existing postfire

monitoring reports was not sufficient to assess treatment effectiveness, nor did it capture the information

knowledge of BAER specialists. Therefore, we designed

interview questions to enable us to rank treatment

effectiveness, determine aspects of the treatments

that lead to success or failure, and allow for comments

on various BAER related topics.

Burned Area Report Data

The Forest Service Burned Area Report form contains the fire name, watershed location, size, suppression cost, vegetation, soils, geology, and lengths of

stream channels, roads, and trails affected by the fire.

The watershed description includes areas in low,

moderate, and high severity burn categories and areas

that have water repellent soils. Erosion hazard rating

and estimates of erosion potential and sediment

delivery potential are included, based on specified

design storms. The probability of success for hillslope,
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

channel, and road treatments are provided. Cost estimates of no action (loss) versus cost of selected alternatives are identified, as well as BAER funds requested and other matching funds. This information

was entered directly into the database.

Interview Survey

Interview forms were developed after consultation

with several BAER specialists. The forms were used to

record information when we interviewed BAER team

members, regional and national leaders. Questions

were designed to address specific BAER projects (i.e.,

individual fires), as well as to elicit opinions regarding

the interviewees’ experience with treatments used on

their forests and other fires they had worked on. Prior

to conducting interviews, information such as Burned

Area Report forms and postfire monitoring reports

was requested to familiarize the interviewer with the

various fires and treatment used. Onsite interviews

were conducted because much of the supporting data

were located in the Supervisor’s and District’s offices

and could be retrieved during the interviews. Attempts were made to ask questions that would allow

for grouping and ranking results, because much of the

information was qualitative. Example interview

forms are included in appendix A.

Project Review Interview Form—Questions were

designed to identify the fire size, area treated, and

treatment. The values at risk (i.e., downstream or

onsite) were identified, and questions were asked

whether the site was tested by a significant storm

event and what damages resulted. We also asked

interviewees to list up to three treatments they felt

were overused, and up to three that in hindsight

should have been used more, on specific BAER projects.

Cumulative ratings were determined by totaling the

number of times each treatment was mentioned.

No Action Review Interview Form—For fires

where no BAER action was recommended, interviewees

were asked to identify the rationale used. They were

also asked if the site was tested by a significant storm

and their opinion about what treatments might have

been beneficial in hindsight.

Treatment Actions Interview Form—These

questions identified treatments used on specific fires

and what environmental factors affected success and

failure. Interviewees were also asked questions regarding implementation of treatments and whether

any monitoring was completed. For cases where monitoring was conducted (either formal or informal),

interviewees were asked to describe the type and

quality of the data collected (if applicable) and to give

an overall effectiveness rating of “excellent”, “good”,

“fair”, or “poor” for each treatment. Because many of

the answers were qualitative, we synthesized the

responses, highlighting the major points made for

each treatment. We summarized this information into

paragraphs on effectiveness factors, implementation

and environmental factors, and other factors when

they occurred (appendix B).

Interview forms were developed for individual hillslope treatments such as aerial seeding, ground seeding, fertilizer, mulch, contour felling, straw wattles,

lop and scatter, silt fences, contour trenching, ripping,

tilling, temporary fencing and erosion control fabric.

Channel treatment forms included straw bale check

dams, log grade stabilizers, rock grade stabilizers, log

dams, in-channel debris basins, in-channel debris clearing, stream bank armoring, rock cage (gabion) dams,

and straw wattle dams. Road treatment forms included road regrading (such as out-sloping), rock in

ditches, culvert removal, culvert upgrades, overflows,

trash racks, armored stream crossing, storm patrol,

and rolling dips and water bars. For each treatment,

specific question were asked regarding the factors

that caused the treatment to succeed or fail, such as

slope classes, soil type, and type of areas treated, as

well as appropriate implementation method questions

for each treatment.

Relative Benefits Interview Form—Interviewees

were asked to rank hillslope, channel, and road and

trail treatments for the three most effective treatments in each category. Then they were asked for

three overall treatments that provide the greatest

benefits. To obtain cumulative rankings, we totaled

the number of first, second and third place “votes” for

each treatment, multiplied by 3 for first, 2 for second,

and 1 for third, then added the adjusted totals to yield

a cumulative preference rating. Final questions were

open-ended to provide an opportunity for program

recommendations or other topics not addressed.

Monitoring Reports

Monitoring reports were requested from Region,

Forest, and District offices. We included administrative trip reports, data collection efforts, and regional

burn area rehabilitation activity reviews in our request. We also examined BAER accomplishment reports, when provided, for initial post-treatment monitoring results.

Analysis Methods

Burned Area Reports and Interview Forms—

Burned Area Report data and interview information

were entered into the commercial Microsoft Access

database management system. Categorical information (such as treatments that were over-used or underused) was left unchanged. Ranked information results
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 23

were given a 1 to 3 value with the first ranking

receiving three points, second ranking receiving two

points and the third receiving one point. Several questions had positive or negative effects response options.

Qualitative answers were grouped into categories to

reduce the data to a manageable amount. Correlation

analysis and categorical t-tests were performed on

selected information in the data.

BAER spending and treatment costs were transformed into similar units (i.e., hectares or acres) and

adjusted for inflation based on consumer price index to

1999 dollars (Federal Reserve Bank 1999). This made

meaningful comparisons possible for analyzing

spending trends. Treatment costs were obtained from

the final Burned Area Report forms and were assigned

to the year of the fire.

Monitoring Reports—Because most of the information in monitoring reports was qualitative in nature, excerpts from reports were entered into the

database referenced to specific fires. Other excerpts

were included in the general comment fields. Quantitative information was tabulated by hand separately from the main database because of its diverse

nature.

Results ________________________

Overview of Data Collected

Data were collected from 470 Burned Area Reports

and 98 interviews. The results represent our best

estimate of the types and amounts of BAER treatments used and their attributes for the past 3 decades

in the Forest Service. However, we were not able to

collect all possible Burned Area Reports. Regions 1

and 3 are nearly complete data sets, whereas Regions 2, 4, 5, and 6 have missing results, especially

from the 1970’s and 1980’s, because materials had

been archived and could not easily be accessed. Therefore, all dollar and area totals reported are at best

minimum estimates.

While our goal was to collect information on BAER

treatment effectiveness, we also acquired a vast database of information on BAER project and no-action

fires from the Burned Area Reports. These report data

allowed us to tabulate and examine the various pieces

of information that make up the BAER evaluation.

Over the past 3 decades, more than $110 million was

spent in total on emergency rehabilitation that involved the Forest Service. Of that, about $83 million

came from National Forest Systems (NFS) to treat

4.6 million ac (1.9 million ha) of a total of 5.4 million ac

(2.2 million ha) from BAER project fires. About 72

percent of the total area treated was National Forest

System lands. The remainder was on other Federal

agency, State, and private lands.

Of the 470 fires for which Burned Area Reports were

prepared, 321 had BAER treatments recommended.

The rest (148) were fires for which no emergency was

identified and no BAER treatment requested. Seventy

two of the fires were less than 1,000 ac (400 ha), 153

fires were between 1,000 to 10,000 ac (400 to 4,050 ha),

and 96 were greater than 10,000 ac (4,050 ha).

Expenditures for BAER treatments have increased

substantially, especially during the 1990’s (fig. 1).

There were several large fires that represent a majority of the spending in the 1990’s ($48 million), including the Rabbit Creek, Foothills, and Eighth Street

fires on the Boise National Forest in Idaho and the

Tyee Creek Complex on the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington (table 9). Regions 4, 5, and 6 accounted for 86 percent of the BAER spending from

1973 to 1998 (fig. 2). Total acres burned by year (fig. 3)

shows a trend similar to that for spending especially in

the 1990’s. In terms of cost per acre burned, the big fire

years do not always coincide with the greatest amount

per acre (hectare) spent on BAER treatments. In 1989

for example, an average of $67 ac–1 ($165 ha–1) was

spent on 55,000 National Forest System ac (22,300 ha)

burned. When 616,000 National Forest System ac

(249,00 ha) burned in 1996, only $16 ac–1 ($40 ha–1)

was spent (fig. 4).

Fire Severity

Part of the Burned Area Report form contains information on percent of the total burned area in low,

medium, and high fire “intensity.” However, BAER

Figure 1—BAER spending by National Forests and other state

and private entities that include National Forests by year in

1999 dollars. The insert shows spending by decade as a

percent of the total spending. Spending authority changes are

shown.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Millions

YEAR

BAER SPENDING (1999 $)

NFS OTHER

NFS BAER SPENDING

8%

31% 61%

1970's 1980's 1990's

Not authorized to

exceed $2 million

per year 

Authorized to

exceed $2 million

per year 
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Figure 2—National Forest BAER spending by Region in 1999 dollars, 1973-1998 from Burned Area Reports.

The insert shows the Western Forest Service Regions used in this study.

teams actually evaluate burn severity, not intensity

(DeBano and others 1998), and hereafter we use the

term “severity” instead of intensity. The Burned Area

Report form burn severity information was used to

calculate the total acreage in the Western United

States of wildfire-burned lands, by National Forest

System Region, in high, moderate, and low burn

severity classes over the last three decades. Total

reported burn area (National Forest System plus other

ownerships) was greatest in Region 5 (1,800,000 ac;

730,000 ha), followed by Regions 6, 4, 2, 3, and 1 (fig. 5).

The total burned and treated areas of high severity

(National Forest System plus other ownerships) in

Region 5 (702,000 ac, 284,000 ha) exceeded that of all

other Regions combined (670,000 ac, 271,300 ha) (fig. 6).

For Region 5, the high severity areas (39 percent of the

total reported wildfire-burned area) exceeded the

moderate (29 percent) and low severity categories

(33 percent); this is due to the large amount chaparral vegetation in Region 5 which generally burn at

high severity conditions. In all the other Regions, the

acreage of burned land in the low severity class exceeded the high severity class.

In terms of expenditures for BAER treatments on

high fire severity areas, the Regions segregated into

two groups (fig. 7). Both Regions 4 and 5 incurred BAER

treatment expenses of over $27 million, and Region 6

exceeded $17 million. However, the expenditures for

Table 9—The 10 costliest fires for BAER treatment spending. All amounts are in 1999 dollars.

National NFS Total NFS Total

Fire Name Forest Year (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) ($) ($)

Rabbit Creek Boise 1994 94880 38425 94880 38425 8,420,000 8,420,000

Foothills Boise 1993 139955 56680 257600 104330 8,251,500 8,346,000

Tyee Creek Complex Wenatchee 1994 105600 42770 140195 56780 6,156,100 8,978,000

Lowman Complex Boise 1989 95000 38475 95000 38475 3,215,500 3,215,500

Stanislaus Complex Stanislaus 1987 117980 47780 139980 56690 2,109,450 2,609,450

Fork Mendocino 1997 61930 25080 82993 33610 1,839,100 1,888,000

Buffalo Creek Pike-San Isabel 1998 11320 4585 11900 4820 1,800,200 2,146,400

Clover Mist Shoshone 1988 194000 78570 387000 156735 1,393,500 1,393,500

Eighth Street Boise 1997 3160 1280 15193 66155 1,207,000 8,562,400

Clarks Incident Plumas 1988 30000 12,150 40000 16,200 1,024,000 1,289,000

Pacific Northwest

Region 6

21% 

Southwestern

Region 3

4%

Pacific Southwest

Region 5

32% 

Rocky Mountain

Region 2

6% Northern

Region 1

4%

Intermountain

Region 4

33%

6

5

4

1

2

3
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 25

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Millions

YEAR

 AREA BURNED (ac)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Millions

AREA BURNED (ha)

NFS OTHER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

YEAR

BAER SPENDING BY NFS

(1999 $ ac-1) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

BAER SPENDING BY NFS

(1999 $ ha-1) 

Figure 3—Total area burned in National Forests and other

lands that had some portion of National Forest lands by year

from the Burned Area Reports.

Figure 4—BAER spending by National Forests per unit area

burned by year from Burned Area Reports.

Figure 5—Total areas burned by severity class listed by

Region, 1973-1998 from Burned Area Reports. Treated and

untreated burned areas by severity are totaled separately.

Figure 6—High severity areas burned and treated with BAER

funding by region, 1973-1998 from Burned Area Reports.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Millions

REGIONS

AREA BURNED (ac)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Millions

AREA BURNED (ha)

HIGH SEVERITY

MODERATE SEVERITY

LOW SEVERITY

NOT TREATED TREATED

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

123456

Millions

REGION

HIGH SEVERITY AREA TREATED

(ac) 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Millions

HIGH SEVERITY AREA TREATED 

(ha)

Regions 1, 2, and 3 did not exceed $5 million. Regions

4, 5, and 6 had 15 of the top 20 most-expensive BAER

efforts. Region 4 had four of the top five most costly

BAER efforts. The Rabbit Creek, Foothills, and

Lowman Fires on the Boise National Forest in Idaho

involved National Forest System BAER spending of

$8.4, $8.2 and $3.2 million, respectively (table 9). The

most expensive BAER project in Region 5 was only

$2.1 million (Stanislaus Complex), but the Region had

eight of the top 20 most expensive BAER projects.

BAER project costs per unit area treated followed

the trend of total treatment costs (fig. 2, 8). Costs per

acre (ha) were higher for Regions 4, 6, and 5 than

Regions 1, 2, and 3. The most expensive cost per acre,

$39 ($96 ha–1), was for Region 4 and the least expensive, $9 ($22 ha–1), was from Region 3. The higher costs

per acre in Region 4, 6, and 5 fires reflected investments in BAER projects to protect life and property.

This was particularly true for high severity fires in

Region 4 (fig. 9).
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Figure 8—Cost per area for BAER treatment for Forest Service

Systems lands by Region in 1999 dollars, 1973-1998 from

Burned Area Reports.

Figure 9—Cost per area for BAER treatment on high severity

burned sites in 1999 dollars, 1973-1998 from Burned Area

Reports.

Erosion Estimates

The Burned Area Report form asks for an erosion

hazard rating for each fire. The rating is divided into

low, moderate, and high erosion hazards categories.

For the 321 project fires, the ratio of high erosion

areas to high burn severity areas was greater than

one (fig. 10). More areas were rated high erosion

hazard than just those with high burn severity. This

was probably due to natural erosion hazards associated with local geology, geomorphology, and precipitation patterns. Regions 2 and 4 both have high ratios

Figure 7—BAER spending by Region for high severity burn

areas in 1999 dollars, 1973-1998 from Burned Area Reports.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

123456

Millions

REGION

BAER SPENDING (1999 $)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

123456

REGION

0

20

40

60

80

100

BAER TREATMENT COST FOR

ALL FIRES (1999 $ ac-1) 

BAER TREATMENT COST FOR

ALL FIRES (1999 $ ha-1) 

0

50

100

150

200

250

123456

REGION

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BAER TREATMENT COST-HIGH

BURN SEVERITY (1999 $ ac-1) 

BAER TREATMENT COST-HIGH

BURN SEVERITY (1999 $ ha-1) 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

123456

REGIONS

EROSION HAZARD: FIRE SEVERITY

RATIO 

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

due to conditions such as granitic soils and steep

slopes, which create naturally high erosion hazards.

On the other hand, in all regions the ratio of low

erosion hazard areas to low burn severity areas was

low, indicating that erosion potential was small.

A wide range of erosion potential estimates and

watershed sediment yield (delivered to the channel)

potential estimates was found in the Burned Area

Report forms, some with very high values that could be

considered unrealistic (fig. 11). Erosion potential varied

from 1 to 7,000 ton ac–1 (2 to 15,500 Mg ha–1), and

sediment yield varied over six orders of magnitude.

Erosion potential and sediment yield potential did not

correlate well (r = 0.18, n = 117). Different methods

Figure 10—Average ratio of areas described as low, moderate,

and high erosion hazard to areas of low, moderate, and high

burn severity by Region from Burned Area Reports.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 27

were used to calculate these estimates on different

fires, making comparisons difficult. Methods included

empirical base models such as Universal Soil Loss

Equation (USLE), values based on past estimates of

known erosional events, and professional judgment.

Hydrologic Estimates

Part of the BAER process evaluates the potential

effects of wildfire on hydrologic responses. One facet of

this involves determining storm magnitude, duration,

and return interval for which treatments are to be

designed. On the Burned Area Report forms, the most

common design storms were 10-year return events

(fig. 12a and b). Storm durations were usually less

than 24 hr with the common design storm magnitudes

from 1 to 6 in (25 to 150 mm). Five design storms were

greater than 12 in (305 mm) with design return intervals of 25 years or less. The variation in estimates

reflects some of the climatic differences throughout

the Western United States.

The Burned Area Report form also contains an

estimate of the percentage of burned watersheds that

is water repellent. Water repellent soils are often

reported after wildfires, and we expected to find them

more common on coarse-grained soils, such as those

derived from granite. However, there was no statistical difference among geologic parent materials in the

percent of burned area that was water repellent (ttest; fig. 13). Water repellent conditions appeared to be

distributed evenly among soil parent materials. BAER

teams also estimate a percentage reduction in infiltration capacity as part of the Burned Area Report.

Comparison of reduction in infiltration rate to percentage of area that was water repellent showed no

statistically significant relationship (fig. 14). Factors

other than water repellent soil conditions, such as loss

of the protective forest floor layers, obviously affect

infiltration capacity.

Estimation methods for expected changes in channel flow due to wildfire were variable but primarily

based on predicted change in infiltration rates. Thus a

20 percent reduction in infiltration resulted in a estimated 20 percent increase in channel flows. Various

methods were used such as empirical-based models,

past U.S. Geological Survey records from nearby watersheds that had a flood response, and professional

judgment. Some reports show a very large percent

increase in design flows (fig. 15).

Risk Analysis

The kinds of resources or human values judged by

the BAER evaluation team to be at risk from postfire

sedimentation and flooding are listed on the Burned

Area Report form. These consisted of life, water quality, threatened and endangered (T & E) species, soil

Figure 11—Estimated hillslope erosion potential and watershed sediment yield potential (log scale) for all fires requesting BAER funding.

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

1

(2.24)

10

(22.4)

100

(222.4)

1000

(2224)

10000

(22240)

2.95

0.295

29.5

295

2950

29500

295000

Erosion Potential t ac-1 (Mg ha-1) 

Watershed Sediment Yield

(yds3 mi-2) 

Watershed Sediment Yield

(m3 km-2) 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Design Storm Return Period (yr)

Design Storm Duration (hr)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Design Storm Return Period (yr)

Design Storm Magnitude

(in) 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Design Storm Magnitude

(mm) 

Figure 12—(a) Design storm duration and (b) design storm

duration by return period for all fires requesting BAER funding.

(a)

(b)
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Figure 14—Fire-induced water repellent soil areas compared

to the estimated reduction in infiltration for all fires requesting

BAER funding. Regression line shows a poor correlation

between increased water repellent soil areas and the reduction

in infiltration (R2

 = 0.31).

Figure 15—Estimated design peakflow change (log scale) due

to burned areas related to the estimated reduction in infiltration

for all fires requesting BAER funding.

Figure 13—Fire-induced water repellent soil areas and their geologic parent material for all

fires requesting BAER funding. Fire-induced water repellency was not significantly different

by parent material (t-test, α = 0.05).

productivity, and property. The latter category includes homes, roads, cultural features, water supplies

and reservoirs, and agriculture.

Property, water quality, and soil productivity were

cited as reasons for conducting BAER projects in about

a third of all projects (table 10). Region 5 (California),

with its high population, had the highest response (51

percent) for property, while sparsely populated Region

1 had the lowest. In terms of property protection, roads

and homes were mentioned most frequently as reasons for treatments in Region 5 (34 and 28 percent of

the BAER project responses, respectively) (table 11).

In the other regions, homes constituted a reason for

implementing BAER treatments in less than 11 percent of the projects. Protection of homes was cited

more frequently in the 1990’s as a major fire suppression activity objective than it was in previous decades.

It is very likely that the same will occur for future

BAER projects. Cultural features, water supplies, and

agriculture were listed as factors in BAER projects in

less than 10 percent of the responses, except for agriculture in Region 2 (20 percent). Considering the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Geologic Parent Material

Water Repellent Area (%)

Metamorphic

mean=34

n=41

mean=29

n=51

mean=40

n=47

mean=25

n=43

Sedimentary Granitic Volcanic

R2 = 0.31

n=125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Water Repellent Area (%)

Infiltration Reduction (%)

1:1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Infiltration Reduction (%)

Design Peak Flow Change (%)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 29

Table 10—Described values at risk for spending on BAER projects by Region.

Number of T and E Water Soil

Region Projects Life Property Species Quality Productivity

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of Projects - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 56 2 29 14 14 14

2 20 5 35 0 70 50

3 69 4 29 7 26 58

4 45 18 47 33 60 44

5 201 10 51 8 41 24

6 79 8 33 11 58 52

All Regions 470 9 41 11 41 36

Table 11—Property subcategory breakdown of values at risk for spending on BAER projects by Region.

Number of Cultural Water

Region Projects Homes Roads Feature Supplies Agriculture

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of Projects - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 56 11 9 2 4 9

2 20 5 0 5 0 20

3 69 9 20 1 0 4

4 45 11 20 0 7 7

5 201 28 34 3 1 5

6 79 6 24 0 0 9

All Regions 470 17 25 2 2 7

rapidly growing wildland-urban interface fire problem in the West, property protection is likely to

keep growing as a reason for implementing BAER

treatments.

Protection of life was listed as a reason for conducting BAER projects in Region 4 (18 percent) more often

than in the other Regions. Water quality was cited

over 50 percent of the time in Regions 2, 4, and 6, but

only 14 percent of the time in Region 1. Soil productivity was mentioned as a major purpose for BAER in

Regions 2, 3, 4, and 6, with the most concern (58

percent) expressed in the Region 3 (Arizona and New

Mexico). Region 1 had a relatively low response for soil

productivity. Protection of threatened and endangered

(T & E) species values was mentioned most frequently

in Region 4 and not even listed as a reason for BAER

projects in Region 2.

Probability of Success

The Burned Area Report form contains a section for

estimating the probability of success for land, channel, and road treatments 1, 3, and 5 years after

implementation. This is required by FSH 2509.13—

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook,

WO Amendment 2509.13-95-9, effective 1/12/95,

Chapter 30—Cost Risk Analysis and Evaluation of

Alternatives for Emergency Rehabilitation, Part 31.4

Probability of Success and Potential Resource Value

Loss. The handbook states that the BAER team

“...should provide an interdisciplinary decision on

the estimated probability of each alternative’s ability

to successfully minimize or eliminate emergency

watershed conditions....” Probabilities of success were

provided for 321 of the 470 fires for which BAER

reports were completed. The data did not contain any

particular Region-to-Region trends. The combined

treatment probability of success data (averages and

ranges) showed a consistently higher predicted

probability of success for road treatments than for

hillslope and channel treatments (table 12). These

estimations are the product of an interdisciplinary

team decision and represent the combined experience of the individual BAER team members.

Cost of No Action/Alternatives

Another section of the Burned Area Report form

requires estimates of the costs of no action and possible treatment alternatives, as well as determination
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

of the cost plus estimated loss for the proposed treatments. For the 321 project fires, estimates of the costs

of no action and treatment alternatives ranged from

$9,000 to $100 million. BAER teams calculated these

estimates based on downstream property value at

risk, soil productivity value, water quality value, T &

E species value, and other resource values estimated

to be affected by the fire and possible floods or debris

flows. Potential soil productivity losses may be based

on: estimated site index changes due to fire and possible loss in harvestable timber during the next regeneration cycle; the cost of top soil if purchased commercially to replace that anticipated to be lost; or estimates

by professional judgment. Water quality values are

based on the cost of cleaning reservoirs, increased

costs of treating drinking water, and estimates of

aquatic habitat degradation.

Costs of BAER treatments were compared to estimated losses (without treatment) from the Burned

Area Report forms (fig. 16). BAER treatments appear

to be very cost effective, generally costing one-tenth as

much as the expected losses if no treatment were to be

implemented. Expected losses are just estimates; we

do not have data on actual losses that may have

occurred.

BAER Team Members

The composition of BAER teams by discipline and

Region was determined from the Burned Area Report

forms to determine appropriate disciplines to target

for additional training (table 13). Just under 43 percent of all the BAER teams included in this data set

(470) came from Region 5. The smallest number was

from Region 2 (4 percent). Regions 4, 1, 3, and 6 had 10,

12, 15, and 17 percent, respectively.

The predominant disciplines on the BAER teams

were hydrology and soil science (table 13). Except for

Region 3, the percentages of BAER teams containing

hydrologists and soil scientists were fairly consistent

(78 to 87 percent) across Regions. Only two-thirds of

Region 3 BAER teams had members from these disciplines. The next most common BAER team disciplines, wildlife biology (34 to 71 percent), timber management (30 to 65 percent), and engineering (22 to 56

percent), exhibited a two-fold range between Regions.

Region 1 had the lowest representation on its BAER

teams for engineering, range management, geology,

archeology, fire management, contracting, and research disciplines. Region 4 had the highest representation of wildlife biology, fire management, ecology,

fisheries, contracting, and research disciplines.

Monitoring Reports

A wide variety of monitoring reports was collected

from the six Regions. Most were internal administrative reports dealing with one fire or several fires in

proximity. Several were regional burn area rehabilitation activity reviews, resulting from interdisciplinary

team review of multiple fires over several forests to

evaluate current policies and techniques.

We obtained 157 documents that contained postfire

monitoring information. Of those, 55 (35 percent)

contained quantitative data of some kind. The rest

(65 percent) contained qualitative evaluations of

treatment success, such as trip report narratives or

Figure 16—BAER spending compared to projected value loss

if no action was taken (log scale). BAER spending did not

exceed estimated values.

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

BAER Spending (1999 $)

Expected Value Loss If No

Action (1999 $) 

1:1

Table 12—Probability of treatment success by Regions. Treatments are grouped into three

categories: hillslope, channel, and road.

BAER Year 1 Year 3 Year 5

Treatment Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hillslope 69 60-80 82 74-87 90 85-94

Channel 74 57-80 83 74-88 89 84-93

Road 86 79-90 89 78-94 94 87-100
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 31

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. Most of the published reports were discussed in

the Literature Review section.

The type of information contained in the monitoring

reports varied widely. Quantitative reports on a single

treatment (e.g., seeding) tended to use different measurements (cover, density, biomass, sediment produced), making tabulation and comparison of the

results from different projects difficult. Treatments

were monitored at varying times after the fires, from

3 months to 12 years. Where “cover” was measured,

the category sometimes included only plants, sometimes litter, 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 included in the 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, watershed size, slope angle, and aspect of monitored sites

were frequently missing from data presentations and

narrative accounts. Most reports were prepared for

internal use, where these variables would be better

known to likely readers. However, the lack of descriptive site information made the results of monitoring

more difficult to interpret for this analysis.

A wealth of information was recorded in the monitoring reports. To capture the considerable but extremely 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. Most of the data collected

concerned ground cover production or erosion reduction by seeded species (32 reports), effectiveness of

contour-felled logs (5 reports) or straw bale check

dams (3 reports), and water quality parameters such

as turbidity (5 reports). Reports sometimes covered

more than one treatment. Only a few of the 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 documented some facet of hillslope or stream recovery after

fire, sometimes in areas that did not receive BAER

treatments.

Nonquantitative reports documented treatment effectiveness qualitatively or made rough visual estimates of success parameters, 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 reasons for success or failure 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 nonquantitative reports dealt with

seeding (54 reports), straw bale check dams (18),

contour-felled logs (15), or channel treatments (16).

Most reports covered more than one treatment. A

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

Region

Discipline Overall 1 23456

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 64.6

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 5.8 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
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

number of reports focused on salvage logging “best

management practices” evaluation but also mentioned

BAER treatments. Reports dated from 1962 through

1998.

Grass seeding (aerial or ground) was usually perceived as “effective” if: (1) it produced at least 30

percent cover by the end of the first growing season;

(2) seeded species comprised a significant amount of

the total plant cover at the end of the first growing

season; or (3) less sediment movement was measured

compared to an unseeded plot or watershed. Statistical significance of observed differences between seeded

and unseeded sites was seldom tested. In the first year

after fire, seeding was considered generally effective

in 9 of 16 quantitative monitoring reports (56 percent).

Second year effectiveness was similar (10 of 16 reports

or 62.5 percent). One 1978 rehabilitation review from

Region 3 collected data from 12 fires, ranging from 1 to

12 years after treatment. They found that seeding was

generally successful (produced cover) on forested sites

but not on chaparral sites (Taylor and others 1979).

The amount of cover produced by seeded grasses

during the first and second years after fire varied

widely (tables 14 and 15). Many of the monitoring

reports contained data on annual ryegrass and cereal

grains (rye, barley or oats), the species most in use in

recent years. More information was available from

California (Region 5) than any other area, most of it

from chaparral sites. Annual ryegrass and cereal grains

produced considerable cover in some cases. In others,

they did not appreciably increase plant cover or reduce

erosion, especially the first year after fire.

In the nonquantitative reports, seeding was judged

to be “effective” or successful the first year after fire in

22 of 28 cases (79 percent), generally based on the

presence or absence of grass, evidence of rilling, or

amount of cover compared to unseeded areas. Secondyear results were similar, with 11 of 14 cases (79

percent) considered successful. In some cases seeding

was considered “effective” in producing cover but probably not necessary, as natural vegetation regrowth

was abundant as well (Bitterroot National Forest

1997). In others it was given a mixed rating because

the seeded species persisted for many years or appeared to crowd out native vegetation (Isle 1988,

Loftin and others 1998). Sometimes seeding was judged

effective in one part of a project but not another

(Herman 1971, Liewer 1990, Ruby 1995, Story and

Kracht 1989). Loftin and others (1998; Region 3)

suggested that protection from grazing could be the

single most effective method for enhancing cover production by both seeded grasses and recovering native

vegetation.

Contour-felled logs were judged to be effective in all

5 documents in which some kind of data were reported.

Accumulation of sediment uphill of the barriers (Green

1990), lack of rilling in the treated area, or reduction

in sediment collected downhill compared to an untreated plot were considered “effective” outcomes. For

example, DeGraff (1982) measured “sediment trap

efficiency” (STE) at 0.7 on slopes of less than 35

percent on the Sierra National Forest, meaning that

70 percent of the length of a log, on average, had

accumulated sediment. Logs on steeper slopes exhibited an average STE of 0.57. Griffith (1989a) observed

1.5 t ac–1 (3.4 Mg ha–1) of sediment behind a silt fence

below a watershed treated with contour-felled logs,

compared to 10.7 t ac–1 (24.2 Mg ha–1) from an untreated watershed, during the first postfire year on the

Stanislaus National Forest. Both watersheds were

salvage-logged the following year, and sediment output increased to 10 t ac–1 (23 Mg ha–1) on the treated

and over 34 t ac–1 (77 Mg ha–1) on the untreated watershed. Several reports from the first few years after

the Foothills Fire (Boise National Forest) stated that

no significant amounts of sediment were produced

from any of several experimental watersheds treated

with contour-felled logs, whether or not they were

salvage-logged (e.g., Maloney and Thornton 1995).

The reports noted that the area experienced no major

thunderstorms until late summer 2 years after the

fire.

In nonquantitative reports, contour-felled logs were

considered effective in 11 of 13 cases (85 percent) in

which they were actually tested by storms. Several

reports pointed out that contour-felled logs are designed to reduce water flow energy and promote infiltration, not trap sediment, but they showed some

benefit as direct sediment traps and also enhanced

establishment of seeded grasses. Different terminology was sometimes used by different Regions in the

reports. The term “contour-felled log” was synonymous with “log erosion barrier” in most areas, but in

Region 3 contour-felling referred only to felling of

material, not anchoring and sealing it. There the

terms “log erosion barrier” or “log terracette” were

used for anchored logs. The nonanchored logs were not

considered a successful treatment.

Mulch was evaluated in two quantitative monitoring reports and found to be very effective. For example,

Faust (1998) collected only 0.8 t ac–1 (1.8 Mg ha–1) of

sediment below a slope mulched and seeded with oats,

compared to 5.8 t ac–1 (12.9 Mg ha–1) below a slope

seeded with oats alone.

Kidd and Rittenhouse (1997) rated mechanically

dug contour trenches as the “best” treatment in trapping sediment after the Eighth Street Fire, Boise

National Forest, Idaho. However they rated hand-dug

contour trenches as the “worst” treatment due to poor

construction (shallow depth) and layout (off contour).

These trenches often contributed to rilling. Mechanically constructed contour trenches worked better
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 33 Table 14

—Selected first-year seeded species cover, total plant cover, and soil loss measured in monitoring reports. Location and vegetation type as well as slope are

included. Seeded cover percentages include only those species that were seeded. Total cover percentages include all vegetation.

Cover

Location Vegetation Seeded Species Slope - - - - - Rate - - - - - Seeded Total - - -Soil Loss1- - - Source

(%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) - - - (%) - - - (T ac–1 ) (Mg ha–1

)

Cleveland NF, CA chaparral annual ryegrass 53 10 11 1 19 6.5 14.6 BlankenAguanga fire, 1984 annual ryegrass 56 20 22 2 24 12.5 28 baker and

annual ryegrass 58 40 45 1 18 14.0 31.4 others 1985

unseeded 56 0 0 0 20 6.8 15.2

Los Padres NF, CA chaparral annual ryegrass, lana vetch nd 7 8 49 63 nd nd Esplin & Shackelford 1980

Cachuma fire, 1977 chaparral missed strips nd trace 5 26 nd nd

San Bernardino Mts., CA chaparral annual ryegrass nd 8 9 <1 15 60 134 Tyrrel 1981

Panorama fire, 1980 chaparral annual ryegrass + fert. nd 16 18 <1 30 88 197

Blando brome nd 12 13 <5 45 72 161

Zorro fescue nd 10 11 <15 55 72 161

unseeded nd 0 0 70 21 47

Los Padres NF, CA chaparral Blando brome nd 3 3 52 82 nd nd Ducummon 1987

Las Pilitis fire, 1985 unseeded nd 0 0 56 nd nd

Tuolumne Canyon, CA chaparral Blando brome, Zorro >50 5 6 16 

± 7 41 

± 9 nd nd Janicki 1989

Stanislaus complex, 1987 fescue

Mendocino NF, CA chaparral cereal oats 35 nd nd ~ 4 24 2.6 5.8 Faust 1998

Forks Fire, 1996 unseeded 35 0 0 0 25 3.7 8.3

native mix + oats 38 nd nd ~ 6 38 2.8 6.3

native mix alone 40 nd nd nd 40 1.1 2.5

seed + mulch 35 nd nd nd 95 0.8 1.8

Tonto NF, AZ conifer/shrub weeping lovegrass nd nd nd 1 9 nd nd Ambos 1992

Dude fire, 1990 intense burn + others

conifer/shrub weeping lovegrass nd nd nd 8 33 nd nd

moderate burn + others

Cibola NF, NM ponderosa pine/ mix2 nd 45 s ft–2 484 s m–2 15 56 nd nd Taylor and others 1979

Galinas fire, 1976 pinyon-juniper

Santa Fe NF, NM ponderosa pine orchardgrass, hard nd 41 s ft–2 441 s m–2 0.8 9.4 nd nd Taylor and others 1979

Porter fire, 1976 fescue, timothy, alfalfa

same, reseeded in July 3 10.4 nd nd

Stanislaus NF, CA pine/oak; annual ryegrass 10-65 10 11 20 

± 8 29 

± 7 nd nd Janicki 1989

Stanislaus complex, 1987 mixed conifer

same unseeded 10-65 0 0 0 19 

± 5 nd nd

mixed conifer mix3 25-65 7.5 8 5 

± 6 21 

± 5 nd nd

(higher elev.)

(con.)
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 Table 14

—(Con.)

Cover

Location Vegetation Seeded Species Slope - - - - - Rate - - - - - Seeded Total - - -Soil Loss1- - - Source

(%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) - - - (%) - - - (T ac–1 ) (Mg ha–1

)

Stanislaus NF, CA conifer/meta- annual ryegrass nd 10 11 nd nd 3.6 8.1 Griffith 1989b

Stanislaus complex, 1987 sedimentary soil

same unseeded nd 0 0 nd nd 9.8 21.9

conifer/ annual ryegrass “poor nd 10 11 nd nd >8.3 18.6

grantic soil catch”

same annual ryegrass “good nd 10 11 nd nd >2.1 4.7

catch”

same annual ryegrass + nd 10 11 nd nd 1.0 2.2

needle cast

same unseeded nd 0 0 nd nd >8.4 18.8

NezPerce NF ID Douglas-fir cereal rye >60 nd nd 80 92 0.04 in 0.9 mm Green 1990

Green Cr. Pt. fire, 1988

NezPerce NF, ID ponderosa pine cereal rye + yellow 59 10 11 5.4 27.6 nd nd Cline and Brooks 1979

Cotter Bar II fire, 1977 sweetclover

cereal rye+clover + 59 10 + 45 11 + 50 2.6 27.4 nd nd

drilled urea

drilled urea 59 45 50 (2.5) 48.5 nd nd

untreated 59 0 0 (3.2) 27.6 nd nd

outside of cereal rye+clover + nd 10 + 45 11 + 50 13.6 62.9 nd nd

expmt. plots drilled urea

Stanislaus NF, CA mixed conifer cereal barley nd 73 82 2.8 t ac–1 3.3 t ac–1 nd nd Griffith 1991; 1993

Arch Rock fire, 1990 cereal barley nd 73 82 nd nd >1.3 >2.9

unseeded nd 0 0 nd nd 4.3 9.6

Eldorado NF, CA conifer/ cereal barley 52 nd nd nd 60.0 5.4 lb 2.4 kg Parsons and

granitic soil trough–1 trough–1 McDonald 1993

unseeded 50 0 0 nd 32.5 9.2 lb 4.2 kg

trough–1 trough–1

conifer/meta- cereal barley 38 nd nd nd 28.8 0.8 lb 0.4 kg

morphic soil trough–1 trough–1

unseeded 40 0 0 nd 3.6 lb 1.6 kg

trough–1 trough–1

Gila NF, NM mix conifer Regreen + others 40 nd nd 1-2 14 0 0 Souders 1997

HB fire, 1995 ponderosa pine Regreen + others 40 nd nd <1 2 0 0

1Values in table were averaged from individual plots in report in some cases. Statistical significance was not tested in these studies. Some values are minimums because silt fences over-topped

or failed during winter. One study just measured sediment loss with erosion pins, and another measured pounds of sediment in troughs with a 25 to 30 ft (7.7 to 9.1 m) contributing area. 2Hard fescue, sand dropseed, smooth brome, Russian wildrye, yellow sweetclover, black medic, weeping lovegrass.

3Timothy, harding grass, smooth brome, Blando brome.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 35 Table 15—Selected second-year seeded species cover, total plant cover, and soil loss measured in monitoring reports. Location and vegetation type as well as slope are included. Seeded cover percentages include only those species that were seeded. Total cover percentages include all vegetation. Cover Location Vegetation Seeded Species Slope - - - - - Rate - - - - - Seeded Total - - -Soil Loss1- - - Source (%) (lb ac–1 ) (kg ha–1 ) - - - (%) - - - (T ac–1 ) (Mg ha–1 ) Tonto NF, AZ chaparral weeping lovegrass, nd 39 s ft–2 433 s m–2 0 41 nd nd Taylor and others1979 Bob fire, 1975 annual ryegrass Prescott NF, AZ chaparral unseeded nd 0 0 38 Taylor and others1979 Mingus Rx fire, 1975 Los Padres NF, CA chaparral annual ryegrass nd 7 8 8 78 nd nd Esplin and Cachuma fire, 1977 missed strips nd trace trace 4 78 nd nd Shackleford1980 Mendocino NF, CA chaparral cereal oats 35 nd nd nd nd 0.7 1.6 Faust 1998 Forks fire, 1996 unseeded 35 0 0 nd nd 0.4 0.9 Tahoe NF, CA brush cereal barley 20-25 nd nd nd 22 8.4 18.8 Janicki 1992 Cotton fire, 1990 unseeded 20-25 0 0 nd 28 7.1 15.9 Stanislaus NF, CA conifer/meta- annual ryegrass nd 10 11 nd nd >1.9 >4.2 Griffith 1989a Stanislaus complex, 1987 sedimentary unseeded nd 0 0 nd 4.2 9.4 conifer/ annual ryegrass nd 10 11 nd nd >10.6 >23.7 granitic soil “poor catch” annual ryegrass nd 10 11 nd nd >5.0 >11.2 “good catch” unseeded nd 0 0 nd >1.3 >2.9 Stanislaus NF, CA conifer cereal barley nd 73 82 trace 7.1 T ac–1 nd nd Griffith 1991 Arch Rock fire, 1990 conifer – cereal barley nd 73 82 6.6 T ac–1 13 T ac–1 nd nd salvage logged Gila NF, NM mixed conifer Regreen + others 40 nd nd 5 17 gain Souders 1997 HB fire, 1995 ponderosa pine Regreen + others 40 nd nd 2-3 7 0.23 in 5.9 mm 1Values in table were averaged from individual plots in report in some cases. Statistical significance was not tested in these studies. Some values are minimums because silt fences over-topped or failed during winter. One study just measured sediment loss with erosion pins, and another measured pounds of sediment in troughs with a 25 to 30 ft (7.6 to 9.1 m) contributing area.
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

because of their greater depth, better layout on the

contour, and improved infiltration from deep ripping.

Straw bale check dams were judged to be effective in

11 of 16 qualitative reports (69 percent), based on

accumulation of sediment behind the structures and

structural integrity after first year storms. Failures

resulted from poor implementation or placement, or

from exceptionally large storms that exceeded dam

design.

Fites-Kaufman (1993) reported on the failure of

straw bale, log, and sandbag check dams after the

Cleveland Fire on the Eldorado National Forest, California. Thirty percent of straw bale check dams failed

from undercutting and blow outs compared to only 3

percent of log and sand bag check dams. Failures

occurred in narrow, steep drainages where only two

bales comprised the check dam. Downstream support

from rocks or logs reduced the failure rate. No estimates of the sediment trapping efficiency were made.

Niehoff (1995) noted that straw bale check dams had

mixed success after the Mary-Mix Fire, Clearwater

National Forest, Idaho in 1986. Straw bales placed in

low-to-moderately incised first and second order

channels were in place and functioning to stabilize

stream grade 1 and 9 years postfire. Straw bale check

dams placed in deeply incised drainages were completely blown out at the end of the first year.

Kidd and Rittenhouse (1997) reported that 800 straw

bale check dams installed in channels after the Eighth

Street Fire on the Boise National Forest, Idaho had a

99 percent structural integrity rate. Although these

structures were still being monitored, no estimates of

sediment trapping efficiency were available. On a

scale of “1” to “10”, straw bale check dams were rated

“9” in terms of their effectiveness. Observations of log

and rock check dams installed after the Cleveland

Fire on the Eldorado National Forest, California indicated that they were effective in trapping sediment

and held up well over time (Parsons 1994). No estimates of sediment storage were made. Other channel

treatments of various kinds were also regarded as

effective most of the time (13 of 17, or 76 percent of

evaluations). These included channel clearing, log sill

dams, and similar measures.

Road treatments (outsloping, trashracks at culverts,

armored crossings, etc.) were specifically evaluated

only in a few narrative reports. Herman (1971) noted

that immediately after the Entiat Fire, Wenatchee

National Forest, Washington trash racks were in

place and still functioning, but had collected only

small amounts of debris due to postfire removal of

woody material from channels. He believed that longterm maintenance of trash racks was necessary since

fire-killed trees would at some point begin contributing large amounts of woody debris into channels.

Boyd and others (1995) reported on the hydrologic

functioning of roads and their structures within the

Cleveland Fire, Cleveland National Forest, California

after a winter storm of 4+ in (100 mm) in 48 hours. An

oversized culvert put in place after the fire successfully processed large chunks of wood and rocks. A

nearby normal-sized culvert was repeated plugged

during the storm, resulting in numerous overflows

onto the road. Flanagan and Furniss (1997) described

the reduction in flow capacity by partial blockage.

During the same storm in which they examined culvert functioning, Boyd and others (1995) observed that

some correctly constructed postfire water bars did not

have sufficient rocks or slash to dissipate the energy of

higher surface runoff. The resulting concentration

and channelization of runoff produced additional small

gullies and one large, entrenched gully.

Road treatments were generally judged to be effective. Trip reports sometimes mentioned road treatment effectiveness incidental to evaluating other types

of treatments.

Treatment Effectiveness Ratings

Interviewees rated the effectiveness of treatments

used on specific fires with which they were familiar

(table 16). In-channel felling, slash spreading,

streambank armoring, trail work, rock gabion dams,

culvert inlet/outlet armoring, culvert overflow bypasses,

debris basins, culvert risers, outsloping roads, water

bars, storm patrol, and armored fords received two or

fewer evaluations per treatment and are not tabulated.

Treatments were rated across the spectrum from “excellent” to “poor,” but just over 76 percent of the effectiveness ratings were either “good” or “excellent.”

Hillslope Treatments—Hillslope treatments are

implemented to keep soil in place and comprise the

greatest effort in most BAER projects. Aerial seeding,

the most frequently used BAER treatment, was rated

about equally across the spectrum from “excellent” to

“poor.” The rating for contour-felled logs was “excellent” or “good” in 66 percent of the evaluations. Mulching was rated “excellent” about the same amount

(67 percent), and nobody considered it a “poor” treatment. Nearly 82 percent of the evaluations placed

ground seeding effectiveness in the “good” category.

There was a 100 percent concurrence that silt fences

were “excellent” or “good” as a BAER treatment. Evaluations of seeding plus fertilizer covered the spectrum

from “excellent” to “poor,” although most responses

were “fair” or “poor.” The remainder of the hillslope

treatments, received only three evaluations each, so it

is difficult to come up with conclusions beyond the fact

that they were generally rated “excellent,” “good,” or

“fair” and none were evaluated as being “poor.”
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 37

BAER spending on hillslope treatments was compared. 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 period. Clearly these two treatments were the most

popular. In the 1970’s, 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 Forest) spent the most ($18.7 million) on contour-felling

treatments, while Region 5 spent the most on aerial

seeding ($8.5 million) (fig. 18). Region 6 spent the most

on seeding plus fertilizer and ground seeding.

There were enough evaluations of aerial seeding and

contour-felled logs to assess effectiveness by Region

for these treatments (table 17). A majority of interviewees 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 logs, a majority of interviewees in

Regions 1, 3, 4, and 5 believed that its effectiveness

was “excellent” or “good.” Region 2 evaluations were

evenly split between “good” and “poor.” Region 6 evaluations of contour-felled logs were evenly balanced.

Table 16—BAER treatment effectiveness ratings from individual fires as provided by interviewees. Total

responses are listed as percentages in four classes. Only treatments which received three or more

evaluations are included.

Hillslope Treatment Number Excellent Good Fair 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

Straw 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 Wattle 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

Comparison of unit costs for contour-felled logs

(fig. 19) and aerial seeding (fig. 20) shows that aerial

seeding was considerably less expensive per unit area.

Contour-felling had a wide range of costs due to terrain, access, and whether contract or FS labor was

used. Region 5 had an average cost of about $450 ac–1

($1,100 ha–1) (adjusted to 1999 dollars). Regions 4 and

6 costs averaged $260 ac–1 ($640 ha–1). Region 1 costs

averaged $165 ac–1 ($410 ha–1), Region 3 costs were

$78 ac–1 ($193 ha–1), Region 2 only used contour-felled

logs four times. Some low unit costs for contour-felled

logs were probably due to low density or linear feet per

area of logs. The high unit costs were often due to

difficult terrain and expensive crew costs.

Aerial seeding costs ranged from $4 to $115 ac–1

($10 to 284 ha–1) (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 5

used aerial seeding for 65 fires, whereas Region 2 used

aerial seeding for 16 fires.

Channel Treatments—Effectiveness ratings for

straw bale check dams and log grade stabilizers ranged

relatively evenly from “excellent” to “poor” (table 16).

While most interviewees (71 percent) thought that

channel debris clearing effectiveness fell into the “good”

category, 29 percent rated it “poor.” Log dams and
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Figure 18—BAER spending on the five most expensive hillslope

treatments by Region in 1999 dollars.

straw wattle dams were rated “excellent” or “good” in

effectiveness, and better than rock grade stabilizers.

No one considered the effectiveness of these BAER

treatments to be “poor.”

BAER spending on debris basins, straw bale check

dams, and channel debris clearing was about three

times greater than spending on the other channel

treatments (fig. 21). When comparing the change in

use over the past three decades, straw bale check dams

were extensively used only in the 1990’s. BAER spending on debris basins was non-existent in the 1970’s,

and doubled each decade from the 1980’s to the 1990’s

(debris basins were in use in the 1970’s but funding

came from sources other than the Forest Service or

postfire emergency treatments). These treatments

were generally installed in channels to protect downstream urban areas in California. Interestingly, spending on channel debris clearing decreased five-fold

during the last 30 years, as the value of instream

debris was realized.

Figure 17—BAER spending on hillslope treatments by decade in 1999 dollars. Treatments are ordered

by decreased spending.

contour felling

seeding - aerial

seeding and fertilizer

mulching

seeding - ground

geotextile fabrics/ geowebbing

contour trenching

temporary fencing/ cattle exclusion

straw wattles

tilling/ripping

slash spreading

sand, soil, or gravel bags

silt fence

70's

80's

90's

21.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BAER SPENDING

(1999 $)

Millions

HILLSLOPE TREATMENT

18.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

contour

felling

seeding -

aerial

seeding

and

fertilizer

mulching

Millions

HILLSLOPE TREATMENTS BY REGION

BAER SPENDING (1999 $) 

12 456 3 12 456 3 12 456 3 12 456 3 12 456 3

seeding -

ground
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 39

Table 17—Effectiveness ratings for aerial seeding and contour-felling effectiveness as provided by interviewees,

sorted by Region. Percentages of total replies in each rating class are shown.

No. of

BAER Hillslope Treatment Region Replies Excellent Good Fair Poor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Aerial Seeding 1 8 62.5 12.5 12.5 12.5

2 6 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3

3 16 6.3 18.7 37.5 37.5

4 11 63.6 18.2 0.0 18.2

5 32 3.0 34.4 43.8 18.8

6 10 40.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

Contour Felling 1 9 44.4 44.4 11.2 0.0

2 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0

3 6 50.0 16.7 16.7 16.6

4 4 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0

5 6 16.7 50.0 0.0 33.3

6 8 12.5 25.0 37.5 25.0

n=9

n=5

n=14

n=9

n=9 n=21

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

123456

REGION

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COST (1999 $ ac-1) 

COST (1999 $ ha-1) 

n=29

n=29

n=17

n=66

n=16

n=28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

123456

REGION

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

COST (1999 $ ac-1) 

COST (1999 $ ha-1) 

Figure 19—Cost per area for BAER spending on contour-felled

logs by Region in 1999 dollars. Mean unit cost with range for

each region is shown.

Figure 20—Cost per area for BAER spending on aerial seeding

by Region in 1999 dollars. Mean unit cost with range for each

region is shown.

Region 5 spent the most on debris basins (1990’s)

and channel debris clearing (1970’s) (fig. 22). Straw

bale check dams were used mostly by Regions 4, 5 and

6. There were far fewer interviewee comments recorded in our database for channel treatments (38)

than for hillslope treatments (168), indicating a lower

frequency of use in BAER projects.

Road and Trail Treatments—Only two road treatments, culvert upgrading and trash racks, received more

than three effectiveness evaluations. The responses covered the range from “excellent” to “poor,” although threequarters of the interviewees rated culvert upgrading

“excellent” or “good” in effectiveness (table 16).

Interviewees were evenly split on their assessment of

trash racks as “excellent,” “fair,” or “poor.”

BAER spending on armored ford crossings was

three times greater than for any other road treatment. This was due to the extensive use of armored

crossing on the 1994 Tyee Fire, Wenachee National

Forest in Washington (fig. 23). Culvert upgrades,

ditch maintenance/cleaning and armoring, road ripping, drainage improvement and stabilization, and

trail work accounted for the majority of funds spent.

In the 1990’s, more funds were spent on ditch maintenance than during the other two decades combined

(adjusted to 1999 dollars). Spending on most other

road treatments increased during the 1980’s and

again in the 1990’s. Region 5 spent more on road

treatments, other than armored ford crossing, than

other regions (fig. 24). Region 4 invested the most on

ditch cleaning and armoring.

Treatment Rankings

The composition of interviewees was examined to

see if different disciplines would rank treatment
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Figure 21—BAER spending on channel treatment by decade in 1999 dollars. Treatments are ordered by

decreased spending.

Figure 22—BAER spending on the five most expensive channel treatments

by Region in 1999 dollars.

straw bale check dams

debris basins

channel debris clearing

stream bank/channel armoring

log dams

rock cage (gabion) dams

log grade stabilizers

in-channel felling

rock grade stabilizers

stacked straw wattle dams

70's

80's

90's

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

BAER SPENDING

(1999 $)

Millions

CHANNEL TREATMENTS

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

debris basins straw bale

check dams

channel

debris

clearing

stream

bank/channel

armoring

log dams

Millions

CHANNEL TREATMENTS BY REGION

BAER SPENDING (1999 $)

2.2 1.8

1 23456 1 23456 1 23456 1 23456 1 23456
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 41

armored ford crossing

culvert upgrading

ditch - cleaning, armoring

road rip, drain, and stabilize

rolling dips/water bars/cross drain

trash racks

outsloping road

storm patrol

culvert inlet/outlet armoring

culvert removal

trail work

other

70's

80's

90's

3.7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

BAER SPENDING

(1999 $) 

Millions

ROAD TREATMENTS

Figure 23—BAER spending on road and trail treatments by decade in 1999 dollars. Treatments are

ordered by decreased spending except for trail work and other treatment that were not categorized.

Figure 24—BAER spending on the five most expensive road and trail

treatments by Region in 1999 dollars.

3.7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

armored ford

crossing

culvert

upgrading

ditch - cleaning,

armoring

road rip, drain,

and stabilize

rolling dips/water

bars/cross drain

Millions

ROAD TREATMENTS BY REGION

BAER SPENDING (1999 $)

12 456 3 12 456 3 12 456 3 12 456 3 12 456 3
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

preferences differently. There was no difference in

rankings from all interviewees (n = 105) compared to

those of soil scientists (n = 29) or hydrologists (n =

21), who accounted for the majority of interviewees;

therefore, rankings were not stratified by discipline.

Interviewees did not name over- or underused treatments on every fire.

The overall rankings show that hillslope treatments are preferred methods for controlling erosion

and runoff after fire, comprising five of the top 10

ranked treatments (fig. 25). Contour-felled logs and

seeding had scores twice or more as high than any

other treatment. These rankings are reflected in spending on these methods (fig. 17). Road treatments were

next in overall preference, and only one channel

treatment was highly ranked.

Aerial seeding had the highest ranking among

hillslope treatments, followed by contour-felled logs,

slash spreading, mulch, and temporary fencing. Other

treatments received relatively low scores. The high

rank for seeding is not surprising considering its high

level of use (fig. 26). On the other hand, aerial seeding

was listed as the most overused treatment by far, with

ground seeding second (table 18). Seeding also garnered a few votes as underused, and it was most often

mentioned (three times) as a treatment that should

have been used on no-action fires. These seemingly

contradictory results reflect the wide differences in

opinion about seeding’s effectiveness (table 17) and

the on-going controversies surrounding the use of

grass seeding as a rehabilitation treatment.

Figure 25—Cumulative ranking of treatment effectiveness for

all treatments combined. Cumulative rankings are taken from

interviewees ranking of their top three treatment preferences.

The top 14 treatment preferences are shown out of a total of 26

treatments.

Figure 26—Cumulative ranking of treatment effectiveness for

hillslope treatments. Cumulative rankings are taken from

interviewees ranking of their top three treatment preferences.

The top 10 preferences are shown out of a total of 16

treatments.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

contour felling

seeding

culvert upgrading

slash spreading

mulching

temporary fencing

rolling dips/water bars/cross drain

storm patrol

straw bale check dams

other

culvert risers/armoring

culvert removal

straw wattles

outsloping road

ALL BAER TREATMENTS

CUMULATIVE RANKING

(Points)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

seeding

contour felling

slash spreading

mulching

temporary fencing

straw wattles

contour trenching

tilling/ripping

other

geotextiles

HILLSLOPE TREATMENTS

CUMULATIVE RANKING

(Points)

Contour-felled logs, the second highest ranked

hillslope treatment, was also rated the most often

underused treatment on project fires and second most

on no-action fires. This treatment received the highest

overall ranking (fig. 26), barely beating seeding, a

trend reflected in its increasing popularity in recent

years (fig. 17). However, it was listed as overused twice

and, like seeding, received mixed ratings on effectiveness (table 17).

Among channel treatments, straw bale check dams

received the highest ranking, followed by log grade

stabilizers, rock grade stabilizers, channel clearing,

bank and channel armoring, and in-channel felling

(fig. 27). Straw bale check dams ranked ninth in

overall preference, the only channel method falling

within the top 10 (fig. 25). On the other hand, straw

bale check dams were listed as overused twice, more

than any other channel treatment, and were not listed

as underused at all (table 18).

Rolling dips or water bars and culvert upgrading

were by far the most preferred road treatments, with

storm patrol next and other methods ranking lower

(fig. 28). No road treatments were named as overused,

but culvert upgrading was mentioned often as a treatment that should have been used on both project

(second highest) and no-action (third highest) fires

(table 18). It was the third highest ranked treatment

overall. Storm patrol ranked eighth overall and was

mentioned twice as a treatment that should have

been used on no-action fires.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 43

Table 18—Underused treatment on no action fires, underused treatment on BAER project fires, and overused

treatments on BAER project fires from interviewees.

Underused Underused Overused

Treatment No Action Fires BAER Project Fires BAER Project Fires

Seeding, ground 1 3

Contour-felling 2 8 2

Straw bale checkdams 2

Seeding, aerial 3 1 10

Debris basins 1 1 1

Silt fence 2 1

Tilling/ripping 1 1

Geotextile fabrics 1 1

Stream bank/channel armoring 1

Seeding plus fertilizer 1

Culvert upgrading 2 4

Storm patrol 2

Mulching 1 4

Cross drain ditches 2 1

Exclusion 1

Channel debris clearing 1

Outsloping road 1

Log dams 1

Log grade stabilizers 1

Ditch maintenance-cleaning, armoring 1

Straw wattles 1

Sand, soil, or gravel bags 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

straw bale check dams

log grade stabilizers

rock grade stabilizers

channel debris clearing

stream bank/channel armoring

in-channel felling

log dams

debris basins

straw wattle dams

rock cage (gabion) dams

CHANNEL TREATMENTS

CUMULATIVE RANKING

(Points)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

rolling dips/water bars/cross drain

culvert upgrading

storm patrol

culvert inlet/outlet armoring/risers

trash racks

culvert removal

ditch - cleaning, armoring

armored ford crossing

outsloping road

other

ROAD TREATMENTS

CUMULATIVE RANKING

(Points)

Figure 28—Cumulative ranking of treatment effectiveness for

road treatments. Cumulative rankings are taken from

interviewees ranking of their top three treatment preferences.

The top 10 preferences are shown out of a total of 15 treatments.

Figure 27—Cumulative ranking of treatment effectiveness for

channel treatments. Cumulative rankings are taken from

interviewees ranking of their top three treatment preferences.

Rankings of all preferences are shown.
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Discussion _____________________

The BAER evaluation process provides a means to

assess the postfire emergency and identify appropriate treatments. Although our original intent was to

evaluate treatment effectiveness, our efforts to compile information on individual fires produced a large

database of information on the BAER assessment

process itself. Treatment effectiveness depends in

part upon appropriate treatment selection, and that

depends on accurately identifying the emergency condition. Our interviews revealed that some treatments

are overused and others could be applied more often.

We discuss the implications of our findings from review of BAER assessments, then evaluate treatment

methods.

BAER Assessments

Total BAER expenditures during the last three

decades (adjusted to 1999 dollars) were greater than

$83 million, with over 60 percent occurring in the

1990’s. This was due to several large fires, their

proximity to urban/wildland interface, and increased

values at risk, promoting greater protection. During

the last three decades, over 3.8 million ac (1.5 million

ha) of Forest Service land were burned. Of that, high

severity burned areas has increased from 195,000 ac

(79,000 ha) in the 1970’s to over 655,000 ac (265,000

ha) in the 1990’s. Flooding and sedimentation risk is

greater from areas with high severity burns. Thus

more money has been spent to try to reduce the threat

to downstream values. Most of the increase in spending in the 1990’s was due to high profile fires that

threatened urban areas (table 9).

BAER teams assign erosion hazard ratings to various portions of a burned area based on local geology,

soil type, topography, burn severity, expected storm

duration and intensity, and local experience with

postfire conditions. Improvements in erosion hazard

rating could be accomplished by better fire severity

mapping with infrared flights and satellite imagery

after the fire (Lachowski and others 1997). These

methods, though still in development, have shown

promise for providing better burn area-wide severity

assessment. Methods used to calculate erosion potential and sediment yields were not consistent, and in

some cases the estimates made could be considered

unreasonable. For example, erosion rates of 1000 t ac–1

(2200 Mg ha–1) and sediment yields of 0.1 million

yd3 mi–2 (0.03 million m3 km–2) were projected on

several fires. Considering that our review of published

literature found reported erosion rates no higher than

165 t ac–1 (370 mg ha–1) even from steep chaparral

slopes (Hendricks and Johnson 1944). This suggests

that assumptions about erosion potential used for

those calculations are inaccurate. Uncritical review of

the erosion potential estimates by the BAER team

leaders must also have occurred. Refinement of the

calculation methods and better training on how to do

these calculations appears warranted.

Most BAER treatments were designed for a 10-year

or 25-year return interval event indicating that treatments were designed for major storm events. Thus,

the tolerance for high peakflows and excess sediment

was low. Design storm estimated peakflow changes

were not well correlated with infiltration reduction

(fig. 15). A 10 percent reduction in infiltration is not

likely to cause a 10,000 percent or great increase in

peakflows. It is more realistic to expect that magnitude of increase from infiltration reduction of 80 to

100 percent. From our literature review, actual increases in peakflows due to wildfires can range over

3 to 4 orders of magnitude (Anderson and others 1976,

Glendening and others 1961). Hibbart (1971) reported

a 9,600 percent increase in peakflows in chaparral

after a severe wildfire. Although high peakflow increases occur due to infiltration reduction and water

repellent soil conditions in some forest types, design

storm peakflow estimation techniques need to be refined and better documented to reflect the realities of

watershed response to severe wildfire.

According to the Burned Area Reports we collected,

water repellent soil conditions are more widespread

after fire than previously reported (fig. 13; DeBano

and others 1998). Existing research suggests that

water repellency is usually found on coarse-textured

soils, especially under chaparral or other vegetation

with high levels of volatile organic compounds in the

litter (DeBano and others 1979b, DeBano and others

1998). Our dataset included reports of water repellent

conditions across all soil and vegetation types. Unfortunately, the information given on the Burned Area

Reports did not allow us to analyze what methods were

used to determine soil water repellent conditions (thus

assessing the accuracy of the estimates) or how extensive the sampling was for the water repellent area

determinations. These results identify a need for additional research on the extent and severity of water

repellent soil conditions and its affect on infiltration

after wildfire in the Western United States.

Quantifying the watershed degradation threat is

difficult. Threats to life and property, water quality,

and soil productivity were the main reasons given for

proposing BAER treatments. The more urban Forest

Service Regions listed threats to property as a reason

for BAER treatment 50 percent of the time. As development in foothill areas increases, the need to treat

burned areas to reduce the risk to property and life will

likely increase as well. The role of flood plains during

flood and debris flows needs to be emphasized.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 45

Water quality issues include effects on aquatic habitat, sedimentation in channels and reservoirs, and

effects on drinking water. Several monitoring studies

found impacts to aquatic ecosystems that occurred in

the first year after the fire or in the first major

storm. Increases in stream turbidity with high rainfall were documented in Regions 1 and 6 (Amaranthus

1990, McCammon 1980, Story 1994). Large flood and

debris flow events cleared streams of fish after the

1984 North Hills fire, Helena National Forest, Montana (Schultz and others 1986) and the 1990 Dude

fire, Tonto National Forest, Arizona (Rinne 1996). In

both cases the populations of at least some species

recovered surprisingly quickly, however. Threats to

developed water sources can be quantified relatively

easily, because managers know how much it would

cost to treat turbid water or remove sediment from a

reservoir.

It is difficult to assess the potential for loss of soil

productivity after fire, because there is no easy way of

calculating a long-term productivity decline resulting

from the loss of soil material or nutrients. This is

particularly the case where there are not obvious

losses of large amounts of organic matter and mineral

soil. Depending on fire severity, soil productivity

changes can be either beneficial or deleterious. Shortterm increases in plant productivity can occur from

soil changes such as the mineralization of nutrients

tied up in organic matter (DeBano and others 1998,

Neary and others 1999). Predicting productivity

changes for long rotation forest stands is difficult,

however, because of the many interacting factors which

affect long-term productivity and the lack of adequate

information to make long-range predictions (Powers

and others 1990).

Site productivity changes can be long-term or temporary. If a fire is within the natural range of variation

for an ecosystem, productivity changes should be shortterm and acceptable since fire is a natural component

in many ecosystems. If a fire is outside of the natural

range of variation and intensity, particularly due to

human interference with forest ecosystems, long-term

soil productivity is more likely to be at risk.

Various methods have been used in the BAER process to estimate the cost of potential changes in soil

productivity after fire. For example, the value of soil

loss has been based on estimated site index changes

due to the fire and the consequent potential loss in

harvestable timber during the next regeneration cycle,

or based on the cost of replacement top soil if purchased commercially. Most Burned Area Reports did

not state how loss estimates were made. Methods that

consider only the value of harvestable timber may

underestimate the consequences of site productivity

loss to other ecosystem components.

Instead of trying to justify BAER treatments by

estimating some future loss in site productivity values (merchantable timber), a better approach would

be to identify situations where future productivity is

potentially threatened by the loss of large amounts of

above ground organic matter in severe fires (Neary

and others 1999) or losses of surface soil horizons

(DeBano and others 1998). While both affect longterm productivity, only the latter can be affected in

the short-term by BAER treatments. Until better

methods can be developed to estimate long-term

changes in productivity after wildfires, the professional judgment of soil scientists is the best tool for

determining the need for treatments to mitigate soil

productivity losses.

Probability of success stated in the BAER reports

was always high (average 69 percent for hillslope

treatments, 74 percent for a channel treatments, and

86 percent for road treatments the first year after fire;

table 12). BAER teams are apparently very enthusiastic and optimistic that the BAER goals can be met and

that the implemented treatments will work—a “can

do” attitude, similar to that in fire fighting, prevails.

This result should be expected, because only known

effective treatments are supposed to be used for emergency watershed rehabilitation (USDA Forest Service

1995).

Results of our interviews suggest that these probabilities may be overestimated for some treatments.

For example, only 52 percent of interviewees felt that

aerial seeding, the most extensively used hillslope

treatment was “good” or “excellent” in effectiveness

(a reasonable definition of success), and only 56

percent of quantitative monitoring reports considered seeding effective the first year after fire. On the

other hand, 79 percent of the nonquantitative reports

considered it successful, justifying the high probability of success. Other treatments fared better in the

effectiveness ratings. “Good” or “excellent” ratings

were given to about 66 percent of contour-felled log

projects, 83 percent of mulch projects, and a whopping

91 percent of ground seeding efforts. Monitoring reports also found contour-felled logs to be successful

most of the time. These subjective results suggest that

probability of success may be overstated for aerial

seeding in many reports, but may be more realistic for

other hillslope treatments. However, seeding is the

only method for which a significant amount of postfire research has been conducted (discussed further

below). For other hillslope methods, hard data to

evaluate effectiveness—and thus the probability of

success—are scarce.

Among channel treatments, “good” or “excellent”

ratings were given to 60 percent of straw bale check

dam and log grade stabilizer projects, while channel
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

debris clearing was closer to the Burned Area Report

average with 71 percent. On the other hand, 69 percent of monitoring reports on straw bale check dams

were favorable. For major channel treatments, BAER

teams appear to be making fairly reasonable projections of success. Too few road treatments were rated

for effectiveness or evaluated in monitoring or research reports to evaluate the reliability of success

projections for those treatments.

Not only were BAER treatments expected to be

successful, they were projected to save million of

dollars in damages. For every $1 spent on treatments,

$10 to $200 in losses was proposed to be saved (fig. 16).

These estimates were made with very few data to

verify the effectiveness of most BAER treatments.

Based on our results, projected benefits from aerial

seeding may need to be adjusted downward to reflect

lower realistic probabilities of first-year success.

Sullivan and others (1987) suggested that a high

probability of success is required for a treatment to be

economically cost effective.

As the cost of action or no action alternatives are

based on professional judgment and past experience,

they are very approximate. It might be better to use

these estimates to rank treatment options. They do

not provide real dollar values of what might happen,

suggesting that an alternative ranking system might

be preferable to compare treatment alternatives

and no treatment options. Ranking could be based

on actual damages that occurred in nearby similar

watersheds.

BAER teams contained soil scientists and hydrologists most of the time, with a wide range of other

disciplines represented as needed on particular fires.

Although wildlife biologists were often on teams, ecologists were included relatively infrequently except in

Region 4 (table 13). Many monitoring reports and

interviewees identified a need for better information

on the ecosystem impacts of fire and vegetation recovery potential (discussed further below) when evaluating the necessity for emergency treatments. In many

cases, natural revegetation of burned areas occurred

more quickly than expected. Including ecologists and

botanists on BAER teams more frequently might help

to better assess natural recovery potential.

BAER Project Monitoring

Monitoring of BAER projects has been done for a

wide variety of reasons. Consequently, there was no

standard format or content to the monitoring documents we collected. The most common type was a

memo reporting on a trip to visually assess the results

of BAER treatments or natural recovery after fire.

These reports provided qualitative evaluations of

treatment effectiveness and watershed condition,

but relatively few quantitative data. Until 1998, there

was no funding specifically available for postimplementation monitoring of BAER treatments. Any monitoring had to be done out of Forest Service appropriated funds. Thus the trip reports were probably all

that could be squeezed into the normal plan of work on

busy National Forests.

Most of the reports fell into the categories of “implementation” or “effectiveness” monitoring. They assessed whether treatments, especially structures such

as straw bale check dams or contour-felled logs, were

properly installed and operating as designed. In the

case of structures, accumulation of sediment behind

the barrier, structural integrity after the first winter,

and lack of flooding or sedimentation problems downstream were generally regarded as indications of treatment success. Seeding operations were regarded as

successful if the seeded species were observed to be

growing well. Most monitoring was done a few months

to 1 or 2 years after a fire. Only a few National Forests

monitored projects lasted longer than that. The impacts of treatment on the emergency condition can be

evaluated in this time period, but the ecosystems

impacts of treatments, especially of seeding on native

plant recovery, may not be adequately assessed.

Where quantitative data were collected, details other

than the variables being measured were often omitted

from reports (which were generally intended for internal use). For monitoring results to be informative for

others with similar soils or vegetation types, details

such as soil type and texture, slope angle, aspect,

watershed or analysis area size, fire severity indicators, and other variables should be included in reports.

Where treated areas are compared to untreated areas,

it is especially important to know how comparable the

sites are in other physical and biological attributes.

These data are relatively easy to collect in most cases.

Quantitative reports also often noted that measurements were made in “typical” areas, with no intention

of providing statistical sufficiency. Some description

of how “typical” was determined or how representative

the sample plots were of the overall fire area would

make the results more useful to future investigators,

both on and off the specific National Forest. The low

number of samples taken in most efforts may have

resulted in overstatement of treatment impacts (as

either effective or ineffective), because inherent site

variability is not captured in the results. With greater

funding available for monitoring, this limitation may

be alleviated in the future.

Quantitative monitoring efforts were generally restricted to very small areas of a fire, while the qualitative trip reports analyzed a much larger proportion of

the burned area in less detail. Both kinds of reports

have obvious value for assessing the results of BAER

projects. We found few cases where both kinds of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 47

monitoring were done on a given fire. This may be a

result of the incompleteness of our record, or it could

reflect the fact that National Forests could afford to do

one or the other kind of monitoring, but not both. The

interests of the personnel charged with monitoring

may also have determined the type of monitoring that

was done.

Because BAER treatments are generally designed

to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and flooding, the

most valuable assessments of treatment effectiveness

would be those that actually quantify sediment movement and water yield. Relatively few reports measured sediment movement, and virtually none tried to

quantify water yield. Methods used for measuring

sediment movement ranged from erosion bridges,

which measure change in the distance to ground

surface from a fixed suspended bar, to height of erosion pedestals left after sediment movement occurred,

to sediment traps such as troughs and silt fences

installed below hillsides or in small swales. Erosion

bridge results generally proved difficult to evaluate,

because sediment was as likely to be deposited on a

spot (eroded from above) as removed. Pedestal measurement was considered to overstate erosion, because it is measured only in places where sediment

loss has obviously occurred and cannot easily be generalized to a larger area. Traps and silt fences provided the most informative results, although their

tendency to overtop made many measurements minimum estimates rather than actual quantities. In addition, it is difficult to determine the size of the area

actually contributing to a trap or fence. If fixed area

plots above a trap are used, the plot boundaries may

affect sediment movement. Most reports using these

methods did not tell how contributing area was determined for the “tons per acre” sediment output

calculation.

Because monitoring results can become the basis for

future management decisions, it is critical that monitoring efforts and reports be as scientifically credible

as possible. Whether defending a decision to seed or

explaining why a flood occurred despite BAER treatments, Forests need to be able to support their work

with good data from their own and other Forests’

monitoring efforts. There is little published research

on most BAER treatments. With the limitations of

monitoring reports mentioned above, we did not feel

that we could evaluate the validity of most reports, let

alone generalize the results of monitoring done on one

Forest to another area. There is a critical need for more

and better monitoring of BAER treatments (discussed

further in the Recommendations section).

Most monitoring focused on the most expensive

(stream channel treatments, contour-felled logs), widespread (seeding), or controversial (seeding) treatment

applied after a fire. The results from these efforts are

incorporated into our discussions of specific treatment

effectiveness.

Treatment Effectiveness

The basis for the BAER program is whether treatments effectively ameliorate postfire emergency conditions without compromising ecosystem recovery.

For many treatment methods, effectiveness could only

be determined qualitatively. From our interviews and

the monitoring reports, it became apparent that treatment success often depended on appropriate implementation (see appendix B) and cooperative postfire

weather. Quantitative data on effectiveness were available for relatively few treatments. We were able to

analyze hillslope treatments in more detail than channel or road treatments.

Hillslope Treatments—Increasing infiltration of

rain water and preventing soil from leaving the hillslope

are considered the most effective methods to slow

runoff, reduce flood peaks, retain site productivity,

and reduce downstream sedimentation. Mulching and

geotextiles were rated the most effective hillslope

treatments by our interviewees, because they provide

immediate ground cover to reduce raindrop impact

and hold soil in place. Postfire research and monitoring reports showed dramatic decreases in sediment

movement where mulch was applied (Bautista and

others 1996, Faust 1998). However, both methods are

relatively costly and are difficult or impossible to

install in remote locations (appendix B). Mulch is most

useful near roads or in critical areas at the tops of

slopes. Geotextiles are generally applied to small areas, such as road cuts and fills. Aerial seeding and

contour-felled logs are the two most common hillslope

treatments. Their effectiveness in reducing erosion

had mixed reviews from the published literature,

monitoring reports, and interview results, even though

the Forest Service spent over $25 million in the last

three decades on each treatment.

Little contour-felling was implemented in the 1970’s,

and only $4 million was spent in the 1980’s. Since

then, however, contour-felled logs have gained in

popularity as a hillslope treatment. Most interviewees

thought the effectiveness was good or excellent. Monitoring studies did not evaluate runoff, infiltration, or

sediment movement changes due to the contour-felled

logs; they only reported sediment storage. Monitoring studies indicated that contour-felling could be

about 60 percent efficient (DeGraff 1982) and could

reduce downslope sedimentation by about 40 to 60 percent (Griffith 1989a). Maximum trapped sediment of

6.7 yd3

 ac

–1 (13 m3

 ha–1) or about 6.8 t ac–1 (17 Mg ha–1)

by contour-felled logs was reported by Miles and

others (1989). McCammon and Hughes (1980), on the

other hand, estimated storage at about 72 yd3 ac

–1
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

(135 m3 ha–1), using a high density of logs. If first-year

annual erosion rates vary from 0.004 to 150 t ac–1

(0.01 to 370 Mg ha–1), then they could trap 5 to 47

percent of 150 t ac–1 (370 Mg ha–1) of sediment,

depending on the density of the logs. Beyond that they

would not be cost effective from a sediment-holding

capacity analysis. This wide range of effectiveness

indicates the need of proper estimation techniques of

the erosion potential, and for properly designing contour-felled log installations in terms of log numbers

and spacing. For example, if you can trap 60 percent or

greater then they are probably cost effective, but if you

are only trapping 5 or 10 percent of the expected

sediment production, then it may not be worth the

effort for such small amount of sediment storage

ability. Contour-felled logs do provide immediate benefits after installation, in that they trap sediment

during the first postfire year, which usually has the

highest erosion rates.

The ability of this treatment to reduce runoff,

rilling, increase infiltration and decrease downstream

time to peak (slowing velocities) has not been documented, even though these are reasons often given

for doing contour felling. If contour-felled logs slow or

eliminate runoff, sediment movement may not occur.

Therefore, measuring sediment accumulation behind

the logs may not be the best method for assessing

their effectiveness. Quantifying sediment and water

output from a watershed are the best ways to truly

evaluate the effectiveness of contour-felled logs, but

this kind of research and monitoring is expensive and

difficult to do.

Contour-felled logs will channel flow if not installed

correctly on the contour with good ground contact. Therefore, proper training, contract inspections, and close monitoring during installation are critical to success, as was

repeatedly pointed out by interviewees (appendix B).

Grass seeding is the most widely used and best

studied BAER treatment. Our interviewees ranked

seeding second highest in overall treatment preference, despite giving it mixed reviews for effectiveness

and citing it as overused more often than any other

treatment. Expenditures for seeding declined somewhat in recent years (fig. 17). However, seeding remains the only method available to treat large areas at

a reasonably low cost per acre.

How likely is seeding to increase plant cover or

reduce erosion, in either the first growing season or

later? We tabulated results from published studies (in

tables 6 and 7) to determine rough probabilities of

seeding “success” in the first and second years after

fire (table 19). Only studies that evaluated comparable seeded and unseeded plots were included. Distinct research sites within a single paper were treated

as unique “studies” for this comparison. Because few

researchers measured erosion, we used vegetation

cover as an indicator of potential erosion control effectiveness. Previous work found that 60 percent ground

cover reduced sediment movement to negligible

amounts, and 30 percent cover reduced erosion by

about half compared to bare ground (Noble 1965, Orr

1970). We used these levels as indicators of effective or

partly effective watershed protection, respectively,

from seeded and/or natural vegetation.

Table 19—Numbers of published studies reporting measures of seeding “success” by native vegetation type during the first 2 years following fire.

Pubs. Showing Those Showing % of Pubs. Showing % of Pubs. Showing Pubs. Showing Those Showing

Cover Measure- Seeding Increased >30 % Cover >60 % Cover Erosion Measure- Seeding Reduced

ments1 Cover Seeded Unseeded Seeded Unseeded ments Erosion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. - - - - - - - - - - - -

Postfire Year One

Chaparral

10 4 50 50 30 20 7 1

Conifer

9 5 33 0 22 0 1 0

Combined

19 9 42 26 26 10.5 8 1

Postfire Year Two

Chaparral

7 2 86 86 86 43 6 1

Conifer

11 6 73 55 36 0 3 1

Combined

18 8 78 67 56 17 9 2

1

All studies contained seeded and unseeded plots and reported plant production as percent cover at the end of the growing season. Only statistically significant

increases in cover or reductions in erosion are tabulated (Amaranthus 1989, Amaranthus and others 1993, Anderson and Brooks 1975, Beyers and others 1998a, Conard

and others 1995, Gautier 1983, Geier-Hayes 1997, Griffin 1982, Rice and others 1965, Roby 1989, Taskey and others 1989, Van de Water 1998, Tiedemann and Klock

1973, 1976).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 49

Seeding significantly increased total plant cover 47

percent of the time by the end of the first growing

season after fire (table 19). Forty-two percent of

seeded sites had at least 30 percent cover, compared

to 26 percent of unseeded. Only 26 percent of seeded

sites had at least 60 percent cover versus 10.5 percent

of unseeded. Using vegetation cover as an indicator,

therefore, the probability of seeding providing effective watershed protection by the end of the first

growing season was just 26 percent, but that was

more than twice the probability that an untreated

site would be stable.

Erosion was decreased by seeding in only one out of

eight first-year studies (12.5 percent). Erosion measurements have high variability, and several of the

studies showed a trend toward lower sediment movement on seeded plots that was not statistically significant (e.g., Amaranthus 1989, Wohlgemuth and others

1998). The low occurrence of erosion effects is not

surprising, however, considering that much of the

sediment movement occurs before plant cover is established. Krammes (1960), in southern California, found

that as much as 90 percent of first-year postfire hillslope

sediment movement can occur as dry ravel before the

first germination-stimulating rains even occur.

Amaranthus (1989) measured most first-year sediment movement on his Oregon study site during several storms in December, before the seeded ryegrass

had produced much cover.

In the second year after fire, seeded sites had greater

total cover (plant and litter) than unseeded 42 percent

of the time (table 19). Half of the studies measured

erosion, which was significantly lower on seeded sites

22 percent of the time. Greater cover, therefore, did

not always produce less erosion. The proportion of

sites with at least 30 percent cover was 78 percent and

67 percent of seeded and unseeded plots, respectively.

More than half (56 percent) of all seeded sites were

essentially stabilized (at least 60 percent cover), compared to only 17 percent of unseeded sites. Thus

seeded slopes were three times more likely to be stable

after 2 years than unseeded slopes, though seeding

still had only a 56 percent probability of “success” if

success means “effective” (60 percent) cover.

Published reports from chaparral and conifer sites

differed somewhat in response to seeding (table 19).

Seeding was less likely to increase cover the first year

on chaparral sites than conifer sites. Half of both

seeded and unseeded chaparral sites had at least

partially effective cover after 1 year, compared to

only 33 percent of seeded conifer sites and none of

the unseeded. However, the only study reporting

less erosion on seeded plots the first year after fire

was from a chaparral site seeded with annual ryegrass

(Gautier 1983). The same trend was evident in studies

reporting second-year results (table 19).

The study sites in these publications varied widely

in soil type, percent slope (table 6, 7), annual precipitation, rainfall pattern, and prefire plant community, as well as seeding mix, so that lumping them

together masks important factors affecting cover

development and erosion. The total cover value tallied in the published studies sometimes included

litter, sometimes not; thus, the number of partially

and effectively stabilized sites in the second year

could be underestimated.

We made several generalizations from this tabulation. First, plant cover developed relatively rapidly on

the chaparral sites examined, so that seeding was less

likely to make a difference in total cover in chaparral

than on conifer sites. Second, most of the studied

chaparral sites were seeded with annual ryegrass,

while the conifer sites tended to be treated with a

mixture of perennial pasture grasses, and increased

cover due to seeding was more likely to show up in the

first year on chaparral sites and in the second year on

conifer sites. Third, even if treatment “success” is

defined as at least 60 percent total cover at the end of

the growing season, rather than as an actual measured reduction in sediment movement, seeding had a

low probability of success during the first year after

fire, when most of the erosion occurs (Robichaud and

Brown 1999, Wells 1981), and continued to have a low

probability of success on conifer sites in the second

year. On the basis of these published results, Burned

Area Reports that project 60 to 80 percent first-year

success for seeding operations are greatly exaggerating the potential benefits of treatment.

A similar tabulation was made from quantitative

monitoring reports, although most of them did not

directly compare seeded and unseeded plots (table 20).

Where they were directly compared, seeded plots had

greater cover than unseeded plots 64 percent of the

time at the end of the first growing season after fire,

though the differences were not tested for statistical

significance (table 14). A higher proportion of firstyear monitoring studies, compared to published studies, showed apparent reductions in erosion (43 percent) as well, although, again, differences in sediment

production were not analyzed statistically. Some of

the comparisons involved only one or two monitoring

points per treatment. Seeded plots were more likely

to have at least 30 percent cover after one growing

season in the monitoring studies than in the published

studies (74 percent vs 42 percent), possibly because

more of them reported on sites seeded with quickgrowing cereal grains or annual ryegrass rather than

perennial pasture grasses. The probability of finding

“effective” (at least 60 percent) cover at the end of the

first growing season was only slightly greater (35 percent) than in the published studies.
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Interviewees and monitoring reports alike acknowledged that the major benefits of seeding are not apparent until the second year after fire, because, as noted

above (Amaranthus 1989), most of the growth by

seeded grasses takes place after first year damaging

storms have occurred. From the Los Padres National

Forest: “As is typical, the seeding [annual ryegrass

and lana vetch] did not significantly control erosion

during the first rainy season. Seeds did not germinate

until after steady precipitation, and did not grow

significantly until after warm spring weather. The

seeded species are expected to be of greatest value

during the second and third rainy seasons” (Esplin

and Shackleford 1978), when plant litter produced by

the first year’s growth covers the soil. Rainfall that

first winter was the second highest on record and

resulted in approximately 125 yd3 ac

–1 (240 m3

 ha–1) of

soil eroded, despite the fact that seeding was “successful” by most criteria, tripling average plant biomass

compared to unseeded areas by the end of the first

growing season (Esplin and Shackleford 1978). One

report suggested that measures other than seeding

should be used in places where first-year control of

sediment movement is critical (Ruby 1997). The increased use of contour-felled logs in recent years probably reflects this knowledge.

Seeding is often most successful where it may be

needed least—on gentle slopes and in riparian areas.

Janicki (1989) found that two-thirds of plots with more

than 30 percent annual ryegrass cover were on slopes

of less than 35 percent. He also noted “observations of

grass plants concentrated in drainage bottoms suggest that seed washed off the slope with the first two

storm events.” Concentration of seeded species at the

base of slopes was also observed by Loftin and others

(1998). Some published papers and most monitoring

reports did not give slope angles for study sites, making interpretation of varying success levels difficult.

Several interviewees suggested that seeding was unnecessary in riparian areas, because native vegetation

there usually recovers rapidly. On the other hand,

other published papers and monitoring reports suggested quickly establishing strips of vegetation along

the margins of streams as one of the best ways to

reduce sediment transport into watercourses. Careful

assessment of vegetation regrowth potential during

the BAER evaluation could help resolve this apparent

contradiction.

Interviewees observed that first-year seeding success is highly dependent on rainfall pattern. Gentle

rain before the first intense storm is needed to stimulate germination; then enough rain is needed for

seeded species to survive. These conditions are more

likely to be met in some areas of the Western United

States than others. Seeding may be particularly risky

in the Southwest (Region 3), where intense monsoon

rains follow the early summer fire season. Areas

where seeding is more often considered “excellent” or

“good” may be those where rainfall lasts longer through

the year (e.g., all but July and August in the Pacific

Northwest) or where a significant portion of the annual total occurs in summer (e.g., about 30 percent in

areas such as Montana, northern Idaho, and northeastern Washington). California (Region 5) has a long

dry season and unpredictable early fall rains, making

grass establishment less likely to be successful.

Table 20—Numbers of monitoring reports listing measures of seeding “success” by native vegetation type during the first 2 years following fire.

Reports Showing Those Showing % of Reports Showing % of Reports Showing Reports Showing Those Showing

Cover Seeding Increased >30 % Cover >60 % Cover Erosion Seeding Reduced

Measurements1 Cover Seeded Unseeded Seeded Unseeded Measurements Erosion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. - - - - - - - - - - - -

Postfire Year One

Chaparral

7 4 85 25 38 12 3 1

Conifer

4 3 60 60 30 0 4 2

Combined

11 7 74 38 35 8 7 3

Postfire Year Two

Chaparral

2 0 67 67 33 33 2 0

Conifer

0 0 80 100 20 100 1 1

Combined

2 0 75 75 25 50 3 1

1

The first two columns report only studies that contained both seeded and unseeded plots. The middle four columns summarize all studies that contained percent

vegetation cover data. The last two columns report only studies that compared erosion between seeded and unseeded plots. Statistical significance was not tested in

these studies.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 51

Research, monitoring reports, and interview comments all suggest that “successful” grass establishment displaces some native plant regeneration. This

was the goal of past range “reseeding” projects—

producing useful livestock and wildlife forage on land

that would not contain harvestable timber for decades

and would otherwise produce nothing but “weeds”—

and aggressive, persistent grass species were deliberately chosen for seeding (Christ 1934, Evanko 1955,

Friedrich 1947, McClure 1956, Stewart 1973). Suppression of native plant regeneration could potentially

reduce browse species for wildlife, reduce watershed

protection in chaparral, and limit the seed bank contributions of annual and short-lived perennial “firefollowers” in chaparral and Southwestern ecosystems (Conard and others 1995, Keeler-Wolf 1995,

Keeley and others 1981, Loftin and others 1998).

There is no published research that quantifies the

long-term impacts of postfire seeding on native plants,

but one monitoring observed that weeping lovegrass

(Eragrostis curvula) in the Southwest can effectively

suppress native vegetation for years (Loftin and others 1998).

In our interviews, forest silviculturists expressed

major concerns about the impacts of grass seeding on

conifer regeneration. The dilemma between erosion

reduction and conifer growth is well recognized: “Since

granitics are inherently good tree-growing sites, as

well as being extremely erodible when burned, the

choice between immediate reforestation and longterm productivity can be a difficult one” (Van de Water

1998, p. 28). Better understanding of the impacts of

fire and erosion on soil productivity would help address this problem.

Current USDA Forest Service guidelines promote

the use of native species for revegetation projects

wherever practical. Interviewees commented that

native grasses are expensive and not widely available

in the quantities necessary for postfire seeding projects,

and developing seed sources that can provide a range

of locally adapted genotypes is difficult (Van de Water

1998). In addition, well-adapted native perennial

grasses could provide as much or more competition

with conifers as the non-native species currently in

use. For example, the native Southwestern grass Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) greatly reduced the

growth of conifer seedlings (Pearson 1942, Rietveld

1975). One BAER team included the cost of using

herbicide for seeded grass control in BAER calculations and, as a result, decided against using a welladapted native grass and chose to seed cereal barley

(Hordeum vulgare) instead (Griffith 1998). The barley

died out after 1 year except where disturbed by salvage

logging (Griffith 1993; tables 14, 15).

Seeded grasses can benefit conifer seedlings if they

exclude more competitive vegetation, such as shrubs

(Amaranthus and others 1993, McDonald 1986).

Once conifer seedlings are well established, grass

cover is less detrimental to their growth than shrub

competition (McDonald and Oliver 1984, McDonald

1986). If grass cover is not too thick, it can potentially

benefit tree seedlings. Green (1990) observed over 90

percent survival of Douglas fir seedlings on a site

seeded after fire with cereal rye (Secale cereale). The

rye, at a density of 9 plants ft–2 (100 plants m–2),

provided shade to the seedlings during the first year

after fire. The rye decreased to less than 3 plants ft–2

(33 plants m–2) the second year and essentially disappeared in the third.

Cereal grains such as barley, cereal rye, oats (Avena

sativa), and winter wheat (Tricium aestivum) appear

to show great promise for producing cover that does

not persist. Annual ryegrass was expected to behave

this way, but it proved persistent beyond a couple of

years in some ecosystems (Barro and Conard 1987,

Griffith 1998) and often produces maximum cover the

second year after fire, rather than the first (Beyers and

others 1998; compare Janicki 1989 with Conard and

others 1991). A few reports cited initial concerns over

the impacts of cereal grains on native regeneration

that disappeared after further monitoring (e.g.,

Callahan and Baker 1997, Hanes and Callahan 1995,

1996, Van Zuuk 1997). Some cereal grains may exhibit

allelopathy, inhibiting competing plant growth chemically (Went and others 1952), but this has not been

investigated under field conditions. Clearly more research on and monitoring of postfire cereal grain

seeding is needed, especially regarding the impacts on

native herbaceous plants and conifer seedlings.

In many cases natural regeneration provided as

much cover as seeded species during the first years

after fire, but good methods for assessing native seed

bank viability are lacking (Isle 1998, Loftin and others

1998). One standard test for seed bank viability only

identifies large-seeded species (by sieving them from

postfire soil samples) or those that germinate quickly

(7 to 10 day greenhouse germination test) (Dyer 1995).

Species that will provide cover later in the winter or in

the second growing season—the same time that seeded

grasses provide most of their cover—are not detected

by this method if they have tiny seeds or cold requirements for germination. Better understanding of the

natural range of vegetation response to fire would

increase our ability to predict whether seeding is

really necessary (Loftin and others 1998, Tyrrel 1981).

Several interviewees suggested that more flexibility in choosing seed mixes be allowed in BAER projects,

including the use of quick-growing annuals for erosion control and slower growing native perennials for

long-term ecosystem restoration, particularly native

range. At present, BAER guidelines stress the use of

only proven erosion-control species for emergency
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

rehabilitation. Other interviewees expressed concern that grass seeding may introduce noxious weed

species even in certified seed.

Little evidence suggests that fertilizer applied with

seeded grass is effective in increasing cover or reducing erosion after fire. Flight strips from the aircraft

that applied the fertilizer were visible as brighter

green stripes on the ground in some areas, and seeded

grasses were twice as tall in the fertilized strips than

in missed areas (Herman 1971). Fertilizer increased

native plant growth on low fertility granite soils in

Idaho but did not increase cover of seeded grasses

(Cline and Brooks 1979). Other research and monitoring studies found no significant effect of fertilizer on

plant cover or erosion (Esplin and Shackelford 1980,

Tyrrel 1981). After fire, plant growth responds to a

flush of readily available nitrogen compounds deposited on the soil surface with the ashes (Christensen

1973, DeBano and others 1979a, DeBano and others

1998). Research that showed increased growth by

seeded grass with fertilization was conducted on

firelines, where the nutrient-rich ash layer had been

scraped from the soil (Klock and others 1975). It could

make more sense to apply fertilizer late in the first

growing season or during the second year, after the

initial flush of available nutrients has been used by

plants or leached away.

Retention of soil onsite for productivity maintenance is an important BAER objective, but almost no

evidence indicates whether seeding meets this goal.

Two years after a fire, higher available soil nitrogen

and higher cation exchange capacity were found in

seeded areas than in adjacent swaths that had been

missed (Griffith 1989b, 1998). Soil retention and nutrient uptake/release by the seeded grass were credited for the improvement. No other reports addressed

soil fertility. Whether soil nutrient loss from the fire

itself and from subsequent erosion are significant to

long-term ecosystem productivity will depend on

whether fire severity was within or far outside the

natural range of variability for a given ecosystem.

Although some nutrients are inevitably lost in a fire,

they will be made up in time by natural processes

(DeBano and others 1998). Loftin and others (1998)

pointed out that sometimes postfire conditions are

more “natural,” from a long-term ecosystem perspective, than the prefire condition in many forests that

have been subject to decades of fire suppression. More

research and monitoring are needed to evaluate the

need for and effects of seeding and other BAER treatments on soil productivity.

Monitoring reports and interviews noted that occasionally seeding is done mostly for “political” reasons,

because the public and elected officials expect to see

something done to restore a burned area “disaster”

near their community (Anonymous 1987, Ruby and

Griffith 1994). Smaller fires that burned under conditions not far out of the range of natural variation may

have been seeded unnecessarily for this reason. Better

public education on the natural role of fire in ecosystems and the inevitability of a postfire sediment pulse

could reduce the need for “political” seeding.

Other hillslope treatments have been used, but little

quantitative information has been published on their

effectiveness. Thus effectiveness ratings are often

based on visual assessment with no direct comparisons with other treatments. Hillslope treatments such

as large contour trenching may increases infiltration

and trap sediment during summer thunderstorms,

but they are expensive to install and require machinery, thus limiting the slopes that they can work, and

they have long-term impacts on hillslope appearance

and hydrologic function. More recently, hand trenches

have been used. Hand trenches are quicker to install

and require less skilled crews. Straw wattles may

detain surface runoff, reduce velocities, store sediment, and provide a seedbed for germination. Cattle

exclusion with temporary fencing can be important for

the first 2 years postfire. Ripping/tilling was effective

on roads, trails, and firebreaks with slopes less than

35 percent. Slash spreading is effective if good ground

contact is maintained. Most of these treatments cannot be applied to large areas but may be appropriate in

critical areas of high risk. Monitoring of effectiveness

is needed to determine if they are cost effective as well.

Channel Treatments—We conclude that channel

treatments should only be used if downstream threat

is great. Straw bale check dams are designed to reduce

sediment inputs into streams. Collins and Johnston

(1995) indicated that about 45 percent of the straw

bales check dams installed were functioning properly

after the first 3 months, whereas Miles and others

(1989) reported that 87 percent of the straw bale check

dams were functioning and Kidd and Rittenhouse

(1997) reported that 99 percent were functioning.

They often fill in the first few storms, so their effectiveness diminishes quickly and they can blow out during

high flows. Thus their usefulness is short-lived.

Log dams can trap sediment by decreasing velocities

and allowing coarse sediment to drop out. FitesKaufman (1993) indicated only a 3 percent failure

rate. However, if these structures fail, they usually

aggravate erosion problems. Log and rock grade stabilizers emphasis stabilizing the channel rather than

storing the sediment. They tend to work for low and

moderate flows, not high flows. No reports on channel

stabilization effectiveness were found.

No estimates of erosion reduction were found by

stream bank armoring. Channel clearing—removing

logs and other organic debris—was rated “good” 71

percent of the time since it prevents logs from being

mobilized in debris flow or floods. Since the value of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 53

in-stream woody debris to fish has been realized, this

treatment has declined in popularity whereas inchannel felling has increased in popularity. No estimates on rock cage dams effectiveness were found but

it is known that they provide grade stability and

reduce velocities to drop out coarse sediment. Debris

basins are designed to store runoff and sediment and

are often the last recourse to prevent downstream

flooding and sedimentation. They are often designed

to trap 50 to 70 percent of the expected flows. No

estimates of sediment trapping efficiencies for debris

basins were found.

Road Treatments—Road treatments are designed

to move water to desired locations and prevent washout of roads. There is little quantitative research

evaluating and comparing road treatment effectiveness. A recent computer model, X-DRAIN, can provide

sediment estimates for various spacings of cross drains

(Elliot and others 1998), and the computer model,

WEPP-Road, provides sedimentation estimates for

various road configurations and mitigation treatments

(Elliot and others 1999). Thus, effectiveness of various

spacings of rolling dips, waterbars, cross drains, and

culvert bypasses can be compared. By shortened flow

paths and route water at specified crossings, erosion

can be reduced. Upgrading culverts to larger sizes

increases their flow capacity, which reduces the risk of

blockage and exceeding capacity. Culvert armoring

and adding risers allow sediment to settle out and

prevent scouring. Trash racks prevent clogging of

culverts or other structures which keeps the culverts

opening as designed. Culvert removal, when appropriate, eliminates the threat of blockage. Storm patrol

shows promise as a new cost effective method to keep

culverts and drainage ditches clear, provide early

warnings and close areas that could be threaten by a

storm flows. Armoring ford crossings allows for lowcost access across stream channels, with the ability to

handle large flows. Ditch cleaning and armoring provide for drainage of expected flows and reduce scouring. Outsloping prevents concentrated flow on road

surfaces thus reducing erosion. Detail discussion of

road related treatment effectiveness is beyond the

scope of this report. The recent USDA Forest Service,

San Dimas Technology and Development Program,

Water/Road Interaction Technologies Series (Copstead

1997) provides design standards, improvement techniques, and evaluations of some surface drainage

treatments for reducing sedimentation.

Conclusions____________________

Relatively little monitoring of BAER treatments

has been conducted in the last three decades. Published literature focused on seeding issues, with little

information on any other treatments. Therefore, interview forms and monitoring reports were used to

document our current knowledge on treatment options and their effectiveness. There were at least 321

BAER project fires during last three decades that

cost the Forest Service around $110 million to rehabilitate. Some level of monitoring occurred on about

33 percent of these project fires. Our analysis of the

literature, Burned Area Report forms, interview comments, monitoring reports, and treatment effectiveness ratings leads us to the following conclusions:

• Existing effectiveness monitoring efforts and research are insufficient to accurately compare treatment effectiveness and ecosystem recovery.

• Rehabilitation should be done only if the risk to

life and property is high since the amount of

protection provided is assumed to be small. In

some watersheds, it would be best not to do any

treatments. If treatments are necessary then it is

more effective to reduce erosion onsite (hillslope

treatment) rather than collected it downstream

(channel treatment).

• Contour-felled logs show promise as a relatively

effective treatment compared to other hillslope

treatments. This is considered to be true for areas

where erosion rates are expected to be high because they provide protection during the firstyear postfire which has the highest erosion rates.

In areas that do not have available trees, straw

wattles may provide an alternative. However, the

effectiveness of contour-felled logs or straw wattles

has not been adequately documented in the scientific literature.

• Seeding has a low probability of reducing erosion

the first wet season after a fire. There is a need to

do other treatments in critical areas. Seeding can

provide reasonable cover late in first season and

in the second year. Most estimates of ground cover

occur at the end of the first growing season, thus

cover information is not appropriate for comparison for first year storm events.

• There is a need to better understand regeneration

potential of natural vegetation. Seeding treatment may not be needed as often as currently

thought.

• Because seeding is often not “successful,” it may

have little impact on natural regeneration. Persistent perennials are least effective at providing

first year cover and most likely to interfere with

later regeneration. Cereal grains (annuals) offer

better first-year protection than perennials but

generally do not interfere with later regeneration

of natural vegetation. Little is known about the

effectiveness of native annual grasses.

• Evaluating postfire watershed conditions, treatment chance of success, cost-benefit ratios, and
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

risk assessments was difficult because various

methods were used to estimate their values. Little

information and research is available on risk

assessment and cost-risk ratios of various BAER

treatments.

• To reduce the threat of road failure, road treatments such as rolling dips, water bars, and relief

culverts properly spaced provide a reasonable

method to move water past the road prism. Storm

patrol attempts to keep culverts clear and close

areas as needed. This approach shows promise as

a cost effective technique to reduce road failure

due to culvert blockage.

• Straw bale checkdams, along with other channel

treatments, should be viewed as secondary mitigation treatments. Sediment has already been

transported from the slopes and will eventually be

released though the stream system as the bales

degrade, although the release is desynchronized.

Recommendations ______________

Based on the findings from this study, we provide

the following recommendations to further our knowledge and understanding of the role of emergency

rehabilitation treatments:

• Streamline the Burned Area Report (FS-2500-8)

form to address postfire watershed cost-benefit and

risk analysis in an easily understandable manner.

Provide information to assist decisionmakers to be

able to compare treatment alternatives and understand that the consequences are only going to happen if we have storm events.

• Increase training on methods to calculate and use

design storm intensity and frequency, probability

of success, and erosion risk estimates. These can

be targeted to soil scientists and hydrologists

because they are involved with virtually every

BAER effort.

• Increase the number of quantitative studies to

document contour-felled logs effectiveness in reducing erosion. Additional research is needed to

determine whether contour-felling can reduce

rilling, increase infiltration, and decrease downstream time to peakflow (slow water velocities).

Hand trenching effectiveness is another treatment that has not been documented, but may be

effective and should also be evaluated.

• Increase monitoring efforts to determine if treatments are performing as planned and designed.

Monitoring should include measuring effectiveness in reducing erosion, sedimentation, or downstream flooding, but may also include changes in

infiltration, soil productivity, ecosystem recovery

and water quality parameters. Two levels of

monitoring are proposed. Extensive effectiveness

monitoring can be accomplished at the forest level

with little regional support, thus numerous sites/

fires can be evaluated in different climate regimes. Intensive performance monitoring would

need regional and research support and could be

done on “demonstration” fires for each region

(physiographic or Forest Service).

Effectiveness Monitoring: Silt fences placed at the

bottom of hillslope plots are an economical method to

compare hillslope treatments by determining how

much sediment is trapped by each silt fence. Plots can

be established to compare hillslope treatments such as

seeding, contour-felled logs, hand trenches, etc. Silt

fences have a very high trap efficiency (greater than

90-95 percent), and are easily maintained and serviced. For maximum information gain, treated replicated plots should be compared for physically similar

untreated plots.

Performance Monitoring: To compare sedimentation responses of various treatments, small catchments

need to be monitored for runoff and sediment. This is

a costly and time-consuming technique but does provide the best results and would need to be conducted

in conjunction with research in order to prevent shortcoming from past efforts. This method can be used to

compare hillslope or road or channel treatments.

• Support Research efforts to improve methodologies

to assess and predict long-term effects of wildfire on

soil and site productivity.

• Develop a knowledge-base of past and current BAER

projects that is easily accessible to others (i.e., Internet). This would include treatment design criteria

and specifications, contract implementation specifications, example Burned Area Report calculations, and monitoring techniques.

References _____________________

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific northwest forests. Island

Press, Washington, DC. 493 p.

Amaranthus, Michael P. 1989. Effect of grass seeding and fertilizing on surface erosion in two intensely burned sites in southwest Oregon. In: Berg, Neil H., tech. coord. Proceedings of the

symposium on fire and watershed management, October 26-28,

1988, Sacramento, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 148-149.

Amaranthus, Michael P. 1990. Siskiyou National Forest wildfire

and recovery monitoring report. Unpublished report on file at:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, OR. 142 p.

Amaranthus, Michael P.; Trappe, James M.; Perry, David A. 1993.

Soil moisture, native revegetation, and Pinus lambertiana

seedling survival, growth, and mycorrhiza formation following

wildfire and grass seeding. Restoration Ecology. 1(3): 188-195.

Ambos, Norm. 1992. Summary—Dude fire photo points. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Tonto National Forest, AZ. 6 p.

Anderson, William E.; Brooks, Lee E. 1975. Reducing erosion

hazard on a burned forest in Oregon by seeding. Journal of

Range Management. 28(5): 394-398.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 55

Anderson, H. W.; Coleman, G. B.; Zinke, P. J., 1959. Summer slides

and winter scour—wet-dry erosion in southern California mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-36. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 12 p.

Anderson, H. W.; Hoover, M. D.; Reinhart, K. G. 1976. Forests and

water: effects of forest management on floods, sedimentation,

and water supply. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-18. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 115 p.

Anonymous. 1987. Oak Grove fire. Unpublished report on file at:

Dixie National Forest, UT. 2 p.

Arndt, Arthur M. 1979. Emergency revegetation of burned watersheds in Los Angeles County. Riverside, CA: Chaparral Research

and Development Program, CHAPS Newsletter, March 1979: 1-3.

Bailey, Reed W.; Copeland, Otis L. 1961. Vegetation and engineering structures in flood and erosion control. In: Proceedings, 13th

Congress, September 1961, Vienna, Austria. International Union

of Forest Research Organization Paper. 11-1: 23 p.

Baron, F. J. 1962. Effects of different grasses on ponderosa pine

seedling establishment. Res. Note PSW-199. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Barro, Susan C.; Conard, Susan G. 1987. Use of ryegrass seeding as

an emergency revegetation measure in chaparral ecosystems.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-102. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 12 p.

Bautista, S.; Bellot, J.; Vallejo, V.R. 1996. Mulching treatment for

post-fire soil conservation in a semiarid ecosystem. Arid Soil

Research and Rehabilitation. 10: 235-242.

Benda, L. E.; Cundy. T. W. 1990. Predicting deposition of debris

flows in mountain channels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 27:

409-417.

Best, D. W.; Kelsey, D. K.; Hagans, D. K.; Alpert, M. 1995. Role of

fluvial hillslope erosion and road construction in the sediment

budget of Garret Creek, Humboldt County, California. In: Nolan,

K. M.; Kelsey, H. M.; Marron, D. C., eds. Geomorphic Processes

and Aquatic Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern

California. Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey: M1-M9.

Beyers, Jan L.; Conard, Susan G.; Wakeman, Carla D. 1994. Impacts

of an introduced grass, seeded for erosion control, on postfire

community composition and species diversity in southern California chaparral. In: Proceedings of the 12th international

conference on fire and forest meteorology, October 26-28, 1993,

Jekyll Island, GA. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 594-601.

Beyers, Jan L.; Wakeman, Carla D.; Wohlgemuth, Peter M.; Conard,

Susan G. 1998a. Effects of postfire grass seeding on native

vegetation in southern California chaparral. In: Proceedings,

nineteenth annual forest vegetation management conference:

wildfire rehabilitation, January 20-22, 1998. Redding, CA: Forest

Vegetation Management Conference: 52-64.

Beyers, Jan L.; Wohlgemuth, Peter M.; Wakeman, Carla D.; Conard,

Susan G. 1998b. Ryegrass seeding for postfire erosion control in

chaparral—does it work? Fire Management Notes. 58: 30-34.

Biswell, H. H.; Schultz, A. M. 1965. Surface runoff and erosion as

related to prescribed burning. Journal of Forestry. 55: 372-373.

Bitterroot National Forest. 1997. Forest plan monitoring and

evaluation report, fiscal year 1997, Bitterroot National Forest,

MT. 80 p.

Blanford, Robert H.; Gunter, Louis E. 1972. Emergency revegetation—a review of project evaluations 1956-1970. Forest, Range

and Watershed Management Section, California Division of Forestry, Sacramento, CA. 21 p.

Blankenbaker, Gene; Ryan, Tom; Graves, Walt. 1985. Aguanga

burn soil erosion and vegetation recovery administrative study.

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest, CA. 9 p.

Bosch, J. M.; Hewlett, J. D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water

yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology. 55: 3-23.

Boyd, Anne; McKay, Mary; Dailey, Scott. 1995. Field observations

on the Cleveland Fire, January 10, 1995. Unpublished report on

file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eldorado

National Forest, CA. 2 p.

Brooks, K. N.; Ffolliott, P. F.; Gregorsen, H. M.; DeBano, L. F. 1997.

Hydrology and management of watersheds. Ames, IA: Iowa State

University Press. 392 p.

Burroughs, Edward R., Jr., ; King, John G. 1989. Reduction in soil

erosion of forest roads. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-264. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.

Callahan, Karen; Baker, Blaze. 1997. Crystal burn analysis. Postfire succession and seeding monitoring: year three. Unpublished

report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forst Service,

Tahoe National Forest, CA. 23 p.

Campbell, G. S.; Jungbauer, J. D., Jr.; Bristow, K. L.; Hungerford,

R. D. 1995. Soil temperature and water content beneath a surface

fire. Soil Science. 159(6): 363-374.

Campbell, R. E.; Baker, M. B., Jr.; Ffolliott, P. F. 1977. Wildfire

effects on a ponderosa pine ecosystem: an Arizona case study.

Res. Pap. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p.

Cannon, Susan. 1999. Debris-flow response of watersheds recently

burned by wildfire. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 200 p.

Dissertation.

Chiun-Ming, L. 1985. Impact of check dams on steep mountain

channels in northeastern Taiwan. In: El-Swaify, S.A.;

Moldenhauer, W. C.: Lo, A., ed. Soil Erosion and Conservation:

540-548.

Christ, J. H. 1934. Reseeding burned-over lands in northern

Idaho. University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station

Bulletin 201. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 27 p.

Christensen, N. L. 1973. Fire and the nitrogen cycle in California

chaparral. Science. 181: 66-68.

Cline, G. G.; Brooks, W. M. 1979. Effect of light seed and fertilizer

application in steep landscapes with infertile soils after fire.

Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northern Region Soil, Air, Water Notes 79-2. 6 p.

Collins, L. M.; Johnston, C. E. 1995. Effectiveness of straw bale

dams for erosion control in the Oakland Hills following the fire of

1991. In: Keeley, J. E.; Scott, T., eds. Brushfires in California

wildlands: ecology and resource management. Fairfield, WA:

International Association of Wildland Fire: 171-183.

Conard, Susan G.; Beyers, Jan L.; Wohlgemuth, Peter M. 1995.

Impacts of postfire grass seeding on chaparral ecosystems—what

do we know and where do we go from here? In: Keeley, J. E.;

Scott, T., eds. Brushfires in California wildlands: ecology and

resource management. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 149-161.

Conard, S. G.; Regelbrugge, J. C.; Wills, R. D. 1991. Preliminary

effects of ryegrass seeding on postfire establishment of natural

vegetation in two California ecosystems. In: Andrews, Patricia L.;

Potts, Donald F., eds. Proceedings of the 11th conference on fire

and forest meteorology, April 16-19, 1991, Missoula, Montana.

Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 314-321.

Conrad, C. Eugene. 1979. Emergency postfire seeding using annual

grass. Riverside, CA: Chaparral Research and Development

Program, CHAPS Newsletter, March 1979: 5-8.

Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California:

an ecological study of the chaparral and its related communities.

Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 319. 145 p.

Copstead, R. 1997. The water/road interaction technology series: an

introduction. No. 9777 1805-SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology

Center. 4 p.

Copeland, Otis L. 1961. Watershed management and reservoir life.

Journal of American Water Works Association. 53(5): 569-578.

Copeland, Otis L. 1968. Forest Service Research in erosion control

in the western United States. Presented at: Annual Meeting,

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, June 18-21, 1968,

Logan, UT. Paper 68-227. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of

Agricultural Engineers. 11 p.

Corbett, E. S.; Green, L. R. 1965. Emergency revegetation to rehabilitate burned watersheds in southern California. Res. Pap. PSW-22.

Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p.
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Costales, E. F., Jr.; Costales, A. B. 1984. Determination and evaluation of some emergency measures for the quick rehabilitation of

newly burned watershed areas in the pine forest. Sylvtrop Philippine Forestry Research. 9: 33-53.

Croft, A. R.; Marston, Richard B. 1950. Summer rainfall characteristics in northern Utah. Transactions, American Geophysical

Union. 31(1): 83-95.

Davis, E. A. 1984. Conversion of Arizona chaparral increases water

yield and nitrate loss. Water Resources Research. 20: 1643-1649.

DeBano, L. F.; Conrad, C. E. 1976. Nutrients lost in debris and

runoff water from a burned chaparral watershed. In: Proceedings

of the third interagency sedimentation conference, Denver, CO,

March 1976. Water Resources Council. 3: 13-27.

DeBano, L. F.; Eberlein, G. E.; Dunn, P. H. 1979a. Effects of

burning on chaparral soils. I. Soil nitrogen. Soil Science Society

of America Journal. 43: 504-509.

DeBano, L. F.; Ffolliott, P. F.; Baker, M. B., Jr. 1996. Fire severity

effects on water resources. In: Ffolliott, P. F.; DeBano, L. F.;

Baker, M. B., Jr.; Gottfried, G. J.; Solis-Garza, G.; Edminster,C. B.;

Neary, D. G.; Allen, L. S.; Hamre, R. H., tech. coords. Effects of

fire on Madrean province ecosystems—A symposium proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 77-84.

DeBano, L. F.; Neary, D. G.; Ffolliott, P. F. 1998. Fires’s effects on

ecosystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 333 p.

DeBano, L. F.; Rice, R. M.; Conrad, C. E. 1979b. Soil heating in

chaparral fires: effects on soil properties, plant nutrients, erosion

and runoff. Res. Pap. PSW-145. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 21 p.

DeBlye, Norbert V. 1970a. Do contour trenches reduce wet-mantle

flood peaks? Res. Note INT-108. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 8 p.

DeByle, Norbert V. 1970b. Infiltration in contour trenches in the

Sierra Nevada. Res. Note INT-115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 5 p.

DeByle, N. V.; Packer, P. E. 1972. Plant nutrient and soil losses in

overland flow from burned forest clearcuts. In: Csallany, S. C.;

McLaughlin, T. G.; Striffler, W. D., eds. Watersheds in transition,

proceedings, American Water Resources Association and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Urbana, IL: American

Water Resource Association: 296-307.

DeGraff, J. V. 1982. Final evaluation of felled trees as a sediment

retaining measure, Rock Creek Fire, Kings RD, Sierra National

Forest, Fresno, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Special Report, Sierra National Forest. 15 p.

Department of Forester and Fire Warden. 1985. Emergency revegetation in Los Angeles County 1919-1984. Unpublished report on

file at: County of Los Angeles, Fire Department, P.O. Box 3009,

Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, CA 90051. 93 p.

Doty, Robert D. 1970. Influence of contour trenching on snow

accumulation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 25(3):

102-104.

Doty, Robert D. 1971. Contour trenching effects on streamflow from

a Utah watershed. Res. Pap. INT-95. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 19 p.

Doty, Robert D. 1972. Soil water distribution on a contour-trenched

area. Res. Note INT-163. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.

Ducummon, Sheryl L. 1987. Las Pilitas fire rehabilitation assessment project. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, CA. 13 p.

plus maps and photos.

Dyer, David A. 1995. Determining viability of soil seed banks after

wildfires. Tech. Note TN-Plant Materials-36. Lockeford, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service. 8 p.

Dyrness, C. T. 1974. Grass-legume mixtures for erosion control

along forest roads. Handout prepared for “Soil erosion prevention and sedimentation control short course,” Olympia, Washington, February 6, 1974. 16 p.

Dyrness, C. T. 1976. Effect of wildfire on soil wettability in the High

Cascades of Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-202. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p.

Edwards, L.; Burney, J.; DeHaan, R. 1995. Researching the effects

of mulching on cool-period soil erosion in Prince Edward Island,

Canada. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 50: 184-187.

Elliot, Katherine J.; White, Alan S. 1987. Competitive effects of

various grasses and forbs on ponderosa pine seedlings. Forest

Science. 33(2): 356-366.

Elliot, W. J.; Graves, S. M.; Hall, D. E.; Moll, J. E. 1998. The XDRAIN cross drain spacing and sediment yields. No. 9877 1801-

SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, San Dimas Technology Center. 24 p.

Elliot, W. J.; Hall, D. E.; Scheele, D. L. 1999. WEPP-Road, WEPP

interface for predicting forest road runoff, erosion and sediment

delivery [Online]. Available: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/

fswep/docs/wepproaddoc.html.

Esplin, DeLoy H.; Shackleford, James R. 1978. Cachuma burn

reseeding evaluation: coated vs. uncoated seed, first growing

season. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, CA. 24 p.

Esplin, DeLoy H.; Shackleford, James R. 1980. Cachuma burn

revisited. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, CA. 5 p.

Evanko, Anthony B. 1955. Species adaptability and seeding season

for increased forage production in northeastern Washington.

Res. Pap. INT-37. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 24 p.

Farmer, Eugene E.; Fletcher, Joel E. 1972. Some intra-storm characteristics of high-intensity rainfall burst. In: Distribution of

Precipitation in Mountainous areas, Geilo Symposium, Norway

July 31-August 5. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological

Organization. 2: 525-531.

Farmer, E. E.; Van Haveren, B. P. 1971. Soil erosion by overland

flow and raindrop splash on three mountain soils. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-100. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 14 p.

Faust, Robert. 1998. Lesson plan: Fork fire soil loss validation

monitoring. Unit VIII, Long term recovery and monitoring. In:

Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) techniques, 1998.

San Francisco: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Region. (course notebook).

Federal Reserve Bank. 1999. Consumer Price Index [online].

Available: http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/economy/calc/cpihome/

[June 16, 1999].

Ferrell, William R. 1959. Report on debris reduction studies for

mountain watersheds. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County

Flood Control District, Dams and Conservation Branch. 164 p.

Fites-Kaufman, Russell. 1993. Survey of check dams in the Cleveland Fire Area. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, CA. 3 p.

Flanagan, S. A.; Furniss, M. J. 1997. Field indicators of inlet controlled road stream crossing capacity. No. 9777 1808-SDTDC.

San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

San Dimas Technology Center. 5 p.

Forsling, C. L. 1931. Artificial reseeding on western mountain

range lands. USDA Circ. No. 178. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 48 p.

Friedrich, C. Allen. 1947. Seeding grass by airplane on western

Montana’s burned-over timberlands. Res. Note No. 52. Missoula,

MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p.

Furniss, Michael J.; Ledwith, Tyler, S.; Love, Michael A.; McFadin,

Bryan C. Flanagan, Sam A. 1998. Response of road-stream

crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon, and

Northern California. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program,

9877 1806-San Dimas Technology Development Center. 14 p.

Gautier, Clayton R. 1983. Sedimentation in burned chaparral

watersheds: is emergency revegetation justified? Water Resources

Bulletin. 19(5): 793-802.

Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1997. The impact of post-fire seeded grasses

on native vegetative communities in central Idaho. In: Greenlee,

Jason M., ed. Proceedings: First conference on fire effects on rare
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 57

and endangered species and habitats. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 19-26.

Gibbons, Boyd. 1995. Remarks on postfire seeding. In: Keeley, Jon

E.; Scott, Tom, eds. Brushfires in California wildlands: ecology

and resource management. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 211.

Gleason, C. H. 1947. Guide for mustard sowing in burned watersheds of southern California. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Region. 46 p.

Glendening, G. E.; Pase, C. P.; Ingebo, P. 1961. Preliminary

hydrologic effects of wildfire in chaparral. In: Johnson, R., ed.

Proceedings of the 5th annual Arizona watershed symposium,

September 21, 1961, Phoenix, Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona

Water Resources Committee and Wathershed Management

Division, State Land Department: 12-15.

Goldman, S. J.; Jackson, K.; Bursztynsky, T. A. 1986. Erosion and

sediment control handbook. San Francisco, CA: McGraw-Hill.

360 p.

Green, L. R. 1981. Burning by prescription in chaparral. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-51. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 36 p.

Green, Pat. 1990. 1989 soil monitoring report, Green Creek Point

fire, Clearwater Ranger District. Unpublished report on file at:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest, ID. 4 p.

Griffin, James R. 1982. Pine seedlings, native ground cover, and

Lolium multiflorum on the Marble-Cone burn, Santa Lucia

Range, California. Madroño. 29(3): 177-188.

Griffith, Robert W. 1989a. Memo, silt fence monitoring. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 4 p.

Griffith, Robert W. 1989b. Memo, soil productivity and burned area

grass seeding. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 2 p.

Griffith, Robert W. 1991. Memo, Arch Rock burn area erosion

monitoring. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 2 p.

Griffith, Robert W. 1993. Memo, Arch Rock burn area grass monitoring. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 2 p.

Griffith, Robert W. 1998. Burned area emergency rehabilitation.

In: Proceedings, nineteenth annual forest vegetation management conference: wildfire rehabilitation, January 20-22, 1998.

Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation Management Conference: 4-7.

Hanes, R. O.; Callahan, K. 1995. Summary of first monitoring.

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, CA. 24 p.

Hanes, Richard; Callahan, Karen. 1996. Crystal burn analysis.

Post-fire succession and seeding monitoring: year two. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Tahoe National Forest,CA. 23 p.

Hartford, R. A.; Frandsen, W. H. 1992. When it’s hot, it’s hot—or

maybe it’s not (surface flaming may not portend extensive soil

heating). International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2: 139-144.

Heede, Burchard H. 1960. A study of early gully-control structures

in the Colorado Front Range. Station Paper 55. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 p.

Heede, Burchard H. 1970. Design, construction and cost of rock

check dams. Res. Pap. RM-20. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 24 p.

Heede, Burchard H. 1976. Gully development and control: the

status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 p.

Heede, Burchard H. 1981. Rehabilitation of disturbed watershed

through vegetation treatment and physical structures. In: Proceeding, Interior West Watershed Management Symposium,

April 1980, Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Cooperative Extension: 257-268.

Helvey, J. D. 1975. Watershed behavior after forest fire in Washington. In: Proceedings of the irrigation and drainage division

specialty conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 22-24, 1973.

Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office:

403-422.

Helvey, J. D. 1980. Effects of a north-central Washington wildfire

on runoff and sediment production. Water Resources Bulletin.

16: 627-634.

Hendricks, B. A.; Johnson, J. M. 1944. Effects of fire on steep

mountain slopes in central Arizona. Journal of Forestry. 42:

568-571.

Herman, Loren D. 1971. Review of Forks fire, Okanogan N.F., and

fire on Wenatchee N.F. Unpublished report on file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Okanogan National

Forest, OR. 18 p.

Hibbert, A. R. 1971. Increases in streamflow after converting

chaparral to grass. Water Resources Bulletin. 7: 71-80.

Hibbert, A. R.; Davis, E. A.; Knipe, O. D. 1982. Water yield

changes resulting from treatment of Arizona chaparral. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PSW-58, Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 382-389.

Hungerford, R. D. 1996. Soils- fire in ecosystem management notes:

unit II-I. Marana, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, National Advanced Resource Technology Center.

Isle, David. 1988. 2,3445 acre 8/26/88 Powerhouse burn: Isle’s

follow-up observations notes. Unpublished report on file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mendocino National

Forest, CA. 6 p.

Isle, David W. 1998. Erosion control seeding and mulching treatments. Unit VIII, “Back to the future”: long term recovery and

monitoring. In: Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER)

techniques, 1998 (course notebook). San Francisco: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Janicki, Alex. 1989. Emergency revegetation of the Stanislaus

Complex fire. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 17 p.

Janicki, Alex. 1992. Memo, Cotton burn area erosion monitoring.

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 3 p.

Kay, B. L. 1983. Straw as an erosion control mulch. Agronomy

Progress Report No. 140. Davis, CA: University of California

Agricultural Experiment Station. 11 p.

Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 1995. Post-fire emergency seeding and conservation in southern California shrublands. In: Keeley, J. E.; Scott, T.,

eds. Brushfires in California wildlands: ecology and management.

Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 127-139.

Keeley, Jon E. 1991. Seed germination and life history syndromes

in the California chaparral. The Botanical Review. 57: 81-116.

Keeley, J. E.; Keeley, S. C. 1988. Chaparral. In: Barbour, M. G.;

Billings, W. D., eds. North American terrestrial vegetation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 165-207.

Keeley, Jon E.; Carrington, Mary; Trnka, Sally. 1995. Overview of

management issues raised by the 1993 wildfires in southern

California. In: Keeley, Jon E.; Scott, Tom, eds. Brushfires in

California wildlands: ecology and resource management.

Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 83-89.

Keeley, S. C.; Keeley, J. E.; Hutchinson, S. M.; Johnson, A. W. 1981.

Postfire succession of herbaceous flora in southern California

chaparral. Ecology. 62(6): 1608-1621.

Kidd, Jerry L.; Rittenhouse, Dave. 1997. Evaluation of storm

effects on Eight Street Fire Rehabilitation. Unpublished report

on file at: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Boise, ID. 8 p.

Klock, Glen O.; Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Lopushinsky, William. 1975.

Seeding recommendations for disturbed mountain slopes in

north central Washington. Res. Note PNW-244. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. 1974. Fire and ecosystems.

New York: Academic Press. 542 p.

Krammes, J. S. 1960. Erosion from mountain side slopes after fire

in southern California. Res. Note PSW-171. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Krammes, J. S.; Hill, L. W. 1963. “First aid” for burned watersheds.

Res. Note PSW-29. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.
58 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Lachowski, Henry; Hardwick, Paul; Griffith, Robert; Parsons, Annette;

Warbington, Ralph. 1997. Faster, better data for burned watersheds needing emergency rehab. Journal of Forestry. 95(6): 4-8.

Liewer, Marvin. 1990. The big fire—one year later. Unpublished

report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Black Hills National Forest, SD. 2 p.

Loftin, Sam; Fletcher, Reggie; Luehring, Peggy. 1998. Disturbed area

rehabilitation review report. Unpublished report on file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region,

Albuquerque, NM. 17 p.

Maloney, P. Cavan; Thornton, John L. 1995. Implementation and

effectiveness monitoring of best management practices and soil

and water protection measures within the Foothills Fire salvage

logging area 1992-1995. Unpublished report on file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, ID. 51 p.

McCammon, Bruce P. 1980. Bridge Creek fire rehabilitation status

report. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, OR. 12 p.

McCammon, B. P.; Hughes, D. 1980. Fire rehab in the Bend

Municipal Watershed. In: Proceedings of the 1980 watershed

management symposium, July 21-23, 1980, Boise, ID. New York:

American Society of Civil Engineers: 252-259.

McClure, Norman R. 1956. Grass and legume seedings on burnedover forest lands in northern Idaho and adjacent Washington.

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 125 p. Thesis.

McDonald, Philip M. 1986. Grasses in young conifer plantations—

hindrance and help. Northwest Science. 60(4): 271-278.

McDonald, P. M.; Oliver, W. W. 1984. Woody shrubs retard growth of

ponderosa pine seedlings and saplings. In: Coombes, D., ed. Proceedings, fifth annual forest vegetation management conference.

Redding, CA; Forest Vegetation Management Conference: 65-89.

McNabb, D. H.; Swanson, F. J. 1990. Effects of fire on soil erosion.

In: Walstad, J. D.; Radosevich, S. R.; Sandberg, D. V., eds. Natural

and prescribed fire in Pacific northwest forests. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University Press: 159-176.

Meeuwig, R. O. 1971. Soil stability on high-elevation rangeland in

the Intermountain area. Res. Pap. INT-94. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.

Megahan, W. F. 1986. Recent studies on erosion and its control on

forest lands in the United States. In: Richard, F., ed. Range basin

sediment delivery: Proceedings; 1986 August; Albuquerque, NM.

IAHS Pub. 159, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom: 178-189.

Megahan, Walter F.; Molitor, Delbert C. 1975. Erosion effects of

wildfire and logging in Idaho. In: Watershed management symposium: 1975 August, Logan, UT. New York: American Society of

Civil Engineers Irrigation and Drainage Division: 423-444.

Miles, Scott R.; Haskins, Donald M.; Ranken, Darrel W. 1989.

Emergency burn rehabilitation: cost, risk, and effectiveness. In:

Berg, Neil H., tech. coord. Proceedings of the symposium on fire

and watershed management, October 26-28, 1988, Sacramento,

California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station: 97-102.

Nadkarni, Nalini M.; Odion, Dennis C. 1986. Effects of seeding an

exotic grass Lolium multiflorum on native seedling regeneration following fire in a chaparral community. In: DeVries,

Johannes J., ed. Proceeding of the chaparral ecosystems research conference, May 16-17, 1985, Santa Barbara, California.

Report No. 62, California Water Resources Center, University of

California, Davis: 115-121.

Neary, D. G.; Hornbeck, J. W. 1994. Chapter 4: Impacts of harvesting and associated practices on off-site environmental quality. In:

Dyck, W. J.; Cole, D. W.; Comerford, N. B., eds. Impacts of forest

harvesting on long-term site productivity. London: Chapman &

Hall: 81-118.

Neary, D. G.; Klopatek, C. C.; DeBano, F. F.; Ffolliott, P. F. 1999.

Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management. 122: 51-71.

Niehoff, Jerry. 1995. Mary-mix monitoring trip. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Idaho Panhandle National Forest, ID. 3 p.

Noble, Edward L. 1965. Sediment reduction through watershed

rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the federal inter-agency

sedimentation conference 1963. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Misc. Publ. 970: 114-123.

Noble, Edward L.; Lundeen, Lloyd. 1971. Analysis of rehabilitation

treatment alternatives for sediment control. In: Symposium on

forest land uses and stream environment, October 19-21, 1971,

Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of

Forestry and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Continuing

Education Publications: 86-96.

Norris, Logan A. 1990. An overview and synthesis of knowledge

concerning natural and prescribed fire in the Pacific Northwest

forest. In: Walstad, John D.; Radosevich, Steven R.; Sandberg,

David V., eds. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest

forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 7-22.

Orr, Howard K. 1970. Runoff and erosion control by seeded and

native vegetation on a forest burn: Black Hills, South Dakota.

Res. Pap. RM-60. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p.

Packer, P. E.; Christensen, G. F. 1977. Guides for controlling sediment from secondary logging roads. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station, and Missoula, MT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 42 p.

Parsons, Annette. 1994. Field notes from burn rehab and soil

erosion monitoring day trip to observe treatments at 2 years

post-fire. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, CA. 5 p.

Parsons, Annette; McDonald, Brandi. 1993. Preliminary results,

Eldorado National Forest Cleveland fire emergency watershed

treatment monitoring. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, CA. 5 p.

Pase, P. C.; Ingebo, P. A. 1965. Burned chaparral to grass: early effects

on water and sediment yields from two granitic soil watersheds in

Arizona. In: Cooper, C. C., Jr., ed. Proceedings of the 9th annual

Arizona watershed symposium, September, 1965, Tempe, AZ.

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Water Resources Committee and Watershed

Management Division, State Land Department: 8-11.

Pase, C. P.; Lindenmuth, Jr., A. W. 1971. Effects of prescribed fire

on vegetation and sediment in oak-mountain mahogany chaparral. Journal of Forestry. 69: 800-805.

Patric, J. H. 1976. Soil erosion in eastern forests. Journal of

Forestry. 74: 671-676.

Pearson, G. A. 1942. Herbaceous vegetation: a factor in natural

regeneration of ponderosa pine in the southwest. Ecological

Monographs. 12: 316-338.

Powers, R. F.; Alban, D. H.; Miller, R. E.; Tiarks, A. E.; Wells, C. G.;

Avers, P. E.; Cline, R. G.; Loftus, N. S., Jr.; Fitzgerald, R. O. 1990.

Sustaining productivity of North American forests: Problems

and prospects. In: Gessel, S. P.; Lacate, D. S.;Weetman, G. F.;

Powers, R. F., eds. Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils, Proceedings of the 7th North American Forest Soils Conference, 24-

28 July 1988, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia

Faculty of Forestry: 49-79.

Pyne, S. J.; Andrews, P. L.; Laven, R. D. 1996. Introduction to

wildland fire. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 769 p.

Radek, K. J. 1996. Soil erosion following wildfires on the Okanogan

National Forest—initial monitoring results. In: International

Erosion Control Association symposium, February 27-March 1,

1996, Seattle, WA. Steamboat, CO: International Erosion Control Association. 7 p.

Ratliff, Raymond D.; McDonald, Philip M. 1987. Postfire grass and

legume seeding: what to seed and potential impacts on reforestation. In: Proceedings, ninth annual forest vegetation management conference, November 3-5, 1987. Redding, CA: Forest

Vegetation Management Conference: 111-123.

Reid, L. M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-141. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

118 p.

Rice, Raymond M. 1974. The hydrology of chaparral watersheds. In:

Rosenthal, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral proceeding. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club: 27-34.

Rice, R. M.; Crouse, R. P.; Corbett, E. S. 1965. Emergency measures

to control erosion after a fire on the San Dimas Experimental
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 59

Forest. In: Proceedings of the federal inter-agency sedimentation conference 1963. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Misc. Publ. 970: 123-130.

Rich, L. R. 1962. Erosion and sediment movement following a

wildfire in a ponderosa pine forest of central Arizona. Res. Note 76.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p.

Rietveld, W. J. 1975. Phytotoxic grass residues reduce germination

and initial root growth of ponderosa pine. Res. Pap. RM-153. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 15 p.

Rinne, J. N. 1996. Short-term effects of wildfire on fishes and

aquatic macroinvertebrates in the southwestern United States.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16: 653-658.

Robichaud, P. R.; Brown, R. E. 1999. What happened after the

smoke cleared: onsite erosion rates after a wildfire in eastern

Oregon. In: Olsen, D. S.; Potyondy, J. P., eds. Proceeding, Wildland Hydrology Conference, June 1999, Bozeman, MT. Hernon,VA:

American Water Resource Association: 419-426.

Roby, Kenneth B. 1989. Watershed response and recovery from the

Will Fire: ten years of observation. In: Berg, Neil H., tech. coord.

Proceedings of the symposium on fire and watershed management, October 26-28, 1988, Sacramento, California. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station: 131-136.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO:

Wildland Hydrology. 364 p.

Ruby, Earl C. 1989. Rationale for seeding grass on the Stanislaus

Complex burn. In: Berg, Neil H., tech. coord. Proceedings of the

symposium on fire and watershed management, October 26-28,

1988, Sacramento, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 125-130.

Ruby, Earl. 1995. Tyee BAER report: findings of the post-BAER

evaluation team, 8/21-23/95. Unpublished report on file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wenatchee National

Forest, WA. 6 p.

Ruby, Earl. 1997. Observations on the Dome fire emergency rehabilitation seeding. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Tonto National Forest, AZ. 3 p.

Ruby, Earl C.; Griffith, Rob. 1994. First-winter damage survey:

Marre fire, burned area emergency rehabilitation, May-June

1994. Unpublished report on file at: Los Padres National Forest,

CA. 19 p. plus data sheets and photos.

Ryan, K. C.; Noste, N. V. 1983. Evaluating prescribed fires. In: Lotan,

J. E.; Kilgore, B. M.; Fischer, W. C.; Mutch, R. W., tech. coords.

Proceedings, symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 230-238.

Sampson, Arthur W. 1944. Plant succession on burned chaparral

lands in northern California. California Agricultural Experiment

Station Bulletin. 685. 144 p.

Sartz, R. S. 1953. Soil erosion on a fire-denuded forest area in the

Douglas-fir region. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation:

279-281.

Schultz, A. M.; Launchbaugh, J. L.; Biswell, H. H. 1955. Relationship between grass density and brush seedling survival. Ecology.

36(2): 226-238.

Schultz, S.; Lincoln; Cauhorn, J.; Montagne, C. 1986. Quantification of erosion from a fire and rainfall event in the Big Belt Range

of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Unpublished report on file at:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena National

Forest, MT. 21 p.

Schumm, S. A.; Harvey, M. D. 1982. Natural erosion in the USA. In:

Schmidt, B. L., ed. Determinants of soil loss tolerance. Madison,

WI: American Society of Agronomy, Special Publication. 45: 23-39.

Souders, C. 1997. Soil loss pin method form, Gila National Forest:

HB fire. (data sheets) Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gila National Forest, NM. 2 p.

Stewart, William Lemley. 1973. Emergency rehabilitation of watersheds denuded by wildfire in the ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir

zones of north-central Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington

State University. 59 p. Thesis.

Story, Mark T. 1994. Water quality monitoring, Mill Creek timber

sales and Thompson Creek fire. Unpublished report on file at:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, MT. 10 p.

Story, Mark T.; Kracht, Richard. 1989. Memo: Emergency watershed stabilization, BMP implementation review Storm Creek

fire. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, MT. 16 p.

Sullivan, J.; Omi, P. N.; Dyer, A. A.; Gonzales-Caben, Armando. 1987.

Evaluating the economics efficiency of wildfire rehabilitation treatments. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 2(2): 58-61.

Swanson, F. J. 1981. Fire and geomorphic processes. In: Mooney, H.;

Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A.,

tech. coords. Proceedings of the conference; Fire regimes and

ecosystem properties, December 11-15, 1979, Honolulu, HI. Gen.

Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 410-420.

Sweeney, James R. 1956. Responses of vegetation to fire: a study of

the herbaceous vegetation following chaparral fires. University

of California Publications in Botany. 28: 143-249.

Taskey, R. D.; Curtis, C. L.; Stone, J. 1989. Wildfire, ryegrass

seeding, and watershed rehabilitation. In: Berg, Neil H., tech.

coord. Proceedings of the symposium on fire and watershed

management, October 26-28, 1988, Sacramento, California. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 149-161.

Taylor, Carl; Dalen, Ray; Ettner, Bob; Bates, Wes; Little, Harry;

Allen, Larry; Knipe, Duane. 1979. Burned area rehabilitation

activity review. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 68 p.

Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Klock, Glen O. 1973. First-year vegetation

after fire, reseeding, and fertilization on the Entiat Experimental

Forest. Res. Note PNW-195. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 23 p.

Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Klock, Glen O. 1976. Development of vegetation after fire, seeding, and fertilization on the Entiat Experimental Forest. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology

conference, number 15: Pacific northwest. Tallahassee, FL: Tall

Timbers Research Station: 171-191.

Tiedemann, A. R.; Helvey, J. D.; Anderson, T. D. 1978. Stream

chemistry and watershed nutrient economy following wildfire

and fertilization in eastern Washington. Journal of Environmental Quality. 7(4): 580-588.

Tyrrel, Robert R. 1981. Memo, Panorama burn rehabilitation.

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest, CA. 16 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Burned Area

Emergency Rehabilitation handbook FSH 2509.13.

Van de Water, Roberta. 1998. Post-fire riparian zone management:

the Salmon River experience. In: Proceedings, nineteenth annual

forest vegetation management conference: wildfire rehabilitation, January 20-22, 1998. Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation Management Conference: 25-40.

Van Zuuk, Kathy. 1997. Memo, Crystal burn monitoring. Unpublished

report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Tahoe National Forest, CA. 2 p.

Wells, W. G., II. 1981. Some effects of brushfires on erosion processes in coastal southern California. In: Erosion and Sediment

Transport in Pacific Rim Steeplands. Christchurch, New Zealand:

IASH Publication No. 132: 305-342.

Went, F. W.; Juhren, G.; Juhren, M. C. 1952. Fire and biotic factors

affecting germination. Ecology. 33(3): 351-364.

Wohlgemuth, Peter M.; Beyers, Jan L.; Wakeman, Carla D.; Conard,

Susan G. 1998. Effects of fire and grass seeding on soil erosion in

southern California chaparral. In: Proceedings, nineteenth annual forest vegetation management conference: wildfire rehabilitation, January 20-22, 1998. Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation

Management Conference: 41-51.

Wright, H. A.; Churchill, F. M.; Stevens, W. C. 1976. Effect of

prescribed burning on sediment, water yield, and water quality

from dozed juniper lands in central Texas. Journal of Range

Management. 29: 294-298.

Wright, H. A.; Churchill, F. M.; Stevens, W. C. 1982. Soil loss and

runoff on seeded vs. non-seeded watersheds following prescribed

burning. Journal of Range Management. 35: 382-385.
60 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Appendix A—Example Data and Interview Forms
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 61
62 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 63
64 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 65
66 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 67
68 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 69
70 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 71
72 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 73
74 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Appendix B—Treatment

Effectiveness Summaries_________

In the course of conducting BAER team member

interviews and reviewing monitoring reports, we acquired considerable information on the factors that

make the various BAER treatments effective or not, as

well as useful tips for implementation. Most of the

information was not amenable to tabulation or other

quantitative expression, so it was entered into our

database in “comments” fields. This information has

been summarized below, along with the effectiveness

ratings developed from the interview forms.

The effectiveness and implementation information

in these descriptions comes strictly from the comments and monitoring reports collected by us in this

project. They are not intended to be comprehensive

analyses of each treatment. Fully describing effective

installation of treatments is beyond the scope of this

report. The following comments should be used to

supplement other sources of information on the various treatments.

Hillslope Treatments

Hillslope treatments are implemented to keep soil

place and comprise the greatest effort in most BAER

projects. Consequently, we obtained the most information on these treatments from our interviews and

monitoring reports.

Aerial Seeding

Purpose: Aerial seeding, usually grasses but occasionally also legumes, is carried out to increase vegetative

cover on a burn site during the first few years after a

fire. It is typically done where erosion hazard is high

and native plant seed bank is believed to have been

destroyed or severely reduced by the fire. Seed is

applied by fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-24% Good-28% Fair28% Poor-20% (Replies = 83)

Interviewees were almost evenly divided on the effectiveness rating of aerial seeding, with a slight majority

regarding it as either “good” or “fair” (table 16). Respondents in Regions 1, 4, and 6 were more likely to

rate seeding “excellent” or “good” than respondents in

Regions 3 and 5.

Effectiveness depends on timeliness of seed application, choice of seed, pilot skill, protection from grazing,

and luck in having gentle rains to stimulate seed

germination before wind or heavy rains blow or wash

soil and seed away. Proper timing of seed application

depends on location. In some areas it is best to drop

seed directly into dry ash, before any rain falls, to take

advantage of the fluffy seedbed condition, while in

others seed is best applied after the first snow so that

it will germinate in the spring. Both conditions also

reduce loss to rodents. Choice of seed determines how

easily it can be applied – some grass species with long

awns tend to clog in seeder buckets, and light seeds

drift more than heavy ones – and how well it will grow,

how long it will persist, and what impact it will have

on natural regeneration. In general, legumes have not

been found to be particularly effective at producing

cover (there are exceptions). A skillful pilot will apply

the seed evenly, rather than in strips with unseeded

areas in between them, providing better ground cover

once the seed germinates.

A few respondents also mentioned that straw mulch,

needle cast, slope barriers such as straw wattles or

contour-felled logs, or ripping the soil enhanced growth

of seeded grasses. Maximum cover of seeded species is

not attained until summer. Many respondents reported that seeding was not particularly effective at

producing protection from the first year’s storms (especially in the Southwest for fires that occur just

before the monsoon season with its high intensity

rains) but may provide effective cover during the

second and subsequent years. Several respondents

suggested that waiting to seed onto snow for spring

growth would be the most effective course of action in

the Southwest (Region 3), because they usually ended

up having to do a second seeding anyway after the

summer monsoon washed the first application away.

Several respondents noted disappointing results from

seeding with relatively expensive native species or

Regreen (commercially available sterile wheatgrass

hybrid) and would not use them again. On the other

hand, cereal grains were generally reported to perform well the first growing season. Cereal grains that

do not germinate in quantity the second year provide

soil cover with the mulch from the dead first year

growth. Both cattle and elk grazing were reported to

reduce the effective cover of seeded grasses. Seeded

grass cover tends to be higher on low angle slopes (less

than 40 percent) than steep ones.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Many

respondents reported difficulties in contracting for

seed and aircraft operators which, especially after fall

fires, resulted in seed being applied too late for optimum conditions. Ground sampling, with sticky papers

or by visual inspection, should be done to monitor seed

application rate and evenness. Fixed wing aircraft

may be less expensive per application but can be less

accurate at directing seed than helicopters.

The use of native seed is a major issue on many

Forests. Native grass seed can be hard to acquire in

large quantities or in a timely manner compared to

cereal grains or pasture grasses; it is also generally

more expensive. Native seed should come from a

nearby source area to preserve local genetic integrity.

Cereal grains will germinate and grow the second year
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 75

if the ground surface is disturbed by salvage logging or

grazing. Many monitoring studies have found lower

cover of native plants in areas with high seeded grass

cover, even where seeding increased total cover. Sometimes this resulted in lower total cover after the seeded

grass decreased in abundance. On the other hand,

seeded grass may also inhibit growth of noxious weeds

that invade sites after fire, a beneficial outcome. Rhizomatous (sod-forming) grasses make reforestation

more difficult if they achieve significant cover. It is

important to know the composition of prefire vegetation when proposing to seed – if the vegetation included many annuals or lots of perennial grass or

sedge, there will usually be considerable cover established naturally after a fire.

Other factors: Many respondents noted that grass

seeding was sometimes done primarily for “political”

reasons, especially at the wildland-urban interface.

Ground Seeding

Purpose: Ground seeding is done in localized areas of

high burn intensity where reestablishing plant cover

quickly is essential, such as riparian areas, above

lakes and reservoirs, or highly productive forest land.

Annual or perennial grasses, usually non-native pasture grasses or cereal grains, and non-native leguminous forbs, are typically used. Ground seeding assures

more even seed application than aerial seeding and

sometimes includes treatments to cover the seed,

which enhances germination. Seed is applied from allterrain vehicles or by hand.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-9% Good-82% Fair9% Poor-0% (Replies = 11)

Ground seeding was judged “good” in effectiveness by

most interviewees. As with aerial seeding, the postfire weather pattern frequently determines the effectiveness of cover production by seeded grass. High

winds may blow seed off site. First rains can wash ash

and seed from the hillslope, or they may be gentle

enough to stimulate germination. Use of a rangeland

drill, raking, or mulch to cover seed increases success.

One forest used cattle to trample seed into the ground

and break up a hydrophobic layer. Non-native species,

especially perennial grasses, grow well, sometimes too

well, and provide persistent cover. Cereal grains disappear in a few years.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Timing of

seed application is essential to success; optimum timing

depends on local weather pattern. The seed mix must be

adapted to the soil type. Awned or very light seeds

spread more easily if rice hulls (or similar material) are

included in the mix. Grass growth is best on lower angle

slopes (less likely to wash away). Protection from cattle

grazing the first year is considered by some to be the

biggest factor in success; protection for 2 or 3 years is

good. Elk may have a negative effect on seeded grasses

as well.

Seeding Plus Fertilizer

Purpose: Seeding plus fertilization is done to increase

total vegetation cover quickly on a burned slope. Occasionally fertilizer alone is applied to enhance natural

regeneration.

Relative effectiveness: Excellent-25% Good-0% Fair50% Poor-25% (Replies = 4)

Fertilization received mixed reviews among the four

respondents. As with seeding, timing of application

and post-fire weather pattern are important to success. Fertilization is mainly done in the Northwest and

ammonium sulfate is most commonly used. One respondent reported that greener strips were apparent

in the seeded area where the fertilizer had been

applied. Pelleted seed, containing a small amount of

fertilizer, may be easier to apply than uncoated seed.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Along

riparian areas slow release fertilizer has been used to

minimize leaching into waterways. There is evidence

that fertilizer may inhibit or depress mycorrhizae

formation.

Contour-Felled Logs (Log Erosion Barriers, Log Terraces, Terracettes)

Purpose: Contour-felled logs reduce water velocity,

break up concentrated flows, and induce hydraulic

roughness to burned watersheds. Sediment storage is

a secondary objective. The potential volume of sediment stored is highly dependent on slope, the size and

length of the felled trees, and the degree to which the

felled trees are adequately staked and placed into

ground contact.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-29% Good-37% Fair14% Poor-20% (Replies = 35)

The effectiveness of contour-felling covered the spectrum from “excellent” to “poor,” although more ratings

were “excellent” or “good” (66 percent) than “fair” or

“poor” (34 percent) (table 16). Some personnel reported 100 percent of logs functioning, while others

reported 0 percent functioning. Site conditions, installation quality, climate, and the quality of materials

are major factors in determining relative effectiveness. In some instances contour-felled log barriers

have filled with sediment following the first storm

event after installation, while others have taken 1 to

2 years to fill.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Good

planning, proper implementation, and knowledge of

environmental factors are crucial to the success of
76 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

contour-felling. This BAER treatment is expensive,

technically demanding, and dangerous work, so crew

skill and experience and good supervision are important. Attention to felling and delimbing safety rules is

paramount. Logs must be placed on the contour, put in

contact with the ground, and properly anchored. If

these three items are ignored, failure is assured. This

treatment needs to be implemented in a very methodical and meticulous manner. Increased installation

speed or area covered will not make up in effectiveness

that can be lost by poor installation. Ground contact

can be assured by adequate delimbing beneath each

log, leaving branches downhill, trenching, and backfilling. In some instances machinery has been used to

make ground contact trenches, but the usual method

is to excavate with hand labor due to equipment and

slope limitations. Trenching to seat contour-felled logs

has an additional benefit in that it can help to break up

hydrophobic layers in the soil. Anchoring can be done

with wooden or re-bar stakes where slopes are steeper,

but should be of sufficient frequency and depth to

prevent movement of the logs.

Shallow, rocky soils that are very uneven are problematic for anchoring, so care must be taken to ensure

that logs are adequately secured to the slope. Overly

rocky and steep slopes should be avoided, because

benefits gained from contour-felling treatment can be

easily offset by extra implementation time required

and limited stabilization of small amounts of soil.

Gentler slopes and finer textured soils (except clayey

soils) lead to better installation and greater sediment

trapping efficiency. Slopes less than 40 percent are

recommended for successful contour-felling. Slopes

greater than 75 percent present significant installation safety hazards and should be avoided. In some

instances, only the lower portions of slopes near ephemeral or perennial channels have been treated. In highly

erosive soils derived from parent material such as

granitics or glacial till, so much sediment can be

mobilized that it might overwhelm small contourfelled logs.

Availability of adequate numbers of straight trees

also affects this treatment. Specifications require logs

from burned trees 15 to 20 ft (4.5 to 6 m) in length with

diameters of 4 to 12 in (100 to 305 mm). Placing tree

stems 10 ft (3 m) apart on slopes over 50 percent, 15 ft

(4.5 m) apart for slopes of 30 to 50 percent, and 20 ft (6 m)

apart for slopes less than 30 percent would require

2000 to 4000 linear ft ac–1 (1500 to 3000 linear m ha–1)

of tree bole on some sites. A shortage of dead timber or

large numbers of small diameter trees could place

limitations on the contour-felled treatment area.

Crooked stems, such as oak, are often readily available, but they are not useable or cost-effective for

contour-felling treatment. Cutting trees for contourfelled log barriers reduces the number of snags for

birds to use. However, it often increases vegetation

cover when plants become established in fine sediments trapped on the uphill sides of the felled logs.

Contour-felled logs should be placed in a random

pattern to ensure a more “natural” appearance and

avoid patterns which might aggravate runoff.

Mulch

Purpose: Mulch is used to cover soil, reducing rain

impact and soil erosion. It is often used in conjunction

with grass seeding to provide ground cover in critical

areas. Mulch protects the soil and improves moisture

retention underneath it, benefitting seeded grasses in

hot areas but not always in cool ones.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-66% Good-17% Fair17% Poor-0% (Replies = 12)

Mulch was judged “excellent” in effectiveness by most

interviewees, although many also noted that it is quite

expensive and labor-intensive (table 16). It is most

effective on gentle slopes and in areas where high

winds are not likely to occur. Wind either blows the

mulch offsite or piles it so deeply that seed germination is inhibited. On very steep slopes, rain can wash

some of the mulch material downslope. Punching it

into the soil, use of a tackifier, or felling small trees

across the mulch may increase onsite retention. Mulch

is frequently applied to improve germination of seeded

grasses. In the past, seed germination from grain or

hay mulch was regarded as a bonus, adding cover to

the site. Use of straw from pasture introduces exotic

grass seed. Forests are now likely to seek “weed-free”

mulch such as rice straw. Mulch is judged most valuable for high value areas, such as above or below roads,

above streams, or below ridge tops.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Mulch

can be applied most easily where road access is

available because the mulch must be trucked in,

although for critical remote areas it can be applied by

helicopter or fixed wing aircrafts. Hand application is

labor-intensive and can result in back or eye injuries

to workers. Using a blower to apply the mulch requires considerable operator skill to get uniform

distribution of the material. Effectiveness depends

on even application and consistent thickness. Rice

straw is not expected to contain seeds of weeds that

could survive on a chaparral or forested site (too dry);

however, weeds do germinate sometimes and could

result in introducing new exotics to wildland areas.

Other certified “weed-free” straws sometimes contain noxious weeds. There is concern that thick mulch

inhibits native shrub or herb germination. Shrub

seedlings have been observed to be more abundant at

the edge of mulch piles, where the material was less

than 1 in (25 mm) deep. Because of the weed and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 77

germination concerns, mulch should not be used in

areas with sensitive or rare plants. Mulch can be

applied in 100 to 200 ft (30 to 60 m) wide strips on long

slopes, saving labor costs and also reducing the potential impact of the mulch on native plant diversity.

Slash Spreading

Purpose: Slash spreading covers the ground with organic material, interrupting rain impact and trapping

soil. It is a common practice after timber sales, but can

also be used on burned slopes where dead vegetation

is present. Slash is more frequently used on firebreaks

and dozer firelines.

Relative Effectiveness: Good–50% Fair–50% (Replies = 2)

Interviewees that used this treatment rated the effectiveness “good” and “fair.” It is more effective on gentle

slopes than steep ones. In accessible areas, the material can disappear as people collect it for firewood. One

respondent was disappointed that not much sediment

was trapped by spread slash.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Slash

needs to be cut so it makes good contact with the

ground. It can be used in a moderately burned area,

where there is more material to spread, or below an

intensely burned slope or area of water repellent soil.

There is concern that slash will attract or harbor

insects, and it could act as fuel for a reburn.

Temporary Fencing

Purpose: Temporary fencing is used to keep grazing

livestock and/or vehicles off of burned areas and riparian zones during the recovery period. Resprouting

onsite vegetation and seeded species attract grazing

animals and are initially very sensitive to disturbance. Fencing can speed up the recovery process by

removing post-fire disturbance from grazers and vehicles.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-0% Good-68% Fair33% Poor-0% (Replies = 3)

Temporary fencing was evaluated as “good” or “fair”

by the limited number of interviewees that rated it

(table 16). They noted that the effectiveness is dependent on the extent to which grazers are excluded from

the burned areas. In some areas, elk grazing is as

problematic as cattle grazing, and the use of the more

costly high fences that exclude elk needs to be considered. The presence and intensity of native ungulate

grazing will definitely affect the success of fencing.

Elimination of grazing for 2 years was judged to be

very important for achieving hillslope stability. One

person noted that temporary fencing could have excellent effectiveness when done before winter, but

the chance of fencing being completed before winter

is often low due to the extensive time requirements of

fence construction.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Some

BAER personnel recommend cattle exclusion if more

than 50 percent of an allotment is burned. If a decision

is made to employ temporary fences, installation needs

to be timely and proper. Fence construction is slow

relative to other BAER treatments so it is important

that fence installation is not delayed. It is important to

keep cattle out of burned areas before and during fence

construction. Incursions by cattle can slow fence construction. Consideration should be given to installation of big game/elk exclosures where these animals

have a significant impact on burned area recovery.

The location of temporary fences should be coordinated with existing allotment fences.

Other Factors: Some personnel liked using BAER

funds with Forest funds to achieve long-term fencing

goals. Others apparently have had problems getting

fencing put in with BAER funds. Electric fence is an

option for excluding cattle. This option needs to be

considered more in the future. It may be more costeffective, easier, and quicker to install just after aerial

seeding than other types of fences. Fencing is also a

good tool for excluding off-road vehicles from sensitive

recently burned areas.

Straw Wattles

Purpose: Straw wattles are permeable barriers used to

detain surface runoff long enough to reduce flow velocity. Their main purpose is to break up slope length.

They have also been used in small drainages or on side

slopes for detaining small amounts of fine suspended

sediment.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-33% Good-33% Fair33% Poor-0% (Replies = 3)

The effectiveness rating of straw wattles ranges from

“excellent” to “fair” depending on the circumstances in

which they were used and the quality of the installation. Comments within one Region on straw wattle

effectiveness ranged from being an “excellent” treatment at a reasonable cost and still functioning after 2

years, to that of exhibiting pronounced undercutting

immediately on the downhill side. Visual monitoring

has noted that straw wattles usually remain in place

and often fill with soil material on the uphill side.

Where that happens, good seed germination occurs.

Straw wattles have been placed onto specific sites and

randomly located on slopes. Some monitoring observations have noted that there does not appear to be a

difference in overall vegetative recovery between contour-felled log areas and straw wattle treatment areas. Overall effectiveness can be affected by breakdown of the wattles and release of built-up sediment

onto the rest of the slope or into drainages.
78 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Correct

installation of straw wattles is crucial to their effectiveness. They are labor intensive because they need

to have good ground contact and anchoring. Wattles

can be anchored to the ground by trenching and

backfilling or staking. An effective anchoring technique is to use “U” shaped 1/8 in (3 mm) re-bar. Re-bar

can hold wattles to the ground without trenching and

is less likely to break than wood stakes in shallow soils.

Straw wattles can work well on slopes greater than 40

percent but they are difficult to carry and hard to

install on steep terrain. Spotting the wattles with

helicopters can solve some of this problem.

Other Factors: The cost of straw wattle installation is

about one half that of contour-felled logs.

Tilling/Ripping

Purpose: Tilling and ripping are mechanical soil treatments aimed at improving infiltration rates in machine-compacted or water repellent soils. Both treatments may increase the amount of macropore space in

soils by physical breakup of dense or water repellent

soils, and thus increase the amount of rainfall that

infiltrates into the soil.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-33% Good-33% Fair33% Poor-0% (Replies = 3)

Tilling and ripping was judged to be an “excellent”

treatment for roads, firebreaks, and trails but less

effective on hillslopes (table 16). These techniques

may add roughness to the soil and promote infiltration. They may be successful for site-specific circumstances like compacted or water repellent areas, but

not economically feasible on large areas or safe to do on

slopes greater than 30 to 45 percent. Size of the

equipment and crawler tractor operator skill are also

important effectiveness factors. Up- and down-hill

tilling/ripping needs to be avoided because it can

diminish the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing soil erosion by promoting rilling in the furrows.

According to some personnel, this type of treatment

was the most effective when done in combination with

broadcast seeding. Others indicated that tilling/ripping can be successful accomplished at a high production rate on non-timbered areas without seeding.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Shallow

soils, rock outcrops, steep slopes, incised drainages,

fine-textured soils, and high tree density create significant problems for tilling and ripping. These treatments work best where there is a good soil depth, the

soils are coarse textured, slopes are less than 30

percent, and woody vegetation density is low. This

type of treatment has a high logistics support requirement (fuel, transport carriers, access, and drainage

crossing).

Other Factors: Since tilling and ripping are grounddisturbing activities, cultural clearances are required.

Obtaining proper cultural clearances may significantly

slow accomplishment of tilling/ripping projects.

Contour Trenching and Terraces

Purpose: Contour trenches are used to break up the

slope surface, to slow runoff and allow infiltration, and

to trap sediment. Rills are stopped by the trenches.

Trenches or terraces are often used in conjunction

with seeding. They can be constructed with machinery

(deeper trenches) or by hand (generally shallow). Width

and depth vary with design storm, spacing, soil type,

and slope.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-67% Good-33% Fair0% Poor-0% (Replies = 3)

Two of the three interviewees who rated trenching

considered its effectiveness “excellent;” the other

thought it “good” (table 16). Trenches trap sediment

and interrupt water flow, slowing runoff velocity.

They work best on coarse granitic soils. When installed with heavy equipment, trenches may result

in considerable soil disturbance that can create

problems.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Trenches

must be built along the slope contour to work properly;

using baffles or soil mounds to divide the trench

reduces the danger of excessive flow if they are not

quite level. Digging trenches requires fairly deep soil,

and slopes of less than 70 percent are best. Trenches

are hard to construct in heavy, clay soils and are not

recommended for areas prone to landslides. Hand

crews can install trenches much faster than log erosion barriers (a similarly effective hillslope treatment), and crew skill is not quite as important to

effective installation. Trenches have high visual impact when used in open areas (and thus may be subject

to controversy), but tend to disappear with time as

they are filled with sediment and covered by vegetation. On the other hand, more extreme (wide, deep)

trenches installed several decades ago are still visible

on the landscape in some areas.

Geotextiles, Geowebbing

Purpose: Matting is used to cover ground and control

erosion in high risk areas where other methods will

not work, such as extremely steep slopes, above roads

or structures, or along stream banks. It is usually used

in conjunction with seeding. Geotextiles come in different grades with ultraviolet inhibitors that determine how long they will last in the field.

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewees rated this

treatment.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 79

When geotextiles mats are applied over seed and

mulch, they are very effective in stopping erosion.

Because the cost is very high, they are used only where

immediate ground cover is needed; large areas cannot

be covered by this method. Geotextiles are particularly effective for steep upper slopes where other

materials (seed, mulch alone) will blow off. Material

must be anchored securely to remain effective, especially along streambanks.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: An experienced crew is needed to ensure that good contact is

established between the fabric material and the ground,

and that the fabric is securely anchored. Fabric matting is difficult to apply on rocky ground. Plastic

netting on some geotextiles material can trap small

rodents and birds. Jute netting does not provide complete ground cover but it has not been reported to trap

animals. The complete cover provided by some

geotextiles can reduce native plant establishment.

Silt Fences

Purpose: Silt fences are installed to trap sediment in

swales, small ephemeral drainages, or along hillslopes

where other methods cannot be used. They provide

temporary sediment storage. Silt fences are also installed to monitor sediment movement as part of

effectiveness monitoring.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent–38% Good–62% Fair

–0% Poor–0% (Replies = 8)

Silt fences were considered “good” or “excellent” by

interviewees (table 16). Most respondents felt they

worked well in ephemeral channels, but not all. The

size of the watershed above the fence may be important, and silt fences cannot handle debris flows or

heavy sediment loads. They work better on gentler

slopes, such as swales. Silt fences can be installed on

rocky slopes where log erosion barriers would not

achieve good ground contact. Sealing the bottom of the

fence to the ground well is critical to effectiveness and

seems to work best if a trench is dug behind the fence

to trap sediment. Silt fences also effectively catch

small rocks and ravel on slopes above buildings.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: As noted

above, silt fences must be anchored and sealed to the

ground to be effective. Sandbags can be used as anchors. Burying the bottom of the fence in a trench is

also useful. Rockiness of the soil affects how well the

toe of the fence can be buried. When used in ephemeral

channels, silt fences must be cleaned out or they can

fail and release the stored sediment all at once. They

are useful for monitoring sediment movement, and

can last several years before failing.

Sand, Soil or Gravel Bags

Purpose: Sand, soil or gravel bags are used in small

channels or on hillslopes to trap sediment and interrupt water flow.

Relative effectiveness: No interviewees rated this

treatment.

Comments indicate that bags are useful in ephemeral

channels or on slopes, where they are placed in staggered rows like contour felling in areas where there

are no trees. Rows of bags break water flow and

promote infiltration. They store sediment temporarily,

then break down and release it.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: When

bags are used in channels, installation sites must be

selected by an experienced person. They are not appropriate for use in V-shaped channels. Installation of soil

bags is labor-intensive, but they can be a relatively

cheap treatment if volunteer labor is used. The bags

are easy for volunteers to fill and install.

Channel Treatments

Channel treatments are implemented to modify

sediment and water movement in ephemeral or smallorder channels, and to prevent flooding and debris

torrents that may affect downstream values at risk.

Straw Bale Check dams

Purpose: Straw bale check dams are used to prevent or

reduce sediment inputs into perennial streams during

the first winter or rainy season following a wildfire.

Straw bales function by decreasing water velocity and

detaining sediment-laden surface runoff long enough

for coarser sediments to deposit behind check dams.

The decreased water velocity also reduces downcutting

in ephemeral channels.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-30% Good-30% Fair30% Poor-10% (Replies = 10)

Straw bale check dams were judged to cover the range

from “good” to “poor” effectiveness. They often fill in

the first few storms, so their effectiveness can diminish rapidly. However, channel gradients can be easily

stabilized, and sediment is stored and released at a

slower or diminished rate. They appear to work well in

front of culverts, and in semi-arid environments require little maintenance. Structural survival rates of

90 percent have been reported after 1 year with 75 to

100 percent sediment storage, and 95 percent survival

after rainfall of 2.4 in hr–1 (60 mm hr–1) for a 10-min

duration. However, a common negative comment was

that straw bale check dams tend to blow out in large

storms. Failure can occur if the dams are poorly
80 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

installed or put in locations where they can not contain

runoff. Straw bale check dams are considered by many

BAER project coordinators to be effective emergency

rehabilitation treatments. Straw bale check dams

appear to work better than contoured felled logs. Some

Forests use straw bales below culverts to disperse flow

and trap sediments. They appear to the most successful in channels small enough to require only three

bales, but in narrow, steep drainages two-bale wide

structures do not function as well.

Others do not recommend use of straw bales because

they fill to capacity after small storms. They can be

washed out later even when anchored with “U” shaped

1/8 in (3 mm) re-bar are useful only in the upper

reaches of watersheds (1st or 2nd order drainages)

that are often difficult to access, and can be easily

undercut if energy dissipators are not installed. One of

the comments on straw bale check dams was there is

always a risk of failure in large events. These dams

cannot be designed for large storms, and will fail

during significant runoff events.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: A large

number of comments were made about important

implementation and environmental factors that affect

the success of straw bale check dams. Regarding

implementation, a key factor is having a skilled implementation leader and trained, experienced crews.

Straw bale check dams are costly and labor intensive.

With such a high investment, the dams must be welldesigned, properly placed, and well built.

Generally speaking, straw bales work best in drier

regions, on small drainage areas that have low gradients (less than 30 percent), and in channels that are

not incised. The bales need to be placed so that they

contact the channel bottom, are curved up to and

keyed into banks, and are adequately staked or wired

to stay in place. Inter-bale spaces need to be filed so

that channelized flow does not occur. “U” shaped re-bar

seems to work well in stabilizing bales but don’t

guarantee that the bales will remain in place. Geotextile

fabric works well as an energy dissipator and should

be placed starting on the uphill side running over the

bales in the center of the channel and downstream in

a splash pad. Chicken wire and staking should be used

to keep the geotextile in place. Rock, wood, or other

straw bales can also be used as energy dissipators but

must be large enough or well-anchored to prevent

movement during runoff. Straw bale check dams seem

to work better and survive longer than silt fences,

especially when reinforced with wire on the upstream

side.

Other Factors: Because straw bales will break down

over time and fail in high flows, maintenance during

the first year is very important. Straw bales are not

readily available early in the year. After August they

are very available. Rice straw bales should be considered because they usually do not contain noxious

weeds, and weeds associated with rice crops do not do

well on dry hillslopes and ephemeral channels. Straw

bale check dams can be destroyed by grazing animals

such as cattle and elk. Bears also have a peculiar

tendency to indulge in ripping straw bale check dams

apart.

Log Grade Stabilizers

Purpose: The purpose of log grade stabilizers is much

the same as log dams, except that the emphasis is on

stabilizing the channel gradient rather than trapping

sediment.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-30% Good-30% Fair10% Poor-30% (Replies = 10)

Interviewees rated log grade stabilizers about equally

across the spectrum from “excellent” to “poor.” Like log

dams, these structures are expensive and time-consuming. In situations where log grade stabilizers were

rated “excellent,” 70 to 80 percent of the structures

were still functional after 1 year. “Poor” ratings usually resulted where the log grade stabilizers did not

make a difference or they were lost to high stormflows.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Log grade

stabilizers have many of the same design, implementation, and environmental factors considerations that

log dams do. Proper design and crew experience are

critical in making these structures last and function

effectively. Numerous small log grade stabilizers are

preferable to a few larger ones. In some locations,

there might not be adequate, straight, woody material

left after a fire to build log grade stabilizers with onsite

resources.

Rock Grade Stabilizers

Purpose: The purpose of rock grade stabilizers is the

same as log grade stabilizers, except that they are

made of rock. The emphasis is on stabilizing the

channel gradient rather than trapping sediment

although some sediment will be trapped by these

structures.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-0% Good-33% Fair67% Poor-0% (Replies = 3)

Only a few interviewees commented on rock grade

stabilizers. They rated this technique as “good” to

“fair.” There were not many comments about this

technique.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Many

comments on implementation and environmental factors pertaining to log grade stabilizers, apply to rock

grade stabilizers. Proper design, adequate planning,

and experienced crews often make the difference
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 81

between “good” and “fair” effectiveness. Like log grade

stabilizers, this technique is expensive and time consuming. A key implementation factor is the availability of rock for the grade stabilizers. A couple of important implementation factors that affect effectiveness

are: (1) the use of rocks that are large enough to resist

transport during runoff events, and (2) placement of

organic debris or sediment screening on the upstream

side of the grade stabilizer.

Channel Debris Clearing

Purpose: Channel clearing is the removal or size reduction of logs and other organic debris or the removal

of sediment deposits to prevent them from being mobilized in debris flows or flood events or altering

stream geomorphology and hydrology. This treatment

has been done to prevent creation of channel debris

dams which might result in flash floods, or aggravate

flood heights or peakflows. Organic debris can lead to

culvert failure by blocking inlets culverts, or reduce

channel flow capacity. Excessive sediments in stream

channels can compromise in-channel storage capacity

and the function of debris basins.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-0% Good-71% Fair0% Poor-29% (Replies = 7)

Channel debris clearing was rated as “good” in effectiveness by the majority of the interviewees, but nearly

a third rated its effectiveness to be “poor.” The latter

rating came from situations where there was not

enough post-fire organic debris in riparian areas or the

channels to cause debris dam problems or stream

hydrology was adversely altered by clearing. Because

much of the debris from fire-killed trees does not enter

channel system until 2 or 3 years later, this treatment

was not considered by some to be a useful BAER

treatment. Also, there has been a significant improvement in the understanding of the positive role of large

woody debris in trapping sediment, dissipating the

energy of flowing water, and providing aquatic organism habitat. In some instances the channel clearing

has been more disruptive than the wildfire. So, in

some areas the policy now is to avoid channel clearing.

Channel clearing is definitely an expensive, timeconsuming operation, but it has been successful in

certain situations such as locations where trash racks

cannot be used to protect road culverts, where woody

debris might move into reservoirs, and where sediment must be removed from debris basins and channels to provide adequate sediment storage capacity.

Important factors in the relative effectiveness of

channel clearing, when it is used, include a good

analysis of risk and the value of resources at risk,

knowledge of the size and quantity of material to

remove, the clearing distances above roads needed to

protect culverts, and understanding of the physical

characteristics of the channels which might aggravate or reduce stormflows.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Timing

is an important factor which affects both the effectiveness and the assessment of the value of channel

clearing. When sediment removal is the objective of

channel clearing, operations must be done before seasons (usually winter) that produce the first or most

significant stormflows. For large woody debris, the

key question is if and when inputs of woody debris are

likely to occur. In some areas, woody debris recruitment (greater than 2 years) may be beyond the

timeframe of BAER projects. Crews conducting channel clearing must be well trained in order to recognize

woody material that is too large to float or be firmly

anchored, is part of the natural instream coarse woody

debris load, or is a natural grade stabilizer. Where

woody debris is cut up it must be sufficiently short to

pass through culverts.

Other Factors: Channel debris clearing may produce

significant, adverse riparian area impacts, destabilize the channel, reduce aquatic habitat, and alter

stream hydrology. These side effects may negate any

positive benefits derived from channel clearing in

some situations.

Stream Bank Armoring/Channel Armoring

Purpose: Stream bank and channel armoring is done

to prevent erosion of channel banks and bottoms

during runoff events. In some hydrologic systems

stream banks are a major source of sediment.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment.

Comments on armoring indicated that it functions

well in small, ephemeral drainages or near the heads

of larger ephemeral drainages, and lower gradient

areas. In steep terrain, sloughing of upslope materials

can bury the bank armoring.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Stream

bank armoring requires proper design, a well-developed implementation plan, and experienced crews for

maximum effectiveness. Other implementation factors that contribute to success include proper sized

materials, use of geotextile fabric, avoiding overly

steep areas, and the use of energy dissipators.

In-Channel Felling

Purpose: This BAER channel treatment is designed to

replace woody material in drainage bottoms that have

been consumed by wildfire. It is intended to trap

organic debris and temporarily detain or slow down

storm runoff. Woody material felled into channels will

ultimately alter channel gradient, and may cause

sediment deposition and channel aggradation.
82 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment.

It is difficult to assess the relative effectiveness of this

treatment because no monitoring information was

available and few visual observations have been made.

Log jams created by felling trees into channels have

the potential to detain sediment, but there is little

credible confirmation of this potential.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Good

pre-planning, supervision, and a high level of crew

experience are crucial to successful implementation of

this treatment. Skilled tree fellers and chainsaw crews

are vital to implementation of this treatment. Crews

need to be able to judge correct log spacing, positioning, and adequate contact with the streambed. This

treatment can be implemented only where there is a

good supply of dead trees near the channels. Also, care

must be taken not to use large trees because they do

not work as well as smaller ones. Snags can be felled

parallel to channels to support channel banks or in vshaped or other patterns to retain woody debris above

road culverts.

Log Dams

Purpose: Log dams, like straw bale check dams, are

used to prevent or reduce sediment inputs into perennial streams during the first winter or rainy season

following a wildfire. They are constructed of more

durable material than straw bale dams. Log dams

function by decreasing water velocity and detaining

sediment-laden surface runoff long enough for coarser

sediments to deposit behind check dams. Decreased

water velocity also reduces downcutting in ephemeral

channels.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-40% Good-60% Fair0% Poor-0% (Replies = 5)

Log dams were rated “excellent” and “good” in their

effectiveness as a BAER treatment by the limited

number of interviewees who commented on log dams.

Well-built log check dams can be 70 to 80 percent

effective in trapping sediment and last 15 to 30 years.

The amount of sediment trapped is highly variable

depending on the size of the dam. In one location,

individual log dams were reported to trap up to 40 yd3

(40 m3) of sediment without failure. They can be very

effective in adding to channel stability and keeping

sediment onsite. On the negative side, failures due to

undercutting, bypassing, and complete blowout have

aggravated erosion problems by producing deep scouring at dam sites and release of large amounts of

sediment in pulses. Despite these potential problems

and situations where 25 percent failed in the first

storm, no one rated log dams as “fair” or “poor” in

effectiveness.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Like

straw bale check dams, a key factor in log dam construction is having a skilled implementation leader

and trained, experienced crews. Log check dams are

costly and labor intensive, requiring six to eight times

the labor for installation than straw bale check dams.

Design features such as appropriate size of watershed,

dam orientation, log sizes, lateral keying (1.5 to 3 ft

(0.4 to 1 m) into banks), spillways, contact with the

stream bed, plugging of gaps, and energy dissipaters

are important implementation considerations. Some

BAER coordinators recommend that log dams never

be put in fully functional channels, but others recommend that log dams can be used to replace coarse

woody debris burned out of small perennial channels.

Often rocks are used in conjunction with log dams.

Other Factors: In some locations, there might not be

adequate woody material after a fire to build log dams.

Debris Basins

Purpose: Debris basins are constructed to treat either

the loss of control of runoff and deterioration of water

quality, or threats to human life and property. The

design of debris basins must be to a standard that they

provide immediate protection from flood water, floatable debris, sediment, boulders, and mudflows. They

are usually constructed in stream systems with normally high sediment loads. Their purpose is to protect

soil and water resources from unacceptable losses or to

prevent unacceptable downstream damage. Debris

basins are considered to be a last resort because they

are extremely expensive to construct and require commitment to annual maintenance.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment.

In order for debris basins to function they must be able

to trap at least 50 percent and preferably 70 to 80

percent of 100-year flows. A spillway needs to be

constructed in the debris basin to safely release flow in

excess of the design storage capacity. The downstream

channel should be lined to prevent scour. In some

instances excavated pits in ephemeral channels have

been used as debris basins. These must be large

enough to trap 50 to 90 percent of flood flow. They need

to be cleaned annually until abandoned.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Because

debris basins are rather large, they require design by

qualified engineers. They are built in depositional or

runout areas that have large storage capacity. During

construction it is important to maintain the channel

gradient. Head cutting can result from improperly

located or constructed debris basins.

Other Factors: Debris basins must be designed with

large vehicle access to the basins so they can be
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 83

cleaned out periodically. Maintenance is a key factor

in effectiveness of this treatment. Although protection

is immediate, maintaining debris basins may be a

long-term commitment.

Straw Wattle Dams

Purpose: Straw wattle dams work on the same principal as straw bale check dams. They trap sediment on

side slopes and in the upper ends of ephemeral drainages by reducing channel gradient. Straw wattles are

easy to place in contact with the soil and provide a low

risk barrier to soil movement.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-33% Good-67% Fair0% Poor-0% (Replies = 3)

The limited number of interviewees that rated this

treatment scored straw wattle dams as “excellent” or

“good” in terms of controlling movement of sediment in

channels. In one instance, only 10 of 3,300 wattles

failed during the first storm after installation. Another reported an 80 percent first-storm survival rate,

and excellent channel energy dissipation and trapping

of sediment.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Like any

other channel treatment, good plans, designs, and

experienced crews go a long ways to ensure successful

implementation. Straw wattles work best on first

order ephemeral channels with slopes less than 45

percent gradient. They can be easily placed by relatively untrained crews since they conform to the soil

surface very well. This is a distinct advantage over

rigid barriers like logs. Placement of straw wattle

check dams is easiest on loamy sand soils that can be

readily excavated. The closer together straw wattles

are placed in steep terrain the more effective they are

in detaining sediment. “U” shaped re-bar is very effective in keeping straw wattles fastened down but is

another factor to consider in the logistics plans for this

type of BAER project. Shallow or rocky soils can cause

problems with re-bar usage, but hard pans can be

penetrated by driving the re-bar. Straw wattle dams

are a good alternative in burned areas where logs are

absent, poorly shaped, or scarce. Wattles can be used

quite effectively in combination with straw bale

check dams. They also can be easily prepositioned

by helicopters.

Other Factors: Straw wattles are relatively cheap to

buy. They can be disturbed by grazing animals, decompose, and catch fire. Although the wattle netting is

photodegradable, there are concerns that it persists

long enough to pose hazards for small animals. Supply

is a major problem, particularly for a large project.

There are concerns among some users about the cost

effectiveness of straw wattle dams since the material

and labor costs are quite high.

Rock Cage (Gabion) Dams

Purpose: Also known as rock fence check dams, these

structures are used in intermittent or small perennial

channels to replace large woody debris that may have

been burned out during a wildfire. The rock cage dams

provide a degree of grade stability and reduce flow

velocities long enough to trap coarse sediments.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment.

Comments by some individuals indicated favorable

results. On mild gradients these structures work well.

Some failures occurred on steeper slopes when high

velocity flows are greater than 3 ft s–1 (1 m s–1). This is

a common theme for all channel treatments. Most of

the failures occur where treatments are imposed on

steep gradient sections of ephemeral or first to second

order perennial channels. Rock cage dams often last

long enough and trap enough fine sediments to provide microsites for woody riparian vegetation to get

reestablished. Rock cage dams on the Wenatchee National Forest were very successful, trapping 2000 to

10,000 yd3

 (1500 to 7600 m3) of material after just one

storm.

Implementation and Environmental Factors: Like most

other BAER channel treatments, proper dam design

and installation by experienced crews are crucial to

success. The rock cage dams must be properly placed,

keyed in, and anchored to stay in place during runoff

events. Downslope energy dissipators are recommended because they reduce the risk of the rock cage

dams being undercut.

Other Factors: Construction of these structures is

dependent on the availability of adequate amounts

and sizes of rocks. Rock cage dams need to be

cleaned out periodically if they are to maintain their

effectiveness.

Road Treatments

Road treatments are implemented to increase the

water and sediment processing capabilities of roads

and road structures. They are not meant to retain

water and sediment, but rather to manage its erosive

force.

Rolling Dips/Waterbars/Cross Drain/Culvert Overflow/

Bypass

Purpose: These treatments are designed to provide

drainage relief for road sections or water in the inside

ditch to the downhill side of roads especially when the

existing culvert is expected to be overwhelmed.

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewee rated this

treatment.
84 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Rolling dips

are easily constructed with road grader or dozer.

Rolling dips or waterbars need to be deep enough to

contain the expected flow and location carefully assessed to prevent damages to other portions of the

road. Waterbars can be made out of rocks or logs.

Armoring of fillslope at the outlet is often needed to

prevent gullying.

Culvert Upgrade

Purpose: Culvert improvements increase the flow capacity which will prevent damage to roads.

Relative Effectiveness: Excellent-0% Good-80% Fair0% Poor-20% (Replies = 5)

When sized properly and installed correctly, the results were rated “good.” The “poor” rating was from

culverts that were still not large enough and failed.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Upgraded

culverts need to be sized properly based on expected

increased flows. They should be installed at the proper

slope with appropriate approaches and exits. To be

effective, upgraded culverts need to be installed before

the first damaging rainfall. Flexible down spouts and

culvert extensions often are needed to keep exiting

water from highly erodible slopes.

Storm Patrol

Purpose: Patrol during storm events provides immediate assessment of flood risk, clear blocked culvert

entrances, and drainage ditches and close access (gates)

to areas that are at risk.

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewee rated this

treatment.

Several interviewees indicated that storm patrol was

a cost effective alternative to installing trash racks, or

removing culverts.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: This treatment can include early warning systems such as radioactivated rain gauge or stream gauge alarms when

flows are increasing. Storm patrols remove floating

woody debris near culvert inlets and clean inlets after

each storm event. Storm patrols can be activated

during forecast events of weather which may trigger

larger than normal water, sediment or woody debris

flows.

Culvert Inlet/Outlet Armoring/Risers

Purpose: These treatments reduce scouring around

the culvert entrance and exit. They allow heavy particles to settle out of sediment laden water and reduce

the chance of debris plugging the culvert.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment to make any statements about its

effectiveness.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Sometimes

culvert risers can clog and may be difficult to clean.

Trash Racks

Purpose: Trash racks are installed to prevent debris

from clogging culverts or down stream structures.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment.

Comments included that in one watershed the third

winter after the fire, a large storm detached considerable debris which blocked trash rack, causing complete culvert failure.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: These structures are generally built out of logs, but occasionally

they are from milled lumber or metal. Sizes vary from

small culverts to 30 ft (9 m) diameter. Several cage

designs have been used with most of them allowing

debris to ride up and to the side of the cage. Some cages

have been set in concrete. Trash racks generally perform better in smaller drainages. They need to be

cleared after each storm to be effective.

Culvert Removal

Purpose: This procedure removes undersized culverts

which would probably fail due to increased flows, in a

controlled fashion.

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewee rated this

treatment.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Removal

needs to be completed before the first damaging storms.

It is often done in conjunction with road obliteration.

Ditch Improvements: Cleaning/Armoring

Purpose: Cleaning and armoring provides adequate

water flow capacity and prevents downcutting of

ditches.

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewee rated this

treatment.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: When maintenance does not occur, high water levels can overtop

roadways leading to gully development in the road

bed.

Armoring Ford Crossing

Purpose: Armored crossings provide low-cost access

across stream channels that are generally capable of

handling large flows.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. 2000 85

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewee rated this

treatment.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Large

riprap is placed upstream and downstream of actual

road crossing area. Armoried crossings are often used

for low traffic volume roads. Low water crossing were

not used on one fire because they could attract an

endangered toad species that would inhabit the crossing when wet and be killed by vehicle traffic.

Outsloping

Purpose: Outsloping prevents concentration of flow

on road surfaces that produces rilling, gullying, and

rutting.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment.

One interviewee commented that this is one of the few

treatments that has both immediate and long-term

facility and resource benefits.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Sometimes

after regrading, compaction does not occur due to low

traffic volume which may cause sheet and rill erosion.

Both public and administrative traffic should be curtailed during wet road conditions to prevent rutting

and road sub-grade damages.

Trail Work

Purpose: BAER treatments on trails are designed to

provide adequate drainage and stability so trails remain functioning.

Relative Effectiveness: Not enough interviewees rated

this treatment to make any statements about its

effectiveness.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Crew skill

is important for this labor intensive treatment. Water

bars need to be installed correctly, proper slope and

depth, to be effective.

Other Treatments

Purpose: This category consists of various treatment

solutions to specific problems. It includes wetting

agents to reduce water repellency on high erosion

hazard areas, gully plugs to prevent headcutting in

meadows, flood signing installation to warn residents

and visitors of flooding potential, and removal of loose

rocks above roadways that were held in place by roots,

forest debris, duff and were now in a precarious position due to the fire.

Relative Effectiveness: No interviewees rated these

treatments.

Environmental/Implementation Factors: Treatment

specific.
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526