Evaluating the effectiveness of contour-felled log erosion barriers as a post-fire runoff and erosion mitigation treatment in the western United States
P. R. Robichaud A C , J. W. Wagenbrenner A , R. E. Brown A , P. M. Wohlgemuth B and J. L. Beyers B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1221 South Main Street, Moscow, ID 83843, USA.
B US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: probichaud@fs.fed.us
International Journal of Wildland Fire 17(2) 255-273 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07032
Submitted: 14 February 2007 Accepted: 29 June 2007 Published: 18 April 2008
Abstract
Between 1998 and 2002, six sites were established immediately after large wildfires in the western United States to determine the effectiveness of contour-felled log erosion barriers in mitigating post-wildfire runoff and erosion. In each pair of matched, burned, and small watersheds (1–13 ha), one was treated with contour-felled log erosion barriers and one was left untreated as a control. For 4 to 6 post-fire years, runoff and sediment yields were measured and correlated with rain properties. High-intensity rainfall produced most of the measured runoff and sediment yields except in the southern California site, where long-duration rain events produced most of the runoff and erosion. For small rain events (less than the 2-year return period for the 10-min duration), the runoff, peak flows, and sediment yields were lower in the treated watersheds than in the control watersheds, but there was no treatment effect for rain events with larger return periods. Improper installation and degradation over time reduced the effectiveness of contour-felled log erosion barriers. Rainfall characteristics and installation procedures should be carefully considered before choosing contour-felled log erosion barriers for post-fire hillslope stabilisation.
Additional keywords: catchment, LEB, sediment yield, watershed.
Acknowledgements
During the past 7 years, the Joint Fire Science program (US Department of Interior and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) and the National Fire Plan have provided funding for this study. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of the regional and national coordinators from the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program, the Wenatchee, San Bernardino, Bitterroot, Gallatin, Pike-San Isabel, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, as well as the numerous field crews involved in contour-felled log erosion barrier and sediment trap installation and maintenance. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which helped improve this manuscript.
References
Arkell RE, Richards F (1986) Short duration rainfall relations for the western United States. In ‘Conference on Climate and Water Management – a Critical Era and Conference on the Human Consequences of 1985s Climate’, 4–7 August 1986, Asheville, NC. pp. 136–141. (American Meteorological Society: Boston)
Bates CG, Henry AJ (1928) Forest and streamflow experiment at Wagon Wheel Gap, Colorado. Monthly Weather Review, Supplement No. 30. (Government Printing Office: Washington, DC)
Binkley D , Brown TC
(1993) Forest practices as non-point sources of pollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin 29(5), 729–740.
Bonnin GM, Todd D, Lin B, Parzybok T, Yekta M, Riley D (2004) ‘Precipitation-Frequency Atlas for the United States. Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 3.2.’ (US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service: Silver Springs, MD)
Buckhouse JC , Gaither RE
(1982) Potential sediment production within vegetative communities in Oregon’s Blue Mountains. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37(2), 120–122.
Campbell RE, Baker MBJr, Ffolliott PF, Larson FR, Avery CC (1977) Wildfire effects on a ponderosa pine ecosystem: an Arizona case study. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-191. (Fort Collins, CO)
Chambers JC, Brown RW (1983) Methods for vegetation sampling and analysis on revegetated mined lands. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-151. (Ogden, UT)
Daubenmire R
(1959) A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33(1), 43–64.
DeBano LF, Ffolliott PF, Baker MBJr (1996) Fire severity effects on water resources. In ‘Effects of Fire on Madrean Province Ecosystems – a Symposium Proceedings’, 11–15 March 1996, Tucson, AZ. (Tech. Coords PF Ffolliott, LF DeBano, MB Baker Jr, GJ Gottfried, G Solis-Garza, CB Edminster, DG Neary, LS Allen, RH Hamre) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-289. pp. 77–84. (Fort Collins, CO)
Forsling CL (1931) A study of the influence of herbaceous plant cover on surface run-off and soil erosion in relation to grazing on the Wasatch Plateau in Utah. USDA Technical Bulletin 220. (Washington, DC)
Gartner JD (2003) Erosion after wildfire: the effectiveness of log erosion barrier mitigation. MS Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Gartner JE, Bigio ER, Cannon SH (2004) Compilation of post-wildfire runoff-event data from the western United States. USDI, Geological Survey, Open-file Report 04–1085. (Washington, DC) Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1085/ofr-04-1085.html [Verified 29 February 2008]
Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) ‘Statistical Methods in Water Resources, in Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 4.’ (USDI, Geological Survey: Washington, DC)
Helvey JD
(1980) Effects of a north-central Washington wildfire on runoff and sediment production. Water Resources Bulletin 16(4), 627–634.
Hoyt WG, Troxell HC (1934) Forests and stream flow. American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper no. 1858. (Reston, VA)
Kunze MD , Stednick JD
(2006) Streamflow and suspended sediment yield following the 2000 Bobcat fire, Colorado. Hydrological Processes 20(8), 1661–1681.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WS, Wolfinger RD (1996) ‘SAS System for Mixed Models.’ (SAS Institute: Cary, NC)
Loáiciga HA, Pedreros D , Roberts D
(2001) Wildfire–streamflow interactions in a chaparral watershed. Advances in Environmental Research 5, 295–305.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
MacDonald LH, Stednick JD (2003) Forests and water: a state-of-the-art review for Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University, Report Number 196. (Fort Collins, CO)
McCammon BP, Hughes D (1980) Fire rehab in the Bend Municipal Watershed. In ‘Proceedings of the Watershed Management Symposium’, 21–23 July 1980, Boise, ID. pp. 252–259. (American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA)
Miles SR, Haskins DM, Ranken DW (1989) Emergency burn rehabilitation: cost, risk, and effectiveness. In ‘Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management’, 26–28 October 1988, Sacramento, CA. (Tech. Coord. NH Berg) USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-109. pp. 97–102. (Berkeley, CA)
Miller JF, Frederick RH, Tracey RJ (1973) ‘Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States, Atlas 2, Volumes I, III, IX, and XI.’ (US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service: Silver Springs, MD)
Moody JA , Martin DA
(2001a) Post-fire, rainfall intensity–peak discharge relations for three mountainous watersheds in the western USA. Hydrological Processes 15, 2981–2993.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Neary DG, Ffolliott PF, Landsberg JD (2005) Fire and streamflow regimes. In ‘Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soil and Water’. Ch. 5, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. (Eds DG Neary, KC Ryan, LF DeBano) pp. 107–118. (Ogden, UT)
Pike RG, Ussery JG (2006) Key points to consider when pre-planning for post-wildfire rehabilitation. FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership, FORREX Series 19. (Kamloops, Canada) Available at http://www.forrex.org/publications/FORREXSeries/FS19.pdf [Verified 29 February 2008]
Raftoyannis Y , Spanos I
(2005) Evaluation of log and branch barriers as post-fire rehabilitation treatments in a Mediterranean pine forest in Greece. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14, 183–188.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robichaud PR, Brown RE (2000) What happened after the smoke cleared: onsite erosion rates after a wildfire in eastern Oregon. In ‘Proceedings of the Wildland Hydrology Conference’, 20 June–2 July 1999, Bozeman, MT. (Eds DS Olsen, JP Potyondy) pp. 419–426. (American Water Resource Association: Herndon, VA)
Robichaud PR, Brown RE (2003) Quick response small catchment monitoring techniques for comparing post-fire rehabilitation treatment effectiveness. In ‘Proceedings of the First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds’, 27–30 October 2003, Benson, AZ. pp. 663–667. (USDA Agricultural Research Service: Tucson, AZ)
Robichaud PR, Beyers JL, Neary DG (2000) Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-63. (Fort Collins, CO)
Robichaud PR, Beyers JL, Neary DG (2005) ‘Watershed Rehabilitation.’ Ch. 10, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. (Eds DG Neary, KC Ryan, LF DeBano) pp. 179–197. (Ogden, UT)
Robichaud PR, Lillybridge TR , Wagenbrenner JW
(2006) Effects of postfire seeding and fertilizing on hillslope erosion in north-central Washington, USA. CATENA 67, 56–57.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
SAS Institute Inc. (2003) ‘SAS Software Version 9.1.’ (Cary, NC)
Scott DF
(1997) The contrasting effects of wildfire and clearfelling on the hydrology of a small catchment. Hydrological Processes 11, 543–555.
| 3.0.CO;2-J" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="reftools">Crossref | 3.0.CO;2-J" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="reftools">GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Springer EP, Hawkins RH (2005) Curve number and peakflow responses following the Cerro Grande Fire on a small watershed. In ‘Proceedings of the 2005 Watershed Management Conference: Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts’, 19–22 July 2005, Williamsburg, VA. (Ed. GE Moglen) pp. 1–12. (American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA)
State of Victoria (2006) ‘Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Lands.’ (Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment: Melbourne, Australia) Available at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/fires [Verified 29 February 2008]
USDA (1979) ‘Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology: USDA Agricultural Handbook 224.’ (Coords DL Rakensik, HB Osborn, WJ Rawls) (US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC)
USDA Forest Service (1995) ‘Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook, Forest Service Handbook 2509.13–95–6.’ (USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC)
USDA Forest Service (2004) Emergency Stabilization – Burned-Area Emergency Response (BAER). Section 2523 of Chapter 2520, Watershed Protection and Management. In ‘Forest Service Manual FSM 2500, Watershed and Air Management’. (USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC)
Wagenbrenner JW, MacDonald LH , Rough D
(2006) Effectiveness of three post-fire rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrological Processes 20, 2989–3006.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
A Trade names are used for the benefit of the reader and do not imply endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture.