Content uploaded by Xiaoli Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xiaoli Chen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted version of publication in Environmental Management.
Perspectives on disconnects between scientific information and management decisions on
post-fire recovery in Western US
Xiaoli Chen
a
xiaoli_chen@umail.ucsb.edu
Nathan Emery
b
nemery@lifesci.ucsb.edu
Elizabeth S Garcia
c
garcia@geog.ucsb.edu
Erin J. Hanan
b
hanan@lifesci.ucsb.edu
Heather Hodges
d
hehodges@gmail.com
Tyronne Martin
a
tmartin@bren.ucsb.edu
Matthew A. Meyers
a
mmeyers@bren.ucsb.edu
Lindsey E. Peavey
a
lpeavey@bren.ucsb.edu
Hui Peng
e,a
penghui3040@gmail.com
Jaime Sainz Santamaria
a
jsainz.santamaria@gmail.com
Kellie A. Uyeda
f,c
kuyeda@rohan.sdsu.edu
Sarah Anderson
a.g
sanderson@bren.ucsb.edu
Christina Tague
a
ctague@bren.ucsb.edu
Environmental regulations frequently mandate the use of “best available” science, but ensuring
that it is used in decisions around the use and protection of natural resources is often challenging.
In the Western US, this relationship between science and management is at the forefront of post-
fire land management decisions. Recent fires, post-fire threats (e.g. flooding, erosion), and the
role of fire in ecosystem health combine to make post-fire management highly visible and often
controversial. This paper uses post-fire management to present a framework for understanding
why disconnects between science and management decisions may occur. We argue that attributes
of agencies, such as their political or financial incentives, can limit how effectively science is
incorporated into decision-making. At the other end of the spectrum, lack of synthesis or limited
data in science can result in disconnects between science-based analysis of post-fire effects and
agency policy and decisions. Disconnects also occur because of the interaction between the
attributes of agencies and the attributes of science, such as their different spatial and temporal
scales of interest. After offering examples of these disconnects in post-fire treatment, the paper
concludes with recommendations to reduce disconnects by improving monitoring, increasing
synthesis of scientific findings, and directing social science research toward identifying and
deepening understanding of these disconnects.
Keywords: Risk, policy-relevant science, uncertainty, best available science
Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Bren School of Environmental
Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
This paper is the product
of an interdisciplinary PhD seminar on the science and management of fire. The first 11 authors
were participants. Anderson and Tague were the faculty leads.
a
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, 2400 Bren Hall, Santa Barbara,
CA 93106
b
Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
c
Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
d
Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
e
State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle (SKL-WAC) & Department of
Water Resources, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR), Beijing 100038, China
f
Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182
g
Corresponding author: (805) 893-5886.
1
I. Introduction
Public management agencies are tasked with using the latest and best scientific
information in making decisions on natural resource management (Ryder et al. 2010; Glicksman
2008; Kessler et al. 1992; Sullivan et al. 2006). Often the ability to use the “best available”
science requires balancing ecological, economic, and political factors and is the subject of
political and public debate (e.g., Daily et al. 2009; Policansky 1999; Sarewitz 2004). These
debates frequently identify situations where at least some stakeholders argue that “best available”
science was not used in agency decisions.
This paper seeks to more systematically identify disconnects between science and
management and their sources. We use post-fire treatment, an important and sometimes
controversial response to the threats posed to human and ecological resources after wildland
fires, to identify where further research ought to be conducted to establish the existence of
disconnects and to work towards addressing underlying causes. By focusing on the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) in the western United States, we illustrate how
agency decisions and decision-processes can fail to incorporate natural science, but our insights
are broadly applicable to other agency-science relationships. We aim to identify causes of
disconnects that are not simply a resistance to the use of science, which might stem from
individual motivations, but rather are due to structural attributes of science or the social and
political decision-making setting. We do not intend to exhaustively identify disconnects in
historic post-fire land management decisions, but rather to highlight areas where understanding
the attributes of post-fire science and land management might lead to new insights into why
disconnects occur.
2
There is a rich literature on managing fire risk and on broader forest policy, but we focus
on post-fire management where little is known about relationships among political, economic,
and ecological factors. In particular, much of the prior work focuses on the development of forest
management plans (e.g. Noss et al. 2006; Dombeck et al. 2004) and decision tools that can be
used to support planning (e.g. Calkin et al. 2011; Bettinger 2010). In addition, social science has
addressed stakeholder involvement and public perception in wildfire policy and management,
particularly when decision-making is controversial (McCaffrey et al. 2012; Thompson and
Calkin 2011). Reiner (2012) identified institutional barriers to effective fire risk management and
Canton-Thompson et al. (2008) addressed social-economic pressures faced by managers in the
context of fire suppression. In the areas of fire prevention (Anderson and Anderson 2012;
Anderson et al. 2013; Tidwell and Brown 2010) and fire suppression (Busenberg 2004; Donovan
and Brown 2005), scholars have documented that political and economic factors, in addition to
or in conflict with ecological imperatives, play a role in management actions, but such research
has not been done for post-fire management.
II. Background
The number of wildfires in the western U.S. is increasing (Hudson 2011; Pierce et al.
2004; Westerling et al. 2006), and the size and severity of these fires create significant
challenges for agencies responsible for post-fire recovery (Robichaud 2005; Westerling et al.
2006). Recent fire seasons underscore this. In 2012, more than 9 million acres burned, the second
worst season on record (NICC 2013), and the 2013 firefighting budget was depleted in August
with at least two months of fire season remaining (Fears 2013). While wildfire acts as an
important disturbance event in natural ecosystems, uncharacteristically short return intervals and
3
high intensity of fire within a system can cause soil degradation, soil erosion, loss of
biodiversity, local species extinction, an increased risk of flooding, and damage to natural and
human environments (Beschta et al. 2004). Post-fire management goals include promoting return
of the landscape to a prior state, reducing the risk of damage by flooding or erosion, and altering
subsequent fire frequency and/or severity. Management encompasses small-scale immediate
responses (e.g. decision to seed immediately after a specific fire), medium scale planning for
smaller jurisdictions (e.g. collaborative watershed planning), agency decisions regarding longer
term strategies (e.g. stewardship contracting), and long term planning processes and policy (e.g.
federal budget documents specifying priorities).
There are three reasons why post-fire management is an especially fruitful area to explore
possible science-agency disconnects. First, decisions must often be made in the face of
uncertainties and complexities in the scientific information available. There is debate over
whether human intervention, such as post-fire logging or re-seeding, are necessary or useful in
promoting recovery (McIver and Starr 2001; Beschta et al. 2004; Donato et al. 2006) and there is
disagreement as to the effectiveness of different treatments for specific locations (Robichaud et
al. 2009; Schoennagel et al. 2004). Complicating matters, the temporal and spatial scale of both
the science and the management of post-fire recovery varies. Second, recognizing the difficulty
of incorporating science into management decisions, the USFS in 1998 created the Joint Fire
Science Program (JFSP) , which has sought to coordinate fire research between agencies and
scientists (Joint Fire Science Program 2000). Although post-fire rehabilitation is not included
explicitly within the JFSP implementation plan, the existence of the JFSP makes the USFS a
best-case scenario since it is likely to have fewer disconnects than other agencies that utilize
science. Third, decisions made during the period following a fire are often highly visible given
4
the attention focused on the wildland-urban interface, making political and public factors
especially relevant.
A. Post-Fire Treatments
Following wildfire a wide variety of treatments are available for managers. Table 1
summarizes post-fire land treatment options and describes their methods, purpose, effective
duration, effectiveness at meeting the intended purpose, and implementation cost per spatial unit.
B. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER)
Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) is the process by which post-fire assessment
and treatment across federal lands is accomplished (USDA Forest Service 2011). BAER focuses
on responding to emergency conditions that exist after a fire such as soil erosion and flash
flooding. During and following fire containment, a BAER team comprised of experts from a
variety of disciplines (e.g., pedology, hydrology, forestry, ecology, cultural resources,
engineering, etc.) assesses the need for emergency response by investigating burn severity and
the risk of damages. Treatments are ranked using a “cost-risk analysis” worksheet that considers
the probability of the threat occurring, costs if the threat occurs, the probability that a treatment
will be successful, and treatment cost. Because BAER’s explicit goals are to focus on small-scale
responses immediately following fire containment, long-term treatments (see Table 1) such as
salvage logging may fall outside of BAER and onto individual management agencies.
C. Agency decision-making: focus on the U.S. Forest Service
While the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have the power to
alter agency action through legislation, directives, and appropriations, the legislative mandates
that have been handed down still allow the USFS to maintain significant autonomy (Kunioka and
Rothenberg 1993), in part because agencies that have the technical knowledge to support their
5
proposals with scientific information are less likely to face congressional control (Ellison 1995).
This is particularly true with post-fire management. Of the nearly 1,000 reports [including
congressional hearings and US Government Accountability Office (GAO) documents] pertaining
to the USFS in the last ten years, only two have been in response to post-fire treatment.
Additionally, post-fire treatments receive minimal discussion in the budgets proposed by the
USFS (USDA 2011, 2012). USFS policy is mostly dictated by the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, but agency planning
rules are regularly revised, even as recently as 2012. Initially, NFMA led to a multiple use
perspective in managing forest resources, but this has given way to priority protection of
ecosystems in some circumstances (Hoberg 2003). Conflicts in choosing between various
objectives occur often, particularly with respect to commodity and motorized use, but also
between multiple use management and ecosystem management (Martin et al. 2000).
III. Disconnects Between Post-fire Management and Science
Using post-fire management as a case study, this paper identifies circumstances where
characteristics of agencies and science or their interaction may impede the use of science in
decision-making. Processes such as BAER are explicitly designed to make use of the best
available science and do so by engaging science advisors and a variety of science based tools and
databases (Robichaud and Asmun 2012). In many cases, BAER effectively does so. Despite this
intention, however, disconnects still occur. We propose that disconnects occur on a spectrum
ranging from those derived from the attributes of the agency, like its incentives to respond to
public opinion or political overseers, to those derived from attributes of science, such as a lack of
synthesis (Figure 1). Unclear, conflicting or limited synthesis of scientific findings may make
6
incorporation of science into decision-processes challenging, particularly given the need for an
immediate response to fire. In between the two ends lie a continuum of disconnects created by
the interaction of agency and science attributes, including differences in systems of incentives,
time horizons, and institutional frameworks.
A. Disconnects and Agency Incentives
1. Direct Financial Incentives
Agencies may face financial incentives to choose one management strategy over another
when revenue from the production of commodities is at stake. Safeguards are in place in many of
these instances, but they always require scrutiny to determine whether financial incentives
counteract the scientific mandate.
For example, the USFS receives direct revenue from timber sales, which goes to special
off-budget accounts. The USFS therefore may have an incentive to favor salvage logging over
other post-fire treatments (Saylor 2007). Such logging occurred as far back as 1938 in response
to hurricane damage in Massachusetts (Foster and Orwig 2006) and the USFS has regularly used
fire as a motivation to harvest timber (Hutto 2006). For example, after the Biscuit fire in
Southern Oregon and Northern California in 2002, the USFS carried out a plan, contested by
environmental groups, that included extensive salvage logging (Preusch 2004). As recently as
2003, the Flathead and Kootenai National Forest Rehabilitation Act directed the USFS to
implement proposed post-fire salvage logging without the normal public input and legal
requirements (Kreiter 2006) and the merits of salvage logging continues to be debated (CRS
2012). Post-fire salvage logging is often prescribed using “emergency exemptions,” which allow
the USFS to circumvent traditional requirements for public disclosure of environmental impacts
based upon the economic value of burned trees (Karr et al. 2004). While stewardship contracting
7
has offered opportunities to engage private companies in ecological restoration, the financial
incentives remain as a source of disconnect between management decisions and the science of
post-fire recovery.
2. Budget Constraints
Budget constraints more broadly may also be a reason why “best available” science is not
used. The Forest Service is subject to yearly budget oversight and must operate within its
appropriations. As Table 1 illustrates, different post-fire management treatments have varying
costs. As a result, managers may be forced to use a less expensive treatment or to use less
treatment in order to stay within their budgets. At times, the budget for a given fire’s post-fire
treatment is even a specific line item in the budget (e.g., after the 2012 Colorado fires), reducing
the discretion that managers can exercise in allocating post-fire treatments. How economic
incentives and constraints are balanced against scientific considerations has not been rigorously
evaluated for post-fire management in the Western US. This suggests a role for social science
research to evaluate past post-fire decision-making in order to understand these tradeoffs.
3. Political Pressure
A third source of disconnects may come as the result of political pressure that is inherent
to most agencies. Pressure can come from the public (Carsey and Rundquist 2009; Potoski and
Talbert 2000), elected officials (Balla et al. 2002; Bickers and Stein 2000), or internally.
Members of the public who are affected by fire demand emergency relief spending to prevent
further damage (e.g., flooding). For example, after the Booth and Bear Butte Complex and
Biscuit fires in Oregon, over ninety percent of those surveyed supported post-fire erosion
control, replanting, and seeding (Olsen and Shindler 2010). While individuals who interacted
8
with the agency via public participation were often dissatisfied with the process (Germain et al.
2001), Sabatier et al. (1995) found that the USFS does appear to respond to public demands.
In addition to public pressure, agencies may face pressure from legislators who seek
electoral rewards for providing emergency assistance spending (Cheng et al. 2007; Cole et al.
2012; Healy and Malhotra 2009). For example, all seven Colorado Representatives signed a
letter to appropriators asking for emergency funds for post-fire restoration after the 2012 fire
season. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) subsequently issued a press release applauding the
House appropriations bill for including “$48,256,765 for flood prevention funding—the exact
amount requested by the House congressional delegation.” Robichaud et al. (2000) note that the
public and elected officials expect post-fire treatment to occur, regardless of whether it is
actually needed, which can drive unnecessary spending on treatments such as seeding.
These political pressures emphasize action immediately following fire, with less attention
paid to evaluating the subsequent effectiveness of the action. The USFS spent $192 million for
over 110 emergency soil stabilization and over 40 rehabilitation treatment plans following the
2000 and 2001 wildland fires (GAO 2003). Despite the monitoring requirements of BAER,
neither the USFS nor the GAO could determine whether emergency stabilization and
rehabilitation treatments were achieving their intended results. As noted by GAO (2003), “Most
land units do not routinely document monitoring results, use comparable monitoring procedures,
collect comparable data, or report monitoring results to the agencies’ regional or national
offices.” In 2006, the GAO issued another report directing the USFS to report back to Congress
on the status of current and future post-fire rehabilitation projects and to conduct additional
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of projects. Currently, a review by the GAO is pending
to assess the extent to which the USFS followed their recommendations for monitoring of post-
9
fire treatment. Although experimental monitoring has become more common in recent years
(Hubbert 2006; Robichaud et al. 2013), widespread systematic monitoring of the effectiveness of
various treatments is limited or not reported. This lack of effectiveness monitoring makes it
difficult to discern whether responsiveness to the public and elected officials is resulting in
activities that facilitate post-fire recovery.
B. Disconnects in Scale
One of the main disconnects between agencies and science stems from the differing
scales, both time and spatial, at which agencies and science operate. Agencies often face short-
term (within 3 years after fire) incentives, while recent ecological literature frequently
emphasizes the importance of long-term (decadal) ecological research in understanding
landscapes and the effect of human activities on them (Driscoll et al. 2012). Management
practices are also often limited in spatial scope by jurisdictional boundaries and administrative
rules that may not correspond to the broad range of spatial scales considered by ecology.
1. Time Scale
Science literature on post-fire effects spans both short-term behavior, such as increased
erosion following fire, and long-term consequences for forest structure, function and subsequent
fire regimes (Veblen 2003; Whitlock et al. 2003). However, long time scales are frequently
incongruous with that of the current political system, where incentives operate over shorter time
scales (Besley and Case 1995; Koontz and Bodine 2008; Nordhaus 1975). Constrained by the
public and lawmakers, forest agencies are often required to implement solutions that address
immediate risks (Carroll et al. 2004). Management agencies in the U.S. implement the majority
of their post-fire practices immediately after a fire disturbance and many of their “long-term”
management practices last fewer than five years (GAO 2003). For example, in the aftermath of
10
2012 fires in New Mexico, recovery money was mostly spent on controlling the short-term risk
of flooding and erosion and $25 million was spent within a month of the fire (Bryan 2012).
Post-fire ecosystem-management projects require long-term planning and long-term
financial commitments (Stein and Gelburd 1998). As of the FY 2013 Department of Interior
Wildland Fire Management Budget Justification, long term targets for restoration of burned acres
had not yet been developed and scientific funding rarely extends beyond a decade, not long
enough to encompass fire patterns at the landscape level (Falk et al. 2007).
2. Spatial Scale
Wildfire knows no boundaries, whereas the management of post-fire often is limited to
jurisdictional responses, presenting a mismatch in the appropriate spatial scale of response. For
example, discontinuous treatment measures may be delimited within fire-affected landscapes by
federal boundaries or state and county lines. In some cases, such as the need for erosion control
for vulnerable downstream aquatic ecosystems, there may be universal ecological principles for
post-fire management. However, it is well documented in the literature that fire regimes in the
western U.S. vary over space and time, making a universal management approach impractical for
most restoration goals (Noss et al. 2006). Yet, static political boundaries can prevent post-fire
management from being spatially adaptive.
Management agencies have more recently attempted to embrace ecosystem-based
managerial practices (Butler and Koontz 2005) but are inhibited by administrative boundaries
and jurisdictional limitations (Koontz and Bodine 2008). As a result, some management
collaborations, such as the Wildland Fire Use Plan for the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in
Montana (Hann and Bunnell 2001), have emerged to propel ecosystem-based management
across spatial boundaries. The advancement of ecosystem-based management practices has the
11
potential to address fire at the scale at which it occurs while meeting multiple science and
management objectives simultaneously. But such management faces obstacles when it crosses
jurisdictional boundaries. For example, after a fire in Santa Barbara, California, authorities
required landowner permission to hydromulch on private lands. Michael Harris, Emergency
Operations Chief for Santa Barbara County said, "In two of the fires, we've had big swaths of
private land and government land, and obtaining permission to hydromulch was fairly
straightforward, but in another fire in which we had very much smaller parcels, it became very
difficult to get a large number of property owners to agree to hydromulching" (Snider 2011).
IV. Disconnects Related to the Synthesis of Science
While the previous sections have focused on disconnects that derive from agency
characteristics or the interaction of these and characteristics of science, attributes of science
alone can also create disconnects. Limitations of science can prevent synthesis or lead to
scientific uncertainty. For example, post-fire treatment effects are often confounded by spatial
and temporal variability among treated areas. Although research and monitoring have begun to
provide data on the effectiveness of post-fire treatments (Table 1), they are often focused on
individual effects rather than the combined effects of multiple treatments and lack long term
evaluation (Covert 2010; Davidson et al. 2009; Dodson and Peterson 2010; McCullough and
Endress 2012; Robichaud et al. 2009). Up until very recently many studies either contained little
quantitative data or lacked untreated control sites with which to compare treatment effectiveness
(Beyers 2004). Furthermore, the focus of science research is not always explicitly or efficiently
directed at resolving science-related management questions.
12
From the perspective of agencies, considerable effort is often needed to interpret
complexities, caveats, uncertainties, and contingencies in existing work and to synthesize a
growing body of scientific research. The need for immediate responses in post-fire management,
combined with limited resources can make updating management based on scientific
recommendations difficult. In the case of post-fire management, BAER and the USFS often
incorporate scientific uncertainty into decision-making. For example, rather than provide a single
number, the BAER Treatments Catalog provides summary tables that allow managers to
prioritize treatments based on field conditions (Napper 2006). Decision-making support tools
(reviewed by Hyde et al. 2013) clearly synthesize existing information but whether or not the
information they provide is precise enough to lead to decisions that are appropriately tailored to
local site conditions has not been evaluated. To do so would require substantial data collection
on post-fire management decisions and their environmental consequences. New monitoring
approaches and an increasing number of studies across a range of conditions can lead to
significant advances and reduce science-based uncertainty. A recent review, for example, took
advantage of the increase in data quality and improved experimental design (Peppin et al. 2010).
They found that the majority of early studies that showed seeding treatments were effective were
from the lowest data quality categories. The highest data quality studies reviewed were nearly all
published after 2000, and none found seeding treatment to effectively reduce erosion. They also
found that seeding treatment effectiveness may vary by ecoregion. Over the last thirteen years,
the JFSP has facilitated research and review of various post-fire rehabilitation treatments,
including assessments of monitoring programs. Additional studies and their synthesis could be
used to develop a framework for assessing what is likely to work within a particular watershed
and under what conditions.
13
A. Time Lags in Assimilation of Science by Agencies
One reason limitations of science might cause disconnects is that agencies are slow to
incorporate changing science. In a classic paper, Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue modern
societies tend to favor organizations that “reproduce a structure with high fidelity” and that
“selection tends to favor stable systems.” Recent institutional analysis has pointed out that
agencies face “institutional friction” (Jones 2001; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). Even when
change could yield better results, the risk of unexpected negative outcomes can deter
organizations from adopting new ways of solving problems (Choo and Bontis 2002). Wright
(2010) found targeting individual managers who were “early adopters” could shorten the lag
between the production of science and its incorporation into management.
Although there generally tends to be a time lag between when new science is released
and when it is widely incorporated, managers certainly respond to advances in science. For
example, managers switched from contour felled logs to mulch treatment when research showed
that the proportion of ground cover was most important in determining erosion (Robichaud et al.
2010). However, when multiple objectives are considered, such as reducing post-fire erosion risk
and maintaining species diversity, it can be challenging to determine the applicability of research
results to a local area (Barbour 2007).
B. Model Limitations
In recent decades, post-fire management decision-making, such as BAER, has used and
provided decision support tools (Hyde et al. 2013). Although these models are fairly widely
used, managers often use different techniques to determine the input parameters, making the
estimation of post-fire flow inconsistent across USFS regions (Foltz et al. 2009). The advantage
of such models is that they can codify a broad collection of research on treatment effectiveness
14
and associated contingencies. For example, ERMiT, a simplified version of the Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP), estimates erosion risk in particular locations and the potential for
different treatments to reduce it (Robichaud et al. 2009). The disadvantage of models, however,
is that underlying assumptions may be hidden from users and may codify out-dated science if
they lack a formal procedure for updating models with new peer-reviewed research.
V. Recommendations and Future Research
This paper identifies a range of situations that have or are likely to lead to disconnects
between post-fire decision-making and science. We have shown that when management
decisions do not align with “best available” science, the culprit is not usually agency intentions.
Some disconnects between current science and decision-making may be inevitable, and in some
cases even desirable. Lags between recently published science and decision-making practices,
for example, may be necessary to maintain stable and effective decision-making. However our
discussion identifies a number of situations where disconnects may negatively influence
outcomes. Identifying and ultimately resolving these disconnects is likely to improve post-fire
management from both agency and science perspectives. To move toward this goal, we
recommend more systematic monitoring of existing post-fire treatments, scientific synthesis of
post-fire treatments, and a social science research agenda that considers the political and
economic drivers of potential disconnects.
Even in the face of budget cuts, we suggest that additional efforts from both science and
agencies are needed to expand the data available for synthesis. Our recommendation echoes the
2006 and 2003 GAO reports that argued for a coordinated post-fire treatment monitoring system.
We recommend that management agencies make the systematic monitoring of post-fire
15
treatments across agencies a higher priority, including allocating budgetary resources for
sufficient monitoring. Science can lead in the design of monitoring techniques and protocols and
implement experiments that provide data for synthesis (Lentile et al. 2006). We note that current
National Science Foundation networks of long term observatories such as the Long-Term
Ecological Research network (LTER), National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and
Critical Zone Observatory network (CZO) are developing monitoring data protocols and
information management systems that may contribute to these efforts (Baru et al. 2012;
Michener et al. 2011).
Responsibility for disconnects, also lies with the science community. In our review of
post-fire management literature, it was clear that synthesis studies that examine the effectiveness
of a specific post-fire treatment under a variety of site conditions, such as Robichaud et al.
(2010), provide critical information for managers. These types of reviews help to reduce
scientific uncertainty and clarify contingencies. Studies such as this, however, remain relatively
scarce. Science-based assessments of the broad range of post-fire treatments (Table 1) under
different site conditions and for a range of different post-fire treatment objectives are needed.
However, the diversity of post-fire treatments, site conditions, and management objectives also
makes this type of synthesis challenging without a large number of case-studies where post-
treatment effects are monitored. The already strong linkages between the science community and
management through JFSP, BAER, and other agency networks can facilitate this, and we
recommend that they emphasize meta-analysis of past post-fire decisions and, where possible
evaluation of their environmental consequences. An adaptive management framework, where
there is ongoing evaluation of the consequences of past decisions to improve future decisions can
facilitate this but requires funding to be effective (Cundill and Fabricius 2009). We also note that
16
continued updating of BAER processes, and in particular models that codify science based
information, is essential for integrating results from these research efforts. Translating these
synthesis studies into education materials can further demonstrate to the public why decisions are
made.
Social science data-driven research on the connections between management and science
in actual post-fire decisions would facilitate an assessment of how often and under what
conditions the use of “best available science” is problematic. Our paper highlights why
disconnects may occur and thus argues that this type of post-decision data collection and analysis
is needed. We argue for social-science that investigates how external forces, internal structure,
and institutional culture may influence outcomes. Understanding how and why these disconnects
between science and management occur can identify places where improvements can be made.
17
References:
Anderson SE, Anderson TL (2012) The political economy of wildfire management: saving
forests, saving houses, or burning money. In: Bradshaw KM, Lueck. D (eds) Wildfire
Policy: Law and Economics Perspectives. RFF Press, New York, pp 109–126
Anderson, SE, Hodges HE, and Anderson TL (2013) Technical Management in an Age of
Openness: The Political, Public, and Environmental Forest Ranger. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management 32(3): 554–73
Balla SJ, Lawrence ED, Maltzman F, Sigelman L (2002) Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the
distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science 46:515–525
Barbour J (2007) Accelerating adoption of fire science and related research. Final Report to the
Joint Fire Science Program JFSP Project 1-23
Baru C, Fegraus EH, Andelman SJ, et al. (2012) Cyberinfrastructure for observatory and
monitoring networks: a case study from the TEAM network. BioScience 62:667–675
Beschta R, Rhodes J, Kauffman J, et al. (2004) Postfire management on forested public lands of
the western United States. Conservation Biology 18:957–967
Besley T, Case A (1995) Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices? Evidence
from gubernatorial term limits. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:769–798
Bettinger, P (2010) An overview of methods for incorporating wildfires into forest planning
models. Mathematical Computing for Natural Resource Science MCFNS 2:43.
Beyers J (2004) Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness and impacts on native plant
communities. Conservation Biology 18:947–956
Bickers KN, Stein RM (2000) The congressional pork barrel in a Republican era. The Journal of
Politics 62:1070–1086
Bryan SM (2012) Feds spend millions on immediate post-fire effects. In: Associated Press.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/feds-spend-millions-immediate-post-fire-effects. Accessed 29
April 2013
Busenberg G (2004) Wildfire management in the United States: the evolution of a policy failure.
Review of Policy Research 21:145–156
Butler KF, Koontz TM (2005) Theory into practice: implementing ecosystem management
objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environmental Management 35:138–150
18
Calkin, DC, MA Finney, AA Ager, MP Thompson, KM Gebert (2011) Progress towards and
barriers to implementation of a risk framework for US federal wildland fire policy and
decision making. Forest Policy and Economics 13:378–389
Canton-Thompson, J, KM Gebert, B Thompson, G Jones, D Calkin, D Donovan (2008) External
human factors in incident management team decisionmaking and their effect on large fire
suppression expenditures. Journal of Forestry 106:416–424.
Carroll MS, Blatner KA, Cohn PJ, et al. (2004) Managing fire risk in the forests of the U.S.
Inland Northwest: a classic “wicked problem” in public land policy. Second International
Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: A Global View. pp 253 – 264
Carsey TM, Rundquist B (2009) Party and committee in distributive politics: evidence from
defense spending. The Journal of Politics 61:1156–1169
Cerdà A, Robichaud P (2009) Fire effects on soils and restoration strategies. Science Publishers,
Enfield, NH
Cheng AS, Steelman T, Moseley C (2007) Examining changes in wildfire policy and governance
in the United States through three analytical lenses. Second Conference on the Human
Dimensions of Wildland Fire. pp 24–32
Choo CW, Bontis N (2002) The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational
knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA
Cole S, Healy A, Werker E (2012) Do voters demand responsive governments? Evidence from
Indian disaster relief. Journal of Development Economics 97:167–181
Covert A (2010) The effects of straw mulching on post-wildfire vegetation recovery in South
Eastern British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 11:1–12
CRS (2012) Federal Funding for Wildfire Control and Management. CRS Report for Congress 7-
5700.
Cundill, G, Fabricius C (2009) Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based
approach. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 3205-3211.
Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, et al. (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to
deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:21–28
Davidson R, Davidson C, Espinosa AR (2009) Linear anionic polyacrylamide as an effective
post-fire soil treatment: Understanding the chemistry and physical science. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 64:243–252
DiTomaso JM, Marcum DB, Rasmussen MS, et al. (1997) Post-fire herbicide sprays enhance
native plant diiersity. California Agriculture 51:6–11
19
Dodson EK, Peterson DW (2010) Mulching effects on vegetation recovery following high
severity wildfire in north-central Washington State, USA. Forest Ecology and Management
260:1816–1823
Dombeck, MP, JE Williams, CA Wood (2004) Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating
scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology
18:883–889
Donato D, Fontaine J, Campbell J (2006) Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and
increases fire risk. Science 311:352
Donovan G, Brown T (2005) An alternative incentive structure for wildfire management on
national forest land. Forest Science 51:387–395
Driscoll CT, Lambert KF, Chapin III S, et al. (2012) Science and society: the role of long-term
studies in environmental stewardship. BioScience 62:354–366
Ellison B (1995) A conceptual framework for analyzing bureaucratic politics and autonomy. The
American Review of Public Administration 25:161–182
Falk DA, Miller C, McKenzie D, Black AE (2007) Cross-scale analysis of fire regimes.
Ecosystems 10:809–823
Fears, Darryl. 2013. “Federal Budget to Fight Wildfires Is Depleted.” The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/budget-to-fight-wildfires-is-
depleted/2013/08/22/047f1310-0aa1-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html (August 22,
2013).
Foltz R, Robichaud PR, Rhee H (2009) A synthesis of postfire road treatments for BAER teams:
methods, treatment effectiveness, and decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation. General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-228
Foster DR, Orwig DA (2006) Preemptive and salvage harvesting of New England forests: when
doing nothing is a viable alternative. Conservation Biology 20:959–970
GAO (2003) Better information needed on effectiveness of emergency stabilization and
rehabilitation treatments. United States General Accounting Office 1–55
GAO (2006) Forest Service and BLM could benefit from improved information on status of
needed work. United States General Accounting Office 1-48
Germain RH, Floyd DW, Stehman S V (2001) Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service
public participation process. Forest Policy and Economics 3:113–124
20
Glicksman RL (2008) Bridging data gaps through modeling and evaluation of surrogates: use of
the best available science to protect biological diversity under the National Forest
Management Act. Indiana Law Journal 83:65
Gómez-Rey MX, Couto-Vázquez A, García-Marco S, González-Prieto SJ (2013) Impact of fire
and post-fire management techniques on soil chemical properties. Geoderma 195:155-164
Hann WJ, Bunnell DL (2001) Fire and land management planning and implementation across
multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:389-403
Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American
sociological review 49:149–164
Healy A, Malhotra N (2009) Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political
Science Review 103:387-406
Hoberg G (2003) Science, politics, and US forest law: the battle over the Forest Service planning
rule. Natural Resources Journal 44:1-27
Hubbert KR (2006) Treatment effectiveness monitoring for Southern California wildfires: the 2
nd
year and 3
rd
years, 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/4403/TreatmentEffectivenessMonitoringForSoCA_
W.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2012.
Hudson M (2011) Fire management in the American West: forest politics and the rise of
megafires. University Press of Colrado, Boulder
Hutto RL (2006) Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire salvage logging
in North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology 20:984-993
Hyde K, Dickinson MB, Bohrer G, et al. (2013) Research and development supporting risk-
based wildfire effects prediction for fuels and fire management: status and needs.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 22:37-50
Joint Fire Science Program (2000) Implementation plan for the Joint Fire Science Plan.
http://www.firescience.gov/documents/ImplementationPlan.pdf. Accessed 27 Jul 2012
Jones BD (2001) Politics and the architecture of choice: bounded rationality and governance.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Jones BD, Baumgartner FR (2005) The politics of attention: how government prioritizes
problems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Karr JR, Rhodes JJ, Minshall GW, et al. (2004) The effects of postfire salvage logging on
aquatic ecosystems in the American West. BioScience 54:1029–1033
21
Kessler W, Salwasser H, Cartwright, Jr. CW, Caplan JA (1992) New perspectives for sustainable
natural resources management. Ecological Applications 2:221–225
Koontz TM, Bodine J (2008) Implementing ecosystem management in public agencies: Lessons
from the US Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Conservation Biology
22:60–69
Keiter, RB (2006) The law of fire: reshaping public land policy in an era of ecology and
litigation. Environmental Law 36:301-384
Kunioka T, Rothenberg LS (1993) The politics of bureaucratic competition: The case of natural
resource policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12:700–725
Lentile LB, Holden ZA, Smith AMS, et al. (2006) Remote sensing techniques to assess active
fire characteristics and post-fire effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15:319–345
Lindenmayer D, Burton PJ, Franklin JF (2008) Salvage logging and its ecological consequences.
Island Press
Martin WE, Bender HW, Shields DJ (2000) Stakeholder objectives for public lands: Rankings of
forest management alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management 58:21–32
McCaffrey, S, E Toman, M Stidham, B Shindler (2012) Social science research related to
wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs.
International Journal of Wildland Fire.
McCullough SA, Endress BA (2012) Do postfire mulching treatments affect plant community
recovery in California coastal sage scrub lands? Environmental management 49:142–50
McIver J, Starr L (2001) A literature review on the environmental effects of postfire logging.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16:159–168
Michener WK, Porter J, Servilla M, Vanderbilt K (2011) Long term ecological research and
information management. Ecological Informatics 6:13–24
Miller ME, Bowker MA, Reynolds RL, Goldstein, HL (2012) Post-fire land treatments and wind
erosion - Lessons from the Milford Flat Fire, UT, USA. Aeolian Research 7:29-44
Napper C (2006) Burned Area Emergency Response treatments catalog. USDA Forest Service,
National Technology and Development, Watershed, Soil, Air Management 0625 1801-
SDTDC
National Park Service (2007) Finding of no significant impact: post-fire aerial application of
herbicide. http://www.nps.gov/zion/parkmgmt/upload/Post-
Fire%20Aerial%20Herbicide%20FONSI_with_signature.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013
22
NICC (2013) National Interagency Fire Center.
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html. Accessed 8 Aug 2013
Nordhaus W (1975) The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies 42:169 – 190
Noss R, Franklin J, Baker W (2006) Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States.
Frontiers in Ecology 4:418–487
Olsen CS, Shindler B (2010) Trust, acceptance, and citizen–agency interactions after large fires:
influences on planning processes. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19:137–147
Peppin D, Fulé P, Sieg C, et al. (2011) Recent trends in post-wildfire seeding in western US
forests: costs and seed mixes. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20:702–708
Peppin D, Fulé PZ, Sieg CH, et al. (2010) Post-wildfire seeding in forests of the western United
States: An evidence-based review. Forest Ecology and Management 260:573–586
Peterson DL, Agee JK, Aplet GH, et al. (2009) Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in
western North America. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-776. Seattle, WA: United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Pierce J, Meyer G, Jull AJT (2004) Fire-induced erosion and millennial-scale climate change in
northern ponderosa pine forests. Nature 432:87–90
Policansky D (1999) Natural science, social science, and policy in resource management.
Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 7:311–322
Potoski M, Talbert J (2000) The dimensional structure of policy outputs: distributive policy and
roll call voting. Political Research Quarterly 53:695–710
Powers EM, Marshall JD, Zhang J, Wei L (2013) Post-fire management regimes affect carbon
sequestration and storage in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and
Management 291:268-277
Preusch M (2004) Amid a forest’s ashes, a debate over logging profits is burning. In: New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/national/15FIRE.html. Accessed 29 Apr 2013
Redding T, Leach J (2012) A synthesis of the effects of natural disturbance and post-disturbance
management on streamflow, stream temperature, suspended sediment, and aquatic
invertebrate populations. FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural
Resources, Kamloops, BC: FORREX Series 28.
Reiners, D (2012) Institutional effects on decision making on public lands: an interagency
examination of wildfire management. Public Administration Review 72:177–186.
23
Robichaud PR (2005) Measurement of post-fire hillslope erosion to evaluate and model
rehabilitation treatment effectiveness and recovery. International Journal of Wildland Fire
14:475 –485
Robichaud, PR, LE Asmun (2012)Tools to aid post-wildfire assessment and erosion-mitigation
treatment decisions. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(1) 95-105
Robichaud PR, Ashmun LE, Sims BD (2010) Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope
stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
Robichaud PR, Beyers JL, Neary DG (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
Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Brown RE, Ashmun LE (2009) Emergency post-fire rehabilitation
treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term restoration. Fire Ecology Special
Issue 5:115–128
Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Wagenbrenner JW, et al. (2013) Post-fire mulching for runoff and
erosion mitigation. Catena 105:75–92
Ryder D, Tomlinson M, Gawne B, Likens G (2010) Defining and using “best available science”:
a policy conundrum for the management of aquatic ecosystems. Marine and Freshwater
Research 61:821–828
Sabatier PA, Loomis J, McCarthy C (1995) Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local
constituencies, and budget maximization: an analysis of U.S. Forest Service planning
decisions. American Journal of Political Science 39:204–242
Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental
Science & Policy 7:385–403
Saylor A (2007) The quick and the dead: Earth Island v. Forest Service and the risk of Forest
Service financial bias in post-fire logging adjudications. Environmental Law 37:1–54
Schoennagel T, Veblen TT, Romme WH (2004) The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across
Rocky Mountain forests. Bioscience 54:661–676
Snider L (2011) Fourmile Fire recovery effort mired in property tangle. In: dailycamera.com.
http://www.dailycamera.com/fourmile-canyon-fire/ci_17177791. Accessed 27 Jul 2012
Steers RJ, Allen EB (2010) Post-fire control of invasive plants promotes native recovery in a
burned desert shrubland. Restoration Ecology 18:334–343
24
Stein SM (Huke), Gelburd D (1998) Healthy ecosystems and sustainable economies: the federal
interagency ecosystem management initiative. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:73–80.
Sullivan PJ, Acheson J, Angermeier PL, et al. (2006) Defining and implementing best available
science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries 31:460–
465
Thompson, MP, DE Calkin (2011) Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review.
Journal of Environmental Management 92:1895–1909
Tidwell T, Brown H (2010) A fire protection triangle for the Wildland-Urban Interface. Fire
Management Today 70:6–9
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest Service (2012) Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Overview.
http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2013/fy2013-overview.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest Service (2011) Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Overview.
http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2012/justification/FY2012-USDA-Forest-Service-
overview.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013
USDA Forest Service (2011) Burned Area Emergency Response tools. In: Moscow Forestry
Sciences Laboratory. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/BAERTOOLS/. Accessed 27 Jul
2012
Veblen T (2003) An introduction to key issues in fire regime research for fuels management and
ecological restoration. In: Omi P, Joyce L (eds) Fire, Fuel Treatments and Ecological
Restoration: Conference proceedings; 2002 16-18 April. U.S. Departement of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 259–276
Wagenbrenner JW, MacDonald LH, Rough D (2006) Effectiveness of three post fire
rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrological Processes 20:2989–
3006
Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring
increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943
Whitlock C, Shafer SL, Marlon J (2003) The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping
past and future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implications for ecosystem
management. Forest Ecology and Management 178:5–21
Wohlgemuth P, Robichaud P (2006) Evaluating the effectiveness of mulching as a post-fire
erosion control treatment. Third international fire ecology and management congress, San
Diego Fire Recovery Network. San Diego, CA
25
Wright V (2010) Influences to the success of fire science delivery: perspectives of potential
fire/fuels science users. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program, JFSP Project #04-4-
2-01 1–61
26
Figure 1: Possible drivers of disconnects between science and management.
Management Science Disconnects
Financial Incentives,
Political Pressure
Mismatches in
Temporal and
Spatial Scale
Insufficient,
Unavailable,
Inaccessible,
Poorly Synthesized
27
Table 1: Post-fire land treatment options and their reported purpose, effective duration, effectiveness, cost, and most recent review literature.
Treatment
Details
Purpose
Duration
Effectiveness
Cost
References
Seeding
Broadcasting seeds to encourage
vegetative growth. One of the most
widely used treatments.
Erosion
control
1 year
Often not effective, but effectiveness might vary
depending on seasonal and regional differences in
rainfall regime; may reduce nutrient loss
$20-$170 per acre
Beyers 2004;
Napper 2006;
Peppin et al.
2011; Peppin et
al. 2010;
Wagenbrenner et
al. 2006*;
Gómez-Rey et al.
2013*; Miller et
al. 2013*
Re-establish
vegetation
>1 year
Slight majority of studies suggest seeding hinders
native plant recovery, and effectiveness depends on
the rainfall regime
Non-native
plant control
1 year
Evenly mixed results
Herbicide
Aerially applied herbicide after fire
disturbance
Non-native
plant control
1-3 years
Mixed results
DiTomaso et al.
1997*; National
Park Service
2007*; Steers and
Allen 2010
Encourage
marketable
conifer
species
1 year
Effective in reducing shrub cover and encouraging
conifer growth
Salvage logging
Harvesting of lumber remaining post-fire
Timber
revenue and
reduce fuel
loads
>5 years
Net economic gain/loss unknown; short term increase
in fuel load from slash or possibly from shrub growth;
slight medium to long term fuel reduction when slash
removed; increased surface runoff and soil damage
primarily from road construction, but level depends
on management activities and scale; negative effects
on ecosystem diversity; mixed effects on individual
species; lower onsite carbon storage
Unknown
Karr et al. 2004;
Lindenmayer et
al. 2008; McIver
and Starr 2001;
Peterson et al.
2009; Redding
and Leach 2012;
Powers et al.
2013*
Mulch –
Straw and wood
chips
Straw/wood chips mulch with weed-free
material helps provide temporary cover
to erosion-
vulnerable areas, applied with
helicopter to large areas, or by hand for
smaller treatment sites.
Erosion
control
<3 years
Reduces sediment yields by at least 95%; more
effective for larger or intense storms as compared
with other treatments; wood chips are less likely to be
removed by wind; may reduce nutrient loss
$250-$930 per acre
(helimulching);
$500-$1,200 per
acre (hand
application)
Napper 2006;
Robichaud et al.
2013; Robichaud
et al. 2010;
Wagenbrenner et
al. 2006*;
Wohlgemuth et
al. 2006*;
Gómez-Rey et
al. 2013*
Moisture
retention to
re-establish
vegetation
<3 years
The effectiveness depends on distribution and
thickness of mulch layer; too thick of an application
may delay vegetative growth; straw mulch has
potential to include non-native seeds
28
Mulch –
Hydromulch
Applied to large areas by aerial
delivery or ground to provide ground
cover. Adheres to the surface soil layer,
and may be mixed with seed to re-
establish vegetation.
Erosion
control
<3 years
Less effective than straw/wood chips mulch; effective
during low intensity rainfall; ineffective against
intense rainfall
$2,000-$3,000 per
acre by aerial
application; or
$1,675-$3,000 per
acre by ground
application
Robichaud et al.
2013; Robichaud
et al. 2010;
Napper 2006;
Wohlgemuth and
Robichaud
2006*;
McCullough and
Endress 2012*
Moisture
retention to
re-establish
vegetation
<1 year
Effective at retaining moisture but the degree to
which it may enhance infiltration is not known. Little
impact on native plant recovery.
Soil binders [e.g.
polyacrylamide
(PAM)]
Chemical adhesive used to bind soil
particles. Spread over soil surface as a
liquid or as pellets that dissolve during
rain events.
Erosion control
and increase
infiltration
<1 year
Has a preference for binding with ash that typically
blows away with the first wind and less with coarse
grains; ineffective during large or intense rainfall
events; moderately effective during low intensity
rainfall events
~$500 per acre
Robichaud et al.
2010; Napper 2006
Log erosion barrier
Felled tree trunks laid parallel to slope
strike to reduce erosion by providing a
flow barrier, improving infiltration, and
trapping water and sediment.
Erosion control
>1 year
Less effective than mulching; ineffective against
intense storms and after storage space becomes full;
moderately effective during large storms. Often used
in the 1990s, however after circa 2000, rarely used
due to research suggesting limited effectiveness
$420-$1,200 per
acre
Robichaud et al.
2010; Cerdà and
Robichaud 2009;
Napper 2006;
Wagenbrenner et al.
2006*
Straw wattles, fiber
rolls
Rolls of hay, woodchip or other fibrous
material bound with
twine used to create
flow blockage thereby slowing overland
flow, increasing infiltration, and
trapping sediment.
Erosion control
>1 year
Ineffective during high intensity rainfall; moderately
effective with large rainfall events
$1,100-$4,000 per
acre
Robichaud et al.
2010; Cerdà and
Robichaud 2009;
Napper 2006
Silt fences
Geotextile fabric that prevents the
passage of sediment. Installed vertically
with wooden posts or metal T-posts,
firmly sealed and anchored below
ground level. Used infrequently as a
BAER treatment. Commonly used to
protect at risk high value areas.
Erosion control
>1 year
Effective when properly installed; upon partial filling
with sediment must be cleaned out to maintain
effectiveness
$50 per roll, labor
costs and other
effort may increase
cost to between
$150-
$250 for each
fence
Cerdà and
Robichaud 2009;
Napper 2006
* Citations marked with asterisks are not syntheses, but contribute information to the knowledge of the treatment’s effectiveness.