FLN Networker No. 237: May 24, 2017 The FLN Networker is a publication of the Fire Learning Network—a partnership of the USDA Forest Service, agencies of the Department of the Interior and The Nature Conservancy—intended to foster communication within the network and among its friends. Submit comments, information to share, and subscription requests to Liz Rank.

For more about the FLN, visit www.conservationgateway.org/fln or contact Marek Smith.

News from the Field California: More than 100 participants in last week’s Klamath Fire Ecology Symposium shared learning about the many faces of fire in the Klamath mountains—and across the West. The fire knowledge shared, both in presentations and in the hum of conversations during breaks, was deep and broad, tying together the social, cultural, ecological and economic threads of fire into a clear vision of where we need to go from here. The hosts at the Mid Klamath Watershed Center thank all the participants who took the time to let the magic happen. Slides and/or videos of many of the presentations will soon be shared on the MKWC website, and look for a Notes from the Field in the next Networker.

Colorado: FAC Net members and partners were key sponsors of the Colorado Wildfire Conference “Fire Adapted Communities: Moving from Awareness to Action, Messaging to Mitigation, and Words to Work” held in April. FAC Net was also there in force, especially on Thursday, as presenters on topics ranging from best practices for fostering neighborhood leaders to messaging to assessment apps. Slides from presentations are now available.

Colorado: In May, the Pikes Peak Fire Learning Network presented a workshop on effective prescribed fire messaging for representatives from 13 agencies. Participants learned from seasoned media professionals about messaging strategies that will positively influence public perspectives on prescribed fire. “Successfully connecting with Colorado residents about the role and benefits of prescribed fire is critical to our ability to expand the use of this essential tool and, ultimately, change the culture of fire in the state,” according to Parker Titus (ptitus@tnc.org).

New Jersey: The May meeting of the Barnegat Township Wildfire Safety Council looked back at the May 2007 Warren Grove Fire. Residents were invited to share memories of the fire, their experience with evacuation and loss of their homes. Afterwards, the Air National Guard recalled the mistakes that were made by their pilot that started the fire. Members of New Jersey Forest Fire Service, Barnegat Fire Company and the New Jersey Fire Safety Council then provided an update of the wildfire preparedness efforts that resulted from that 17,000-acre fire. For more, see the Asbury Park Press article “10 Years Later: Wisdom Grown from Ashes of the Warren Grove Fire” or contact Bill Brash (bill@njfiresafetycouncil.org).

Oregon: FireFree events are underway in central Oregon, giving homeowners free yard debris disposal. For more, see the article “ Removing Fuel from the Fire in Deschutes County” or the TV clip “Heart of Oregon Youth Corps Aids Community” (which includes a pan along a truly impressive debris pile), or contact Ed Keith (ed.keith@deschutes.org) or Alison Green (projectwildfire.pw@gmail.com).

Southern Blue Ridge: Several SBR FLN partners were interviewed for the article “A Perfect Storm or the New Norm?” (Smoky Mountain Living magazine), which looks back at the 2016 fire season, including Chimney Tops 2 Fire that swept into Gatlinburg last November—and ahead, with lessons learned. For more, contact Adam Warwick (awarwick@tnc.org).

PERFACT: Staff from PERFACT—the cooperative agreement under which the FLN, FAC Net, TREX and IPBN operate—met recently to discuss integrated fire management opportunities and strategies. Read more in the FAC Net blog post by Nick Goulette (nickg@hayfork.net).

Feedback Requested: FEMA Awards / All Lands Projects FEMA Awards: The application period for the 2017 Individual and Community Preparedness Awards is open through May 30. These FEMA awards highlight innovative local practices and achievements by honoring individuals, organizations and jurisdictions that have made outstanding contributions toward strengthening their community to prepare for, respond to and recover from a disaster.

All Lands Projects: The Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC), is building an All Lands Learning Network to support coordination, innovation and learning around collaborative, cross-boundary projects—projects involving more than one landownership and more than one agency/ manager that seek to meet mutual goals across boundaries. If you have worked on an all lands project, RVCC invites you to take a survey to help them understand how all lands projects are working (or not). The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete, and is open through June 1.

Resources: After Fire / Networks After Fire: A team led by Katelyn Driscoll and Megan Friggens of the Rocky Mountain Research Station—and including Anne Bradley (abradley@tnc.org)—has released the final report on the USDA Climate Hub project “After Fire: A Synthesis and Toolkit to Help Resource Managers, Communities, and Landowners Plan for and Mitigate Secondary Fire Effects.” The synthesis is attached; the toolkit is online at https://postfiresw.info/. While the focus is on the Southwest, many of the resources have use across a broader geographic area.

Networks: Take a break from reading and check out the Getting Smart podcast “How Networks Make the World Better,” an interview with Curtis Ogden (Interaction Institute for Social Change).

Reports: Burning on Private Land / 2016 Overview Burning on Private Land: The report “Controlled Burning on Private Land in New Mexico,” produced by the Forest Stewards Guild and Promise PCES LLC, grew from discussions at the 2016 Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network workshop. In spite of the title, much of the information in the report is relevant well beyond the state. For more, contact Zander Evans (zander@forestguild.org), Marie Rodriguez (promise.pces@gmail.com) or Eytan Krasilovsky (eytan@forestguild.org).

2016 Overview: The Ecological Restoration Institute and Southwest Fire Science Consortium have released the “2016 Wildfire Season: An Overview, Southwestern U.S.” The fourth installment in an annual series, this report by Zander Evans (zander@forestguild.org) gives some regional context, with details on a dozen large fires.

Jobs: Forest Fuels Coordinator / Conservation Coordinator Forest Fuels Coordinator: The North Tahoe Fire Protection District is hiring a Forest Fuels Coordinator to perform a variety of tasks relating to fire prevention and risk reduction. Details are on the district’s employment page; applications are due by June 19. The North Tahoe FPD is also seeking an Administrative Assistant and a Defensible Space Inspector; applications for both of those positions are due June 5.

Conservation Coordinator: The Nature Conservancy’s New Mexico chapter is hiring a Conservation Coordinator for a position with broad scope that includes the Rio Grande Water Fund and other conservation work across the state. Details are on the Conservancy’s careers page (job ID 45430); current employees should apply through PeopleSoft. Applications (which require a 1-2 page cover letter and resume) are due by June 25.

Webinars recording available Getting Ahead of the Wildfire Problem: Linking Operational Fire Response new listing to Landscape Planning Objectives

Kit O’Connor spoke at this May 17 Southwest Fire Science Consortium webinar. Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmOD3fdpw4g&feature=youtu.be

May 26 Performing and Applying Natural Hazard Risk Assessments 10:00 Pacific / 11:00 Mountain / noon Central / 1:00 Eastern

Amanda Siok and Brett Holt will be the presenters on the FEMA Region 10 webinar. Information: (free) registration is required for this webinar

June 9 The Fire Learning Trail 10:00 Pacific / 11:00 Mountain / noon Central / 1:00 Eastern

Jenifer Bunty will be the presenter on this Southern Blue Ridge FLN webinar about this joint outreach project by between The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service and the Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists. Details: http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/ FireLandscapes/FireLearningNetwork/NetworkProducts/Pages/SBR-Webinar-FireLearningTrail-2017.aspx Add to your calendar: https://tnc.webex.com/tnc/j.php?MTID=m253de390a5f3a27f0022001f47102765

Webinar Series Wildland Fire Smoke & Roadway Visibility: Predict, Prepare and Avert Accidents June 15—Part 1 Superfog—What, How, Where, When! June 22—Part 2 Weather Information & Tools Available to Stay Ahead of Superfog Events June 29—Part 3 PB-Piedmont, Superfog Potential and Estimated Smoldering Potential Operational Status

10:00 Pacific / 11:00 Mountain / noon Central / 1:00 Eastern The NWCG Smoke Committee, Southern Fire Exchange, The Nature Conservancy and Montgomery Community College NC Prescribed Fire Training Center are collaborating to share information on understanding wildland fire’s risk of smoke reducing roadway visibility through this series of three webinars. For details, see the NC State blog post; the flyer has links to add the webinars to your calendar. Join webinars: Part 1 (June 15), Part 2 (June 22), Part 3 (June 29)

June 23 Integrating Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans and Community Wildfire new listing Protection Plans

10:00 Pacific / 11:00 Mountain / noon Central / 1:00 Eastern This webinar is part of the FEMA Region 10 Coffee Break series. Information: http://www.starr-team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionX/ mitigationplanning/SitePages/2017_Coffee_Break.aspx

Network Workshops & Field Tours June 8 Central Appalachians FLN: Grassland Working Group Field Day / VA new listing Participants will meet at the VA DGIF Lake Shenandoah parking area at 9:00 am

to visit two grassland restoration projects in Augusta County, share experiences from several restoration methods, and learn to identify grassland species at Lake Shenandoah and Cowbane Prairie Natural Area Preserve. RSVP: Ryan Klopf (ryan.klopf@dcr.virginia.gov) by June 1

June 13-15 FLN Leads Annual National Workshop / Orleans, CA The Western Klamath Mountains FLN will host regional network leads and key

partners from across the country to review accomplishments from the past 15 years, share lessons learned, strengthen ties within the network and plan the net-work's future direction and work. Information: Marek Smith (marek_smith@tnc.org)

FLN Prescribed Fire Training Exchanges (TREX) May 30-June 10 Luera Prescribed Fire Training Exchange / south-central NM Information: a flyer about this TREX is on the Conservation Gateway

Sept. 26-Oct. 6 Umpqua Prescribed Fire Training Exchange / Roseburg, OR This TREX, co-hosted by the BLN, USFS, TNC, Lomakatsi and other partners, will

take place in the Umpqua Basin of Oregon. Applications are due June 30. Information: the announcement and application are on the Conservation Gateway

Conferences, Workshops, Training, Etc. June 6-8 Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists Road Trip / updated from Flat Rock, NC

This CAFMS bus tour will share lessons learned from the 2016 wildfire season, with stops at the Party Rock Fire (Lake Lure, NC), Chimney Tops II Fire (Gatlinburg, TN) and Rough Ridge fire (Flat Rock, NC). Information: https://apfire.wixsite.com/roadtrip and FAQs

June 15-16 FireWorks Educator Workshop / Missoula, MT This Missoula Fire Sciences Lab workshop for teachers, fire information officers,

agency educators, communication specialists and outdoor educators will include hands-on activities for teaching students about wildland fire behavior, ecology, management and traditional fire use by Native Americans. Information: see the workshop flyer and draft syllabus

September 19-20 Patch Burn Grazing Working Group Meeting / Joplin, MO Save the date for this Great Plains Fire Science Exchange working group meeting.

Information: http://www.gpfirescience.org/events-webinars-source/2017/9/19/patch-burn-grazing-working-group-meeting

October 10-12 Natural Areas Conference / Fort Collins, CO Information: http://naturalareasconference.org/

October 24-26 Oak Symposium: Sustaining Oak Forests in the 21st Century through Science-Based Management / Knoxville, TN

Information: http://www.outreach.utk.edu/Conferences/Sustaining%20Oak%20 Forests/Speakers.html

Nov. 28-Dec. 2 AFE International Fire Congress / Orlando, FL The Association for Fire Ecology (AFE) and Southern Fire Exchange will be co-

hosting “Fire Vision 20/20: A 20 Year Reflection and Look into the Future.” Various calls for proposals are open (check for topics and closing dates). Rx310 will also be offered concurrently with the conference (details); nominations are due by September 29. Information: http://afefirecongress.org/

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Send News, Links & Comments Lynn Decker – ldecker@tnc.org – Lynn is out May 20-26. Guy Duffner – gduffner@tnc.org – Guy is in the office Tuesday-Thursday (mid-day); out May 24-29. Heather Montanye – hmontanye@tnc.org – Heather is in the office. Jeremy Bailey – jeremy_bailey@tnc.org – Jeremy is in Luera, NM May 30-June 11. Marek Smith – marek_smith@tnc.org – Marek is in the office. Mary Huffman – mhuffman@tnc.org – Mary is in the office. Wendy Fulks – wfulks@tnc.org – Wendy is in the office. Liz Rank (editor) – lrank@tnc.org – Liz is out May 25.

Note: May 29 is a Conservancy holiday.

Full Links News from the Field—CO: http://www.wildfire-colorado.com/presentations News from the Field—NJ: http://www.app.com/story/news/local/communitychange/2017/05/15/10-years-later-wisdom-grown-

ashes-warren-grove-fire/314684001/ News from the Field—OR—FireFree: http://www.firefree.org/firefreeevents/

Newspaper: http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/5298138-151/removing-fuel-from-the-fire-in-deschutes-county TV: http://www.ktvz.com/news/heart-of-oregon-youth-corps-aids-community/493680796

News from the Field—PERFACT: https://fireadaptednetwork.org/perfact-advancing-integrated-fire-management/ Feedback Requested—All lands projects: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/all-lands-learning Feedback Requested—FEMA awards: https://www.ready.gov/citizen-corps/citizen-corps-awards Resources—Networks: http://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/05/getting-smart-podcast-how-networks-make-the-world-better/ Reports—Burning on private land: http://www.forestguild.org/Documents/ControlledBurning/ControlledBurningNM_05162017.pdf Reports—2016 overview: http://www.swfireconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ERI_Wildfire-Season-2016-

Overview_FINAL_WEB.pdf Jobs—North Tahoe FPD: http://www.ntfire.net/copy-of-employment Jobs—TNC careers page: https://careers.nature.org/ Webinars—Performing & using natural hazard risk assessments:

https://atkinsglobalna.webex.com/mw3200/mywebex/default.do?service=7&main_url=%2Ftc3200%2Ftrainingcenter%2Fdefault.do%3Fsiteurl%3Datkinsglobalna%26main_url%3D%252Ftc3200%252Fe.do%253FAT%253DMI%2526%2526Host%253DQUhTSwAAAATU5325VNoNNH4XlhdAkSAFG_nKP_atMRFRthPfmkoatmR12L1T-d_1zOghqrT8JK9WoJSnKvaJN6L5mdyojoUq0%2526UID%253D0%2526MTID%253Dt955ee0cb0d6810eddceb8dab16a5f7e5%2526siteurl%253Datkinsglobalna%2526confID%253D3312366991%2526ticket%253D4832534b00000004615c18cca0eafcb8ecdd19a5897f98fed3a79aced48c1ee266da9aa26a768eaa&siteurl=atkinsglobalna

Webinars—Wildland fire smoke & roadway visibility—Blog post: https://research.cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/southeast-fire-update/2017/05/05/wildland-fire-smoke-and-roadway-visibility-predict-prepare-and-avert-accidents/ Links to join webinar: Part 1: https://tnc.webex.com/tnc/j.php?MTID=m1d307402cb454bd8da550b6c252ba6ce Part 2: https://tnc.webex.com/tnc/j.php?MTID=m6cdf82a9a60b28f511f547dd1b137055 Part 3: https://tnc.webex.com/tnc/j.php?MTID=mfe7d4d8e015e470c4298ac2a26c719f9

FLN Prescribed Fire Training Exchanges—Upcoming TREX: http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/FireLandscapes/HabitatProtectionandRestoration/Training/TrainingExchanges/Pages/Upcoming-Training-Exchanges.aspx

The Fire Learning Network is supported by Promoting Ecosystem Resilience and Fire Adapted Communities Together: Collaborative Engagement, Collective Action and Co-ownership of Fire, a cooperative agreement between The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior. In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 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 and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

To stop receiving the FLN Networker, please reply to this message and include your request in the body of the message.

After fire: A synthesis and toolkit to help resource managers,

communities, and landowners plan for and mitigate secondary

fire effects

Prepared by Katelyn Driscoll and Megan Friggens, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Direct Comments or Questions to katelyndriscoll@fs.fed.us or meganfriggens@fs.fed.us

Funding provided by the USDA Climate Hubs

Team Members

Anne Bradley, The Nature Conservancy

Anna Jaramillo-Scarborough, USFS Region 3

Dan Neary, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Deborah Finch, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Emile Elias, USDA SW Climate Hub

Gregg Garfin, University of Arizona

Max Smith, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Pete Robichaud, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Saray LeRoy, University of Arizona

ii

This synthesis has been produced in partial fulfillment of the project, “Online tool-kit to help resource

managers plan for and mitigate post-fire flood impacts”, sponsored by the USDA Southwestern Regional

Climate Hub. The primary product of this work, the online toolkit (https://postfiresw.info/), was

designed to address needs identified by regional managers at a series of workshops held in 2014 and

2015 (Garfin et al. 2016). The online toolkit provides a centralized resource for communities,

landowners, and managers to find information and tools to help assess post-fire risks, plan treatments,

and monitor successes. The following synthesis provides additional background information on how and

why post-fire flood and erosion events occur and what federal and non-federal managers do in

response.

Acknowledgements

This synthesis and accompanying online toolkit (www.postfiresw.info) were funded in part by a grant

from the USDA Climate Hub. We thank Eliza Kretzman, Debbie Hughes, and various BAER team members

who provided advice and recommendations for this document and the associated online toolkit.

Cover Photo-Anna Jaramillo-Scarborough

iii

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Secondary Effects of Fire................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Physiological Processes .................................................................................................................. 2

2.2. Ecology & Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 6

3. Assessing and Managing Risks Due to Post-Fire Flood and Erosion ................................................. 6

3.1. Response Teams for Federally Owned Lands ................................................................................ 7

3.2. Response Team and Resources for Non-federally Owned Lands .................................................. 7

3.3. Risk Analysis and Post-fire Assessment Tools ................................................................................ 8

4. Web Resources ............................................................................................................................... 15

5. Research Needs ............................................................................................................................... 17

6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 18

7. References ...................................................................................................................................... 19

1

1. Introduction Wildfires are common and important natural disturbances in ecosystems throughout the southwestern

United States (Baisan and Swetnam 1999; Grissino-Mayer and Swetnam, 2000; Neary et al. 2003).

Wildfire has shaped the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of landscapes, typically through

high-frequency, low-severity burns. However, natural fire regimes have been altered throughout the

region by large-scale suppression efforts over the last 100 years (Swetnam and Baisan, 1996; Swetnam

et al. 1999; Noss et al. 2006). The resulting increase in fuel loads has shifted fire regimes to low-

frequency, high-severity, massive burns that can have major impacts on watershed function long after

the wildfire has occurred (Neary et al. 1999).

As a disturbance, fire alters watershed characteristics and can lead to secondary fire effects due to

enhanced hydrologic or geomorphologic activity (Neary et al. 2005). Wildfires reduce protective ground

cover in the form of vegetation and litter. Additionally, heating during the fire changes soil properties

such as water repellency and aggregate stability (Neary et al. 1999; Shakesby and Doerr 2006). Loss of

vegetation and litter and altered soil profiles reduce the capacity of catchments to absorb and store

water, leading to surface runoff and erosion (Tiedemann et al. 1979; Loaiciga et al. 2001). As a result

surface runoff may increase by more than 70% and erosion by three orders of magnitude (DeBano et al.

1998; Robichaud 2005; Foltz et al. 2009) at times leading to very large post-fire flood and debris flow

events. These impacts are not always negative or undesirable but in some cases have a large potential to

threaten lives or damage infrastructure and, as a result, are of major concern for many land managers

and owners.

The likelihood of a post-fire flood or erosion event is strongly influenced by burn severity patterns and

precipitation regimes including the timing, magnitude, and duration of storm events within burned

areas (Garfin et al. 2016). In the southwestern United States where the fire season is closely followed by

monsoon season, post-fire flooding and erosion are of particular concern (Rinne and Neary, 1996).

During the monsoon season, recently denuded slopes with transformed soil properties are subjected to

high-intensity, localized storms that often lead to runoff, debris flows, and sedimentation in

downstream streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs (Rinne and Neary, 1996; Bixby et al. 2015). Recent

climate trends that have diminished snowpack and snowmelt, increased spring and summer

temperatures, and reduced soil moisture content have effectively extended the southwestern fire

season and driven larger and more intense fires, which are also associated with dramatic secondary fire

effects (Rinne and Neary, 1996; Dahm et al. 2015).

While disturbances like fire, flooding, and erosion are natural shaping forces within ecosystems, they

can threaten human populations where conditions lead to extreme events. Indeed, life, property, and

ecosystems within the Southwest are often vulnerable to the combined impact of severe wildfire and

monsoon precipitation events (Swanson 1981; Neary et al. 2003). Southwestern communities, resource

managers, and private landowners must be able to respond to potential threats of flooding, debris

flows, altered water quality, or damage to infrastructure. Because of the potential damage caused by

secondary fire events, it is imperative to rapidly assess post-fire watershed conditions and identify

appropriate treatments to reduce risk of flooding, debris flows and sedimentation. Assessment is key as

not all watersheds are equally at risk of negative impacts and not all post-fire treatments will be equally

effective at reducing risk. One example of an efficient and historically successful approach to assessing

watershed conditions and mitigating risks are interagency Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER)

2

teams that are assembled to manage threats on federal lands after certain types of fire. Other programs

and teams with similar objectives and strategies help individuals, communities, and private landowners

assess and mitigate post fire threats. The purpose of this document is to review how post-fire flooding

and erosion affect southwestern ecosystems, and synthesize information on the tools available to help

assess, plan for, and manage the secondary effects of fire.

2. Secondary Effects of Fire Though wildfire has an integral and important role in maintaining ecosystem function and processes,

under certain conditions wildfire instigates a succession of events that negatively impacts a landscape

long after the fire has burned. These impacts are considered secondary fire effects and include flooding,

erosion, debris flows, and sedimentation. Major post-fire events can be destructive to aquatic and

riparian ecosystems, downstream communities, and infrastructure (Neary et al. 2005; Shakesby and

Doerr 2006).

The degree to which a watershed experiences negative secondary fire effects depends on the

characteristics of the catchment, the post-fire precipitation regime, and the way in which the wildfire

burned (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006; Cannon et al. 2008; Moody et al. 2008; Bixby et al. 2015).

Topography, soil properties, vegetative communities, geomorphology, and lithology are important

determinants of whether a basin generates a post-fire event (Neary et al. 2003; Shakesby and Doerr,

2006). Catchments with rugged morphology, steep slopes, and high gradient streams tend to produce

debris flows, whereas less rugged basins with gentler channel gradients and smooth hillslopes may

produce significant flooding (Cannon and Reneau, 2000). Flooding and/or debris flows are triggered by

rainfalls of various intensity and duration (Cannon et al. 2008; Moody and Martin, 2009). Within the

Southwest, debris flows can be initiated by as little as 6 to 10 minutes of rainfall with an intensity

ranging from 1 to 32 mm/hour (Cannon et al. 2008). Furthermore, watershed responses are primed by

pre-fire events such as droughts or floods (Bixby et al. 2015). Finally, the burn pattern of a fire, in

particular burn severity, is a very important determinant of post-fire events (Moody et al. 2008).

Wildfires vary in their size, intensity, severity, timing, and frequency, all traits that influence the

response of burned landscapes to post-fire precipitation events (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006). Studies of

southwestern post-fire landscapes suggest that the likelihood of either a flood or a debris flow is

reduced in basins lacking extensive burns, even following intense summer thunderstorms (Cannon et al.

2008).

The next few sections detail the specific ways that wildfire and precipitation events interact and

influence the risk of post-fire flood, debris flows, and sedimentation in southwestern landscapes.

2.1. Physiological Processes

2.1.1. Hydrology

Natural flow regimes include the timing, frequency, duration, magnitude, and rate of change in

discharge (Poff et al. 1997). Flow regime patterns influence and include recharge to and discharge from

groundwater systems (Sophocleous, 2002). Fires can have short- and long-term effects on the hydrology

of a burned watershed due to loss of vegetative cover and altered soil structure. Fires remove hillslope

vegetation and litter that stabilizes soil and decreases direct impacts of rain on bare soil. Additionally,

vegetation plays an important role in the hydrologic cycle through transpiration, slowing runoff, and

storing precipitation on the landscape (Tiedemann et al. 1979; Loaiciga et al. 2001; Shakesby and Doerr

2006). With heating from fire, soils can undergo changes to their physical and chemical properties, with

3

the most common concern in burned soils being water repellency (DeBano et al. 1998). As a result of

changes in soil properties and reduced vegetative cover, burned watersheds are more sensitive to

precipitation (Moody and Martin 2001) and typically experience enhanced hydrologic activity including

overland flow, increased discharge, and larger peak flows (Johansen et al. 2001; Shakesby and Doerr,

2006). Peak flows in burned catchments tend to be larger with a faster response time and multiple

peaks, generating flashy hydrographs (Moody and Martin, 2001; Shakesby and Doerr, 2006). These

peaks are typically attributed to overland flow that results from decreased surface storage capacity,

reduced surface roughness, and water repellent soils (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006). In the Southwest,

studies show post-fire peak flows can increase by 500 to 9600 percent (Anderson et al. 1976). Decreased

infiltration and storage in burned watersheds leads to more precipitation being exported from the

system through surface runoff (Neary et al. 2003), which can ultimately lead to diminished base flows or

the loss or movement of springs. In extreme cases, perennial streams may transition to ephemeral

(Rinne and Neary, 1996; Neary et al. 2003).

2.1.2. Erosion

Erosion is a natural process that results in redistribution of soils, nutrients, biotic communities, and

resources. Burned drainages tend to experience increased erosion and more variable geomorphological

activity. Fire severity, the degree to which vegetation is lost and soil properties are changed after a fire,

is the most important determinant of post-fire erosion within a watershed (Inbar et al. 1998). Impacts

from raindrops on bare soil and overland flow are erosive forces that occur more readily on denuded

slopes (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006). Rainsplash and overland flow easily detach soil particles and transfer

them downslope (Johansen et al. 2001). These small impacts are common triggers of debris flows

(Cannon, 2001), which are the largest and most intense form of mass wasting that deliver sediment to

streams (Rinne and Neary, 1996). In burned watersheds, debris flows can range from slow moving

slurries of ash and sediment to swift landslides of soil, rock, and woody debris (Rinne and Neary, 1996).

They frequently begin in response to high intensity rainfall through a gradual accumulation of sediment

by overland flow and rill erosion on steep slopes (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006). Studies in New Mexico

suggest burned watersheds are sensitive to precipitation events, with debris flows triggered in

watersheds under relatively minor storm intensities (approximately 2 year event) (Cannon et al. 2001).

Debris flows may also be initiated by the failure of saturated wettable soil layers overlaying a

hydrophobic soil layer (Wells 1987). In addition to debris flows, shallow landslides are also an erosion

concern in burned watersheds. These events occur following decay of hillslope stabilizing root systems

and can remain a threat for up to 20 years or until roots are reestablished (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006).

Shallow landslides are especially relevant in the Southwest as they are most common on steep chaparral

slopes, typically in response to high-magnitude, low-frequency rainfall (Rice et al. 1969; Rice and Foggin,

1971).

Post-fire erosion is not limited to that caused by water. It is common to observe increased wind erosion,

avalanche activity, and gravity flows of dry sediments (Shakesby and Doerr 2006). Studies in the

Southwest have determined that wind erosion from recently burned areas can be three times greater

than unburned areas over several months and 70 times larger during strong winds (Whicker et al. 2002).

Avalanche activity can increase on steep slopes due to loss of stabilizing vegetation and changes in the

accumulation and melting patterns of snow (Winterbottom 1974). Additionally, dry ravel, a process

where dry soil particles slide past one another due to gravity (Ice et al. 2004) is a well-documented

secondary fire effect throughout the Southwest, particularly in chaparral systems (Florsheim et al.

4

1991). Dry ravel is a prevalent force on steep slopes and can continue for more than a decade after

wildfire (Shakesby and Doerr 2006). Past studies have measured increases in dry ravel following fire in

arid climates like the Southwest and concluded that rates can be 9 to 13 times greater post-fire

(Krammes, 1960; Rice, 1982). Vegetation is slow to recover on slopes with high rates of ravel, a positive

feedback that enhances this type of erosion for several years (McNabb and Swanson, 1990).

2.1.3. Geomorphology/Stream Sediment Dynamics

Stream channels and floodplains are affected in complex ways by loss of vegetation and altered soil

conditions following fire (Shakesby and Doerr, 2006). Geomorphological changes are important for long

term function in aquatic systems, with scouring and deposition natural processes within channels.

Undisturbed streams tend to exist in a dynamic equilibrium, in which sediment inputs and exports are in

balance with forces exerted by discharge (Heede, 1986). As a disturbance, fire can initiate

morphological changes in stream channels and their floodplains (Benda et al. 2003). Channel responses

to fire can include aggradation, braiding, creation of alluvial fans, boulder deposits, headward

expansion, entrenchment, terrace development, or channel narrowing (Benda et al. 2003; Shakesby and

Doerr, 2006). These geomorphological responses can lead to complex floodplains and dynamic channels,

however some large events that occur after large, high intensity fires can induce extreme changes that

lead to an imbalance between cut and fill processes. Increased rates of sedimentation or large, sudden

deposits can overwhelm a stream system with a larger supply of sediment than the system can

transport, leading to rapid aggradation, or an increase in the land elevation of the floodplain (Rinne and

Neary, 1996). Additionally peak flows can occasionally cause downcutting though fill alluviation

generally tends to be a more dominant force. Fill alluviation can cause narrow, distinct channels to

transition to wide and braided systems, which has implications for stream temperature regimes and the

habitats of aquatic species (Rinne and Neary, 1996). Within arid and semi-arid burned catchments, like

those of the Southwest, studies have shown substantial entrenchment, or downcutting, of channels is

common with more erosion occurring within channels than from hillslopes in the first two years after

fire (Germanoski and Miller 1995; Moody and Martin 2001).

2.1.4. Water Quality

Wildfire alters water quality as soon as the first post-fire rainfall event and can continue to affect water

quality up to a decade (Smith et al. 2011). Immediately after a fire and up to a year following the burn,

runoff containing fine ash and black carbon occurs regardless of any treatments applied to the

watershed. Ash deposits typically contain high concentrations of nutrients, trace elements, and other

contaminants (Amiro et al. 1996; Johansen et al. 2003; Goforth et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2011).

Precipitation can trigger ash slurries that deplete oxygen and generate exceptionally high turbidity in

streams and municipal water supplies (Dahm et al. 2015). Earl and Blinn (2003) observed the effects of

fire ash on southwestern streams and concluded that periods of depleted oxygen and high turbidity

were dramatic, but short lived. Fire acts as a rapid mineralizing agent that releases nutrients from plant

biomass, depositing them in a highly bioavailable form (DeBano, 1989). Without vegetation and soil

microbial communities to consume nutrients and retain them on the landscape, precipitation can cause

these nutrients to runoff into streams, resulting in large nutrient pulses to aquatic systems (Rinne and

Neary, 1996; Smith et al. 2011). Large concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in particular can lead

to toxic blooms and eutrophication both in lentic and lotic systems. If these blooms occur in reservoirs

or other municipal water sources, they can threaten human health and alter the taste, smell, and color

of drinking water (Drewry et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2011). Additionally, elevated concentrations of 𝑁𝑂3−

5

and 𝑁𝑂2− in drinking water can threaten human health by affecting oxygen transport in blood (Smith et

al. 2011). Lastly, increased sedimentation is a concern for water quality. Not only do large loads of

sediment alter the color and turbidity of water, these loads can carry contaminants associated with

particles and inhibit the detection of bacteria or viruses (Ongley et al. 1992; Smith et al. 2011). This is

especially concerning because high nutrient concentrations and increased water temperatures promote

bacterial growth.

2.2. Ecology & Wildlife Secondary effects of wildfire such as flooding, erosion, debris flows, and sedimentation can have major

impacts to the ecology of a burned watershed. Altered hydrology and geomorphology within burned

watersheds has implications for ecosystem structure and function. Stream, lake, and pond ecosystems

tend to be especially vulnerable to the compounded impacts of fire disturbances that cause shifts in

hydrological regimes and change surrounding terrestrial landscapes which feed into these systems

(Bixby et al. 2015). Ecological function of streams, lakes, and ponds can be negatively impacted by silt

and sedimentation, morphological changes, temperature regime change, and post-fire flood events.

Aquatic animal and plant communities are also impacted by secondary fire effects, which change

availability of habitat and nutrients and can have rippling effects that extend to the surrounding riparian

habitats.

Overall, streams experience a shift in their metabolism and thermal regimes following wildfire. This

transition is driven by several factors that reduce allochthonous inputs of organic matter and promote

autochthonous, or locally derived, sources of organic matter (Bixby et al. 2015). When riparian

vegetation is consumed by fire, more solar radiation reaches the stream or pond, which increases

stream temperature and productivity of aquatic plants and algae (Beakes et al. 2014; Cooper et al.

2015). Geomorphological changes that lead to wider and shallower channels in some environments can

further increase water temperatures (Rinne and Neary 1996). Thermal regulation provided by discharge

of groundwater is lost when fine sediments deposited in interstitial spaces inhibit exchange between

surface and hyporheic systems (Rinne 1996). Additionally, the loss of vegetation and litter removes an

allochthonous source of organic matter such as leaves and litter that, prior to fire, were deposited in

aquatic systems and provided a food source and nutrients to aquatic species. (Bixby et al. 2015; Cooper

et al. 2015). As fire burns vegetation, nutrients are released from plant matter and deposited with ash in

a more readily available form than when held in leaves and litter. With precipitation, pulses of

bioavailable nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous, carried from hillslopes to aquatic systems

by runoff, promote the production of autochthonous organic matter including aquatic plants and algae

(DeBano, 1989). This process results in a transition from streams that rely on leaves and litter from

outside vegetation to a system with its own supply of organic matter. Ultimately these pulses can lead

to eutrophication and mass die-offs of aquatic species (Rieman et al. 2012; Bixby et al. 2015). With time,

vegetation reestablishes on hillslopes, nutrient cycles close, soils recover, and high nutrient loads

received by streams diminish. This recovery is typically slower in the semi-arid Southwest (Neary et al.

1999).

Changes in stream structure and function, as well as the flooding regime, can have major impacts to

aquatic and riparian biological communities. The ability of organisms to respond to fire and flooding

depends on their life cycle, dispersal ability, as well as the distribution and availability of habitat refugia

(Bixby et al. 2015). One of the first concerns for organisms are ash slurries that deplete oxygen. This

process can be toxic to aquatic macroinvertebrates that are the primary food source for fish and riparian

6

animals (Earl and Blinn, 2003; Dahm et al. 2015). Additionally ash flows can have extensive and

immediate effects on fish populations, with many experiencing mass mortality and extirpation due to

hypoxia and elevated concentrations of ammonium, trace metals, and ferrocyanides (Bixby et al. 2015).

After ash flows are flushed from streams, numerous other secondary fire effects threaten aquatic and

riparian species. Post fire floods scour stream substrates and remove benthic organisms, potentially

generating radical change in the biological community (Gresswell, 1999; Minshall 2003; Bixby et al.

2015). Geomorphological changes that lead to wider, shallower channels or fill pools and ponds with

fine sediment reduce or alter aquatic and floodplain habitat for many species. In particular,

accumulations of fine sediments decrease the availability of rearing habitats for aquatic insects and

spawning substrates for fish (Rinne, 1996). With major impacts to the density of insects, effects ripple

through food webs and can reach riparian consumers such as birds, bats, and rodents. Additionally,

altered populations of insects that emerge from streams affects a subsidy to food resources in riparian

zones, potentially changing food supplies for riparian predators (Minshall 2003; Bixby et al. 2015). Under

extreme conditions, changes in the hydrology may cause perennial streams to transition to ephemeral.

Fragmentation and loss of aquatic habitat can prove disastrous for aquatic and riparian plant and animal

communities (Rinne and Neary, 1996).

2.3 Infrastructure Loss or damage to infrastructure and related resources are a common risk in burned landscapes. Roads

and their associated structures, such as culverts, are exposed to altered and more variable conditions

that increase the likelihood of failure during a flood or debris flow. Typically, roads are not designed to

accommodate the large increases in runoff, sediment, and debris following fire (Foltz et al. 2009). Debris

can collect at culverts, obstruct the channel, and lead to road failure. Large flows may wash out roads

and bridges or these structures may experience large cut-and-fill failures that destroy important

transportation routes, isolate communities, or prevent emergency crews from accessing burns (Foltz et

al 2009).

Other resources, like irrigation networks and equipment, municipal water storage equipment, and

hydroelectric facilities also can be impacted by post fire flooding and erosion. Flows with altered water

chemistry can corrode structures and intakes may become clogged with ash or sediment (Smith et al.

2011; Dahm et al. 2015). With large sediment deposition, the capacity of reservoirs generally diminishes

and water demands or irrigation needs may not be met. Impacts to reservoirs is of particular concern in

the southwestern states, where studies have shown that wildfire has the strongest impact on reservoir

sedimentation (Moody and Martin 2004).

3. Assessing and Managing Risks Due to Post-Fire Flood and Erosion After a fire, assessments are made to determine where management actions are warranted and most

likely to be effective to reduce the impact of secondary fire effects. These assessments requires

information on what and where important resources exist, the risk that those resources will be

negatively impacted, and potential actions that can reduce that risk. Once treatments are applied,

monitoring is needed in order to gauge whether treatments are having the desired impact and

determine the need for follow up action. Processes for assessing and implementing actions to reduce

secondary fire risks exist for federal and non-federal lands, including those that are privately owned.

Federal land management agencies rely on interagency Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER)

teams, while state, local, and privately owned lands can receive support and funding through state and

7

federal programs including the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Emergency Watershed

Protection (EWP) program. In this section we provide information on both federal and non-federal

responses to secondary fire effects and the steps these teams follow when assessing risk and proposing

treatments.

3.1. Response Teams for Federally Owned Lands Depending on the size of the burn, federal agencies may assemble Burned Area Emergency Response

(BAER) teams to assess and manage post-fire threats (FSM 2500-2523). In the Southwest, BAER teams

are convened for fires larger than 300 acres (Kuyumjian, 2004). Though BAER teams are limited to

working on federal lands, they may interact with downstream communities. BAER crews are composed

of specially trained professionals including hydrologists, soil scientists, engineers, biologists, foresters,

range conservationists, and archeologists. BAER assessments are based on measures of burn severity

that describe the degree to which vegetation and soil have been altered by a fire. Burn severity is

measured through satellite derived images of pre- and post- fire vegetation, ground truthed data

verified by soil and water specialists, and computer models that predict responses of watersheds to

precipitation events (see Rick Analysis section). The goal of these initial assessments is to identify values

at risk, such as life, property, threatened and endangered species, water quality, soil productivity and

any location where these values are threatened by secondary fire events (Calkin et al. 2007). Once

identified, BAER teams put together recommendations for treatment options to stabilize slopes and

prevent further degradation in high priority areas (Napper, 2006). BAER teams are required to submit

their proposed actions within seven days of the fires containment. These treatment recommendations

typically focus on short-term preventative actions that can be implemented during a one year period

following containment of the wildfire. Where needed, BAER teams may request and receive additional

funds for up to two years after a wildfire, to support treatment effectiveness monitoring or to repair and

replace failed emergency stabilization structures.

3.2. Response Team and Resources for Non-federally Owned Lands Emergency response teams and other resources are available to state, local, or privately owned lands

where owners may lack the expertise, funding, or tools to conduct their own assessment of post-fire

risks and identify appropriate treatments. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) can

assemble a State Emergency Rehabilitation Team (SERT) following wildfire. While policies and

procedures are slightly different for SERT, their course of action is similar to that of BAER teams that

work on federal lands. Like BAER teams, SERT includes experts such as hydrologists, ecologists, soil

scientists, etc. to aid land owners in their risk assessments. The SERT develops recovery plans and

submits them for approval and funding through the NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)

program. The EWP program assists communities and landowners with their response to imminent

hazards caused by natural disasters. Through EWP landowners can receive help in reestablishing

vegetative cover, controlling gully erosion, protecting streambanks, removing debris, and stabilizing

levees. The purpose of EWP is mitigate threats to life, property, and infrastructure by providing technical

assistance and funding (The Phoenix Guide, 2014).

Public and private landowners are eligible for EWP assistance as long as they acquire a project sponsor

within a public agency of state, local, or tribal government, or a conservation district. For successful

applicants, the EWP will provide up to 75% of the funds to restore natural functions of a watershed,

whereas the project sponsor is responsible for paying the remaining 25%, some of which may include

8

volunteer hours or time spent by landowners on restoration projects. Landowners must request

assistance from their local sponsor within 10 days of the disaster for emergency situations and within 60

days for non-emergency situations (The Phoenix Guide, 2014).

Conservation districts are excellent partners to aid communities in their efforts to plan for and mitigate

post-fire threats like flooding and erosion. Often, emergency responders need to work with local

partners and community networks to identify important resources and threats. Citizens of local

communities, especially those involved with conservation districts, but also environmental groups,

historic preservation groups, or local governments can provide important information during the

assessment, implementation, and monitoring phases of both BAER and EWP efforts (NACD, 2009).

Conservation districts often provide education, technical assistance, project management, and hands-on

assistance to private landowners and communities after wildfire. In some cases they can provide these

services to public lands officials as well. Conservation districts are also important links to programs such

as the EWP program (NACD, 2009). There are associations of conservation districts in each southwestern

state: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. More information and maps of the districts

are available online (www.postfiresw.info).

In addition to local conservation districts, state forestry departments and state homeland security or

emergency departments provide resources to communities following wildfire. For example, New Mexico

State Forestry provides forest restoration assistances to landowners to help secure and stabilize

resources within burned watersheds. The New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and

Emergency Management administers the Flood Risk Evaluation Prior to Flooding program to reduce risk

prior to an event. Communities and Tribal governments can use this program to gain information on

hazards, technical services, and planning guidance for free. Similar programs are offered by the Utah

Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, the Nevada Division of Forestry, the Arizona Department of

Forestry and Fire Management, and the Colorado State Forest Service. Furthermore, state environment

departments are responsible for maintaining public water infrastructure and many southwestern states

have funding available for communities that need protection for their municipal water supply.

Lastly, funding may be available to communities through programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. These include the Continuing Authorities Program that provides small funds for projects

dealing with floodplain management, flood control, ecosystem restoration, erosion control, and stream

bank protection. Another program for communities from the Army Corps of Engineers is Emergency

Flood Protection, which provides emergency assistance during flood events. Additionally, the Army

Corps of Engineers offers permanent flood protection solutions, a Tribal partnership program, and

assistance with permitting after fire has occurred.

3.3. Risk Analysis and Post-fire Assessment Tools Immediately following wildfire, teams must be assembled to assess the threats to resources or human

values posed by secondary fire effects. Speed is of utmost importance in the Southwest in order to

implement emergency stabilization and flood control measures prior to the beginning of monsoon

season (Kuyumjian, 2004). For federal lands, BAER teams (see Management section) are used. For

private and state lands, SERT teams assembled by the NRCS are used alongside partners from state

agencies, conservation districts, and other community organizations.

9

Post-fire risks and potential treatments are assessed in four steps:

1. Categorize values at risk (VAR)

Typically, professionals and community leaders categorize values-at-risk (VAR) in the burned area and

downstream (Napper 2006; Calkin et al. 2007). VAR may include life, threatened and endangered

species, water quality, soil productivity, or property (i.e., homes, roads, cultural features, water supplies

and reservoirs, agriculture; Robichaud et al. 2000). Depending on the effects of fire on vegetation and

soils and the subsequent alterations to watershed hydrology, erosion, channel geomorphology, water

quality, ecology, wildlife, and infrastructure, threats to VAR may be extensive.

2. Determine and quantify threats to VAR

Assessment teams combine information collected by engineers, hydrologists, soil scientists, and other

professionals to determine the likelihood that a post-fire effect will threaten life, property, soil

productivity, water quality, or threatened and endangered species (Calkin et al. 2007). Assessments

include information on the distribution of high and moderate burn severity within each watershed,

which is a primary driver of watershed response. Burn severity is determined through field surveys or

satellite imagery and aerial photographs of pre- and post-burn landscapes. On the ground, team

members identify key predictors of flood and erosion risk including the presence and extent of water

repellent soils and effective soil cover (ash, litter, vegetation, etc.). Sources of flooding or erosion are

identified, as well as areas prone to flooding or debris flows (Calkin et al. 2007; FSM 2500-2523). Once

compiled, response teams use this information to create maps with the locations of VAR and their

associated threats (Calkin et al. 2007).

3. Quantify Risk

Once VAR and threats are determined, teams estimate the likelihood that a threatening event, such as a

debris flow, erosion, or water quality deterioration will occur in a given area using a variety of models

and frameworks (see Risk Analysis Tool section).

4. Identify treatment options

Finally, based on information on the probability of flooding, erosion, or debris flows and risk to VAR,

teams identify the most appropriate and cost effective treatments to reduce risk. An important source

of information comes from models, which are used to predict watershed response to specific

precipitation events, and can also be used to identify how treatments change watershed response.

In the next sections, we list of tools that can be used to identify and classify VAR, assess the likelihood of threat occurrence, and select treatments when necessary. Some tools are targeted toward BAER teams working on federal lands and others are targeted to private landowners and communities, although all are accessible and can be used by any audience.

3.3.1. Risk Analysis Tools

3.3.1a. Federal

Assessing Post-Fire Values-at-Risk With a New Calculation Tool

10

This report, directed toward BAER teams, presents how BAER groups assess and valuate post-fire values-

at-risk, as well as a new excel spreadsheet tool to standardize the process. The VAR Calculation Tool

provides a logical and repeatable way to analyze VAR and justify the recommendation of treatments

(Calkin et al. 2007).

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook

The Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook provides general operational guidance

for specialists from the Departments of Agriculture and Interior for emergency stabilization following

fire. BAER teams can reference the guidebook to understand policy, standards, and procedures, assess

damage from wildfire, develop a cost effective plan, and assess and report accomplishments (FSM 2500-

2523).

Nuts & Bolts of BAER Soil Watershed Assessments

This brief paper summarizes the main points that were presented at the Crossing Boundaries in Park

Management Conference in 2001. Davis and Holbeck (2001) present the objectives and parameters of

the BAER soil and watershed assessment. This report covers key concepts such as burn intensity versus

burn severity and indicators of watershed emergency.

Field Guide for Mapping Soil Burn Severity

For BAER teams, developing a map of post-fire soil burn severity is the first step in the assessment

process. This field guide provides Burned Area Emergency Response teams with a method to

consistently interpret, ground truth, and map soil burn severity. Parsons et al. (2010) present BAER

teams with indicators that identify the condition of the soil and the severity of the burn.

3.3.1b. Non-federal

The Phoenix Guide

The Phoenix Guide is a handbook for watershed and community wildfire recovery that provides private

landowners, conservation districts, nonprofit groups, and communities with a step-by-step guide for

developing a post-fire recovery and rehabilitation plan. The handbook addresses how to engage

community members, organize volunteers, and restore watersheds following fire. Finally, it includes a

list of grants and funding sources (The Phoenix Guide, 2014).

Community Wildfire Desk Guide & Toolkit

This guidebook is targeted towards local resource leaders and volunteers that may have a wide range of

experience and expertise. It provides information to assist communities before, during, and after

wildfire, as well as case study examples of how certain groups have worked. The post-fire section directs

readers to programs and groups that can help communities threatened by secondary fire effects (NACD,

2009).

Short Guide to Agencies, Programs, and Practices for Burned Area Rehabilitation

This guidebook is targeted to private landowners whose property has been affected by high intensity

fire. Provided in this report is information on the agencies, programs, and practices that can help restore

privately owned land to functional condition. Users can easily access the steps to initiate and complete a

11

rehabilitation process on their land, as well as programs and funding resources to help during this

process (NMSF and NRCS, 2014).

After Wildfire: A Guide for New Mexico Communities

This guidebook was created as an interagency response for fire affected communities’ requests for a

“one-stop-shop” for information to help them respond to wildfires. While some of the information is

specific to New Mexico, most of the guidance is relevant to all communities in the Southwest. This guide

aims to help communities organize and respond to wildfire and subsequent flooding and includes

information on safety, state and federal resources, contacts for assistance, ways to mobilize your

community, and financial and funding tips for communities and families (After Wildfire, 2014a).

Homeowner’s Guide for Flood, Debris, and Erosion Control

This webpage (DPS, 2009) provides guidance specific to homeowners whose property is threatened by

flooding, debris flows, and erosion. The guide gives instructions for installing cost effective devices to

reduce damage to one’s home from secondary fire effects. Here homeowners can find information on

flood insurance, debris control aids, sandbags, how to control water intrusion, deflection devices, and

engineered concrete block walls. This guide is also available in Spanish.

3.3.2. Predicting Post-fire threats: Tools and Analysis

The size and probability of occurrence of some threats can be predicted using various computer models.

Below are models commonly used by BAER teams that are also available for use by teams from state

agencies and those helping private landowners or communities. Computer models have a wide range in

terms of ease-of-use, accessibility, and required inputs.

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model: Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT)

The Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) is a web-based application that uses Water Erosion

Prediction Project (WEPP) technology. ERMiT can be used widely, but has been especially popular in

Utah, Nevada, and Idaho (Foltz et al. 2009). Users can apply ERMiT to burned and recovering forest,

range, and chaparral lands to estimate the likelihood of erosion with and without treatments

implemented to mitigate erosion. This tool was developed to help land managers and decision-makers

choose where, when, and how to apply the most effective post-fire mitigation treatments. The required

input data to run ERMiT are climate, soil texture, soil rock content, vegetation type (forest, range,

chaparral), hillslope, gradient and horizontal length, soil burn severity class, and range/chaparral pre-fire

plant community descriptions. Users are provided with hints and links to explanations of input

parameters. ERMiT output includes a plot of hillslope sediment delivery exceedance probabilities versus

the predicted event sediment delivery amounts for each of the first five post-fire years. Additionally,

users can compare mitigation treatments based on different levels of risk and determine their

effectiveness. For more information, guidance, and examples, users can reference Robichaud et al.

(2007).

Disturbed WEPP Model

Disturbed WEPP is an online interface to the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) soil erosion model

that can be used to estimate annual runoff and erosion from several disturbed forest conditions,

including prescribed fires and wildfires (Elliot, 2004). This model requires the following user-defined

12

inputs: selection of a climate station, slope length, slope steepness, soil texture, percent rock fragments

in the soil, percent surface cover, and the specification of one of eight land use and land cover types

(Larsen and MacDonald, 2007). The output from Disturbed WEPP includes the mean values and the first,

second, fifth, 10th and 20th largest annual values for precipitation, runoff, erosion, and sediment yield.

For more information on the Disturbed WEPP interface, guidance on how to use it, and examples users

can reference Elliot et al. (2000).

Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA)

The Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) tool uses nationally available GIS data to

quickly identify potential problem areas through watershed runoff and erosion models (Goodrich et al.

2006). The program can be used by novice to expert GIS users and was designed for watershed, water

resource, land use, and resource managers to better understand the hydrologic impacts of land-

cover/land-use change in small watershed to basin-scale studies. Goodrich et al. (2012) developed

procedures for parameterizing AGWA to evaluate effects of burn severity on runoff and erosion and

AGWA has successfully been used throughout the Southwest by several BAER teams (Guertin et al.

2015). More information, documentation, and downloads can be found on at the AGWA website

(https://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/agwa/).

Curve Number Methods

The Curve Number method is also popular amongst BAER teams for predicting post-fire runoff. To use

this approach, users must choose a Curve Number (CN) that is based on cover type, treatment,

hydrologic conditions, and Hydrologic Soil Group. This is the most important parameter for this method

(Foltz et al. 2009). Past efforts have focused on how to select the proper CN for a landscape. Springer

and Hawkins (2005) provide users with a guide to selecting post-fire runoff Curve Numbers, but

concluded that more research is needed to explain trends in peak flows and CNs of burned watersheds.

Livingston et al. (2005) also present a guide for choosing CN and their results are applicable throughout

the Southwest. Two commonly used Curve Number models are WILDCAT5 and FIRE HYDRO.

Wildcat5 is an interactive Windows Excel®-based software package designed to assist watershed

specialists in analyzing rainfall runoff events to predict peak flow and runoff volumes generated by

single-event rainstorms for a variety of watershed soil and vegetation conditions (Hawkins and Barreto-

Munoz 2016). The program is user-friendly and easily navigable by users with Excel experience and some

background in the fundamentals of rainfall-runoff models. To these users, most of it should be self-

explanatory. WILDCAT5 offers extensive help options that provide guidance for the large number of

input options and the most commonly used options are generally highlighted as defaults. The required

inputs for this model are depth, duration, and distribution of a rainstorm, watershed soil and cover

parameters to calculate depth of runoff, parameters related to runoff timing to define travel time to the

watershed outlet, and unit hydrograph shape and scale. Guidance is provided to ensure appropriate

parameterization. For information on WILDCAT5, directions, and documentation of its application, users

can reference Hawkins and Barreto-Munoz (2016).

Fire Hydro is an Excel spreadsheet which computes watershed curve numbers for four conditions: 1)

pre-fire, 2) early post-fire with possible hydrophobicity, 3) medium term post-fire with hydrophobicity

no longer in effect, but little re-emergent vegetation, and 4) later post fire, after one growing season.

This models intended use is for engineers and technicians with hydrology experience to be able to

13

quickly analyze the hydrology of watersheds that have recently experienced a fire. This model is

commonly used by NRCS professionals when evaluating a watershed for inclusion in the Emergency

Watershed Protection (EWP) program and its output offers support documentation required for EWP

reports. The spreadsheet is intended for use by emergency responders that must act quickly to identify

where treatments are appropriate on privately owned or non-federal lands. Users can reference Cerrelli

(2005) for information and guidance for using FIRE HYDRO.

Emergency Assessment of Post-Fire Debris-Flow Hazards

This program is run exclusively by USGS personnel, however requests for a post-fire debris-flow hazard

assessment are provided for free to any Federal, State, or Local Agency, or to any private organization,

company, or individual. The only required input for users is ground-truthed geospatial data of soil burn

severity, which should be submitted with the request for analysis. The assessments are produced using

empirical models that estimate the probability and volume of debris flows in burned basins. The

modelers use publicly available geospatial data that captures basin morphology, burn severity, soil

properties, and rainfall characteristics to estimate the statistical probability of a debris flow occurring

following specific precipitation events. Updated logistic regression equations were described in Staley et

al. (2016), which can be referenced by users for more information on the Emergency Assessment of

Post-Fire Debris-Flow Hazard program.

USGS Regression Method

According to Foltz et al. (2009) the USGS Regression method is the most popular method among BAER

teams for estimating post-fire runoff. Users can access it easily online as part of the StreamStats web-

based tool (http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/index.html). This method predicts the frequency

and magnitude of floods at gaged and ungaged sites. The input requirements for the USGS Regression

Method include the USGS regression equations for the burned area, gage data for the burned

watersheds, inherent basin characteristics (area, elevation, precipitation, etc.), design storm intensity

and recurrence, high soil burn severity area, water repellency, and the expected increase in surface

runoff (Foltz et al. 2009). Users can reference Thomas et al. (1997) for USGS regression equations

specific to the southwestern United States and Foltz et al. (2009) for guidance on how to use this

method and its advantages and disadvantages.

3.4.3. Identifying Treatments

In many instances, BAER teams, SERT groups, or others find it is necessary to apply treatments to

burned watersheds. Different treatments can reduce risks by slowing runoff and erosion or increasing

the capacity of infrastructure to deal with increased hydrologic activity. Individuals, communities, or

private landowners, should consult with experts in the post-fire treatment field prior to implementing

treatments. In some cases, permitting may be necessary.

The primary goal of most post-fire management is to stabilize disturbed soils and prevent soil loss.

Successful management strategies reduce soil erosion and slow movement of water across burned

watersheds. There are many different treatment types, including those applied to hillslopes, channels,

and roads to reduce threats from secondary fire events. Hillslope treatments are applied to the burned

slopes of the watershed where erosion typically begins (Robichaud et al. 2000). The goal of these

treatments are to cover the soil surface and protect it from raindrop impacts, to improve the ability of

the soil to absorb water, and to reduce the amount and speed of overland water flow. Common hillslope

14

treatments include mulching, seeding, and contour-felled logs (Robichaud et al. 2000). Channel

treatments are applied within small-order streams to reduce the movement of sediment and water and

avoid flooding and erosion that may affect downstream VAR (Robichaud et al. 2000). Common channel

treatments include straw bale check dams, log check dams, and rock dams. Road treatments focus on

increasing the capacity of roads and their structures (i.e. culverts, bridges, etc.) to process larger and

more variable flows and erosion. Common road treatments include outsloping, removal or upgrading of

culverts, rolling dips, water bars, and armored stream crossings (Robichaud et al. 2000). When

considering which treatments to use in a burned landscape, it is important to understand the

effectiveness as well as the cost of each option. In some cases, covering the soil with mulch or

vegetation may not be economically feasible and in these instances, teams should consider barriers to

runoff that slow and disperse water, diminishing erosive forces and allowing sediment to fall out before

reaching streams and ponds.

Treatment Tools

Numerous resources are available providing information on the purpose, effectiveness, and cost of post-

fire treatments. Some guides have specifically been written for BAER teams, while others are directed at

individuals, communities, or private landowners. Teams should references the following technical

papers and guides when considering treatment options.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments

The report provides a wealth of information and covers several topics relevant to burned landscapes.

Robichaud et al. (2000) present a synthesis of effects of fire on ecosystems and BAER treatments as well

as an assessment of risks and treatment effectiveness. Lastly, the authors provide recommendations on

when and where to use various treatments.

A Synthesis of Post-Fire Road Treatments for BAER teams: Methods, Treatment Effectiveness, and

Decisionmaking Tools for Rehabilitation

The aim of this report was to provide BAER teams with a resource to aid in making decisions regarding

post-fire road rehabilitation. Foltz et al. (2009) provide a summary of the best tools used for determining

the required capacity of road infrastructure following fire. These tools include models that estimate

runoff and erosion and the ability of road structures to deal with these secondary fire effects. The paper

functions as an easy-to-use guidebook for BAER teams addressing threats to roads.

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Treatment Catalog

The catalog identifies the tools, references, and instructions used by BAER teams to determine

appropriate treatments immediately after fire. This report (Napper 2006) is targeted towards

professionals and BAER groups, providing information on land, channel, and road treatments. The user

can learn why and where certain treatments are used and the cost of application. The catalog also

presents information on where certain treatments have been used and their cost and effectiveness in

that specific ecosystem, including information on use in the southwestern United States.

Post-fire Treatment Effectiveness for Hillslope Stabilization

Robichaud et al. 2010 summarizes research, monitoring, and product development related to hillslope

stabilization treatments following fire. The report includes information on erosion barriers, mulching,

15

chemical soil treatments, and combinations of these treatments. The paper aims to provide guidance

during treatment selection and use in an easy-to-use format for BAER teams and land managers.

Post-Fire Treatments: A Primer for New Mexico Communities

A guidebook provided by the After Wildfire interagency team to provide communities and individuals

with an introduction to various post-fire treatments, their effectiveness, and their cost. The guide also

provides information to affected parties on consulting with experts and permitting. The user can

reference easy-to-use tables that summarize the effects of different treatment options and helpful

definitions in the appendices of the Primer. The information in this guide is relevant to all southwestern

states, not only New Mexico (After Wildfire, 2014b).

Recovering from Wildfire: A Guide for Arizona’s Forest Owners

This publication summarizes issues facing property owners after fire. DeGomez (2011) includes

information on how to protect property from destructive erosion and flooding, sources of financial

assistance, how to remove or salvage lost and damaged trees, how to claim a casualty loss on a tax

return, and other information on how to recover from wildfire damage. Additionally, this report includes

some simple steps for assessing resource damage. This guide can be used be property owners

throughout the Southwest.

4. Web Resources There is extensive information available online for individuals, private landowners, or community

leaders interested in learning more about secondary fire effects and resources available to help

following fire. Several websites provide searchable libraries that store information, video presentations

and trainings, recovery resources, or ways to find community groups. Listed below are easily accessible

online resources.

After the Fire: Resources for Recovery

The After the Fire page provides information on resources offered by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) after wildfire. NRCS is available to assist with site specific questions and

provide technical assistance for landowners as they begin to restore the landscape following fire. On this

site you can learn about financial assistance, how to ensure personal and public safety, manage your risk

and protect your property (particularly from soil erosion and insect infestation). Landowners can

discover ways to restore and rehabilitate their land with several factsheets on recovery resources. Users

can access this site at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wa/home

/?cid=STELPRDB1259629.

After Wildfire New Mexico

This guide was written to help New Mexico communities recover after wildfire, however much of the

information is relevant to the entire Southwest region. It includes information on how to mobilize

communities, a list of resources available to communities and individuals for assistance, and a technical

guide with information about post-fire treatments to address the catastrophic effects of wildfire on the

land and to prepare for potential flooding. Users can access this site at http://afterwildfirenm.org.

All About Watersheds

16

The All About Watersheds Information Clearinghouse provides centralized access to ecological, socio-

cultural, and economic information related to restoration and maintenance of New Mexico’s forests and

watersheds. Much of the information on this site is relevant to the entire Southwest region. On this

page, users can find information about funding resources, events, watershed groups, restoration

projects, and webinars. The Clearinghouse functions as a library as well as a shared workspace. Content

can be uploaded, organized topically, and searched by users, with many papers specific to secondary fire

effects. Users can access this site at http://allaboutwatersheds.org/.

Southwest Fire Science Consortium

The consortium is a way for managers, scientists, and policy makers to interact and share science. Their

goal is to see the best science used to make management decisions and scientists working on the

questions managers need answered. They try to bring together localized efforts to develop scientific

information and to disseminate to practitioners on the ground through an inclusive and open process.

The consortium encourages participation in field trips and workshops, reading and sharing materials on

their website, and/or contributing to the fire conversation by submitting a proposal for an event or

product. The Southwest Fire Science Consortium also maintains a YouTube channel with several videos

about fire effects on watersheds and post-fire flooding, erosion, and debris flows. Users can access this

site at http://swfireconsortium.org/.

Surf Your Watershed

Users are able to locate their watershed through searches by zip code, city name, state, or stream. Once

they find their watershed, the site provides links to citizen-based groups at work in that watershed,

streamflow and water quality data, assessments of watershed health, and science being done in their

area. If interested, users can contact organizations to find out about cleanups, monitoring projects,

restoration projects, and other activities in their area. Users can access this site at

https://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm.

Fire Research and Management Exchange System

The Fire Research and Management Exchange System (FRAMES) provides a method of exchanging

information and transferring technology among wildland fire researchers, managers, and other

stakeholders in an online environment. The FRAMES portal provides essential searchable information, a

platform for data sharing and storage, development of new tools, and support to federal wildland fire

management agencies in the United States throughout the various stages of wildland fire, including

planning, operation, and post-fire monitoring. Users can access this site at http://www.frames.gov.

Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation

This page provides information to users on the Department of Interior’s BAER teams. Those who visit

the site can access policies, guidance, and handbooks used by emergency responders, as well as

information on tools used by these teams including remote sensing. Users can access this site at

https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1293.pdf.

WaterAlert

The U.S. Geological Survey WaterAlert service can send e-mails or text messages to users when their

defined parameters have been exceeded. Users can subscribe to WaterAlert by selecting their location

17

and the type of data they desire. If for example the water depth of a stream near their house reaches a

certain value, the subscriber will receive a warning so they can evacuate or prepare for high flows. This

alert system has successfully been used by property owners and communities throughout the Southwest

to reduce risk after fire. Users can access this site at https://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov

/mapper/wateralert/.

5. Research Needs Though a great deal of research has focused on the impacts of secondary fire effects, there remains

knowledge gaps that reduce our capacity to assess and mitigate potential negative impacts to

landscapes. Scientists, resource managers, and urban planners attending workshops focused on post-

fire flood planning and mitigation have identified numerous research needs (see Garfin et al. 2016).

Additional research needs have been identified in publications by professionals. Discussions have

focused on basic biological and physical processes as well as work that assesses the effectiveness of

treatments under various conditions and settings. Successful strategies will also rely on an

interdisciplinary approach to knowledge acquisition that includes the fields of ecology, hydrology, social

science, and climatology.

Ecological research is needed to understand how stream productivity and aquatic species are impacted

after a fire. Specific needs include:

Identifying tipping points of biological productivity in streams

A greater understanding of the response of algae to nutrient pulses with excess nitrogen and

phosphorous

Monitoring of pre- and post-fire stream metabolism to provide valuable baseline data

The potential effects of suppression and prescription fire management strategies on the long

term management of native and recreational fish resources of the Southwest.

Research is needed that can improve understanding of the types of organic and inorganic chemical

constituents being carried off burned areas by water. Specifically, studies focusing on sediment

chemistry and how constituents are mobilized within the water column over time would help resource

planners to mitigate potential impacts to infrastructure. Monitoring of baseline water chemistry pre-

and post-wildfire is warranted to address questions about the impacts of burned areas on a stream’s

chemical composition.

Further research on the implementation, effectiveness, and results of treatments is needed. These

questions require monitoring during and after treatment application to determine whether channels

flow freely or become blocked, how infrastructure holds up to post fire stressors, and identifies effective

techniques as well as unwanted results. In the Southwest specifically, research needs to:

Determine the effectiveness of seeding at high elevation sites

Improve our understanding of where large-scale debris flows occur, how they begin, and how

they are conveyed downstream so as to improve the size and location of applied treatments.

This need could be filled by improving models for erosion and sediment transport, particularly in

steep channels. Additionally, monitoring data should be used to provide feedback and

verification of model results.

Identify appropriate mitigation efforts for reducing impacts to drinking water.

18

Also of benefit would be research that focuses on understanding storm profiles and patterns,

particularly at the watershed scale. This includes how topography influences formation and intensity of

storms. This need would be addressed in part by increasing the number of weather observation sites

positioned in burned watersheds and developing methods to optimize and prioritize the location of

gages. In addition to short-term storm development, better understanding of the long-term effects of

climate on vegetative communities and moisture patterns in watersheds is needed. Further questions

may include how changes to the timing of snowmelt will effect water supply.

Successful management of the post fire landscape requires greater understanding of public perception

of post-fire treatments and research to help develop strategies for improving perceptions where

needed. Continued research that identifies the best ways to develop and implement collaborative

planning processes are key. Additionally, social scientists need to be engaged at every opportunity to

help identify the most effective strategies to encourage public participation in response planning and

gain buy-in for forest and watershed health treatments.

Lastly, workshops have identified research needs related to water supply and sediment issues in

reservoirs. Specific questions include the effect of burned areas on snowmelt magnitude and timing and

studies focused on the timing of sediment transfer. Furthermore, management would benefit from cost

avoidance analysis for various sedimentation rates. Remote sensing has been identified as a potential

tool to aid in this effort, though research is still needed to determine how remotely sensed information

relates the depth of ash post-fire.

6. Conclusion Wildfire and secondary fire events such as flooding and erosion are natural disturbances to

southwestern ecosystems. Through various processes, fire can alter the hydrology of a drainage with

subsequent impacts to aquatic ecosystems and channel geomorphology. Watershed characteristics,

burn patterns, and post-fire precipitation drive the response of catchments with increased runoff,

flooding, erosion, and debris flows examples of secondary fire effects. In some cases, these post-fire

events can threaten values such as life, property, ecosystem services, and threatened and endangered

species. Post-fire flooding and erosion are of particular concern in the Southwest because fire season is

closely followed by monsoon season, requiring a rapid response to assess watershed conditions and

mitigate post-fire threats. There are many resources available to federal and nonfederal land managers,

communities, and individuals. This paper has provided information on several of these resources

including guidance, tools, and web resources. We have focused on both federal and nonfederal

strategies, with the intention to provide individuals, communities, and private landowners ideas of who

can help and how to approach their emergency response. Following fire, emergency response efforts

can be confusing for these groups, but conditions may still require a rapid response. This report can be

used to provide information to individuals, communities, and landowners on the effects of wildfire and

secondary fire events and what resources can be referenced to begin to assess and mitigate threats.

19

7. References After Wildfire, 2014a. After Wildfire: A Guide for New Mexico Communities. Retrieved from: http://afterwildfirenm.org/additional-resources/site-pdfs/pdf-of-condensed-version-of-the-guide/view After Wildfire. 2014b. Post-Fire Treatments: A Primer for New Mexico Communities. Retrieved from: https://afterthefirewa.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/post-fire-treatments-a-primer-for-new-mexico-communities.pdf Amiro, B.D.; Sheppard, S.C.; Johnston, F.L.; Evenden, W.G.; Harris, D.R. 1996. Burning radionuclide question: What happens to iodine, cesium, and chlorine in biomass fires. The Science of the Total Environment 187: 93-103.

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.

Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon

Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 1559-1569.

Beakes, Michael P.; Moore, Jonathan W.; Hayes, Sean A.; Sogard, Susan M. 2014. Wildfire and the

effects of shifting stream temperature on salmonids. Ecosphere 5(5): 63.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00325.1

Benavides-Solorio, Juan de Dios; MacDonald, Lee H. 2005. Measurement and prediction of post-fire

erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14: 457-474.

Benda, Lee; Miller, Daniel; Bigelow, Paul; Andras, Kevin. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channel

environments, Boise River Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 105-119.

Bixby, Rebecca J.; Cooper, Scott D.; Gresswell, Robert E.; Brown, Lee E.; Dahm, Clifford N.; Dwire,

Kathleen A. 2015. Fire effects on aquatic ecosystems: an assessment of the current state of the science.

Freshwater Science 34(4): 1340-1350.

Calkin, David E.; Hyde, Kevin D.; Robichaud, Peter R.; Jones, J. Greg; Ashmun, Louise E.; Loeffler Dan.

2007. Assessing post-fire values-at risk with a new calculation tool. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-205. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 32 p.

Cannon, Susan H. 2001. Debris-flow generation from recently burned watersheds. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 7, 321-341. Cannon, Susan H.; Bigio, Erica R.; Mine, Edouard. 2001. A process for fire-related debris flow initation, Cerro Grande fire, New Mexico. Hydrological Processes 15: 3011-3023. Cannon, Susan H.; Gartner, Joseph E.; Wilson, Raymon C.; Bowers, James C.; Laber, Jayme L. 2008. Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern California. Geomorphology 96: 250-269.

20

Cannon, Susan H.; Reneau, Steven L. 2000. Conditions for generation of fire-related debris flows, Capulin Canyon, New Mexico. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25: 1103-1121. Cerrelli, G.A. 2005. FIRE HYDRO, a simplified method for predicting peak discharges to assist in the design of flood protection measures for western wildfires. In: Moglen, Glenn, E., eds. Proceedings: 2005 watershed management conference—managing watersheds for human and natural impacts: engineering, ecological, and economic challenges; 2005 July 19-22; Williamsburg, VA. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers: 935-941. Cooper, Scott D.; Page, Henry M.; Wiseman, Sheila W.; Klose, Kristie, Bennett, Danuta; Even, Thomas; Sadro, Steven; Nelson, Craig E.; Dudley, Thomas L. 2015. Physicochemical and biological responses of streams to wildfire severity in riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 60:2600-2619. Dahm C.N.; Candelaria-Ley, R.I.; Reale, C.S.; Reale, J.K.; Van Horn D.J. 2015. Extreme water quality degradation following a catastrophic forest fire. Freshwater Biology 60: 2584-2599. Davis, Marsha; Holbeck, Chris. 2001. Nuts and bolts of BAER soil and watershed assessments. From: Crossing Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands, edited by David Harmon (Hancock, Michigan: The George Write Society, 2001). DeBano, L.F. 1989. Effects of fire on chaparral soils in Arizona and California and postfire management

implications. In: Berg, N. H. tech. coord. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed

Management: October 26-28, 1988, Sacramento, California. Gen. Tec. Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, Calif.: US

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 55-

62.

DeBano, L.F.; Neary, D.G.; Ffolliot P.F. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. John Wiley & sons, New York, NY. 331 pp. DeGomez, Tom. 2011. Recovering from Wildfire: A Guide for Arizona’s Forest Owners. Document

located https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1294.pdf

Department of Public Works (DPS). 2009. Homeowner’s Guide for Flood, Debris, and Erosion Control. Retrieved from: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/HomeOwners/intro.cfm Drewry, J.J.; Newham, L.T.H.; Greene, R.S.B.; Jakeman, A.J.; Croke, B.F.W. 2006. A review of nitrogen and phosphorous export to waterways: context for catchment modelling. Marine and Freshwater Research 58: 757-774. Earl, Stevan R.; Blinn, Dean W. 2003. Effects of wildfire ash on water chemistry and biota in South-

Western U.S.A. streams. Freshwater Biology 48: 1015-1030.

Elliot, W.J. 2004. WEPP internet interfaces for forest erosion prediction. Journal of American Water

Resources Association (JAWRA) 40(2): 299-309.

21

Elliot, W.J.; Hall, David E.; Scheele, Dayna L. 2000 February. Disturbed WEPP: WEPP Interface for

Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Retrieved from

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html#examples.

Florsheim, Joan L.; Keller, Edward A.; Best, David W. 1991. Fluvial sediment transport in response to

moderate storm flows following chaparral wildfire, Ventura Country, southern California. Geological

Society of America Bulletin 103: 504-511.

Foltz, Randy B.; Robichaud, Peter R.; Rhee, Hakjun. 2009. A synthesis of post-fire road treatments for

BAER teams: methods, treatment effectiveness, and decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RMRS-GTR-228 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 152 p.

FSM 2500, Watershed and Air Operations. WO Amendment 2500-2004-1. [Effective February 2006].

Chapter 2523—Emergency Stabilization Burned-Area Emergency Response (BAER).

Garfin, Gregg; LeRoy, Sarah; Marin, Deborah; Hammersley, Mia; Youberg, Ann; Quay, Ray. 2016.

Managing for Future Risks of Fire, Extreme Precipitation, and Post-fire Flooding. Report to the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, from the project Enhancing Water Supply Reliability. Tucson, AZ: Institute of the

Environment, 33 p.

Germanoski, Dru; Miller, Jerry R. 1995. Geomorphic response to wildfire in an arid watershed, Crow

Canyon, Nevada. Physical Geography 16: 243-256.

Goforth, Brett R.; Graham, Robert C.; Hubbert, Kenneth R.; Zanner, C. William; Minnich, Richard A. 2005.

Spatial distribution and properties of ash and thermally altered soils after high-severity forest fire,

southern California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14: 343-354.

Goodrich, D.C.; Burns, I.S.; Unkrich, C.L.; Semmens, D.J.; Guertin D.P.; Hernandez, M.; Yatheendradas, S.;

Kennedy, J.R.; Levick, L.R. 2012. KINEROS2/AGWA: Model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. Of the

ASABE. 55(4): 1561-1574.

Goodrich, David; Scott, Soren; Hernandez, Mariano; Burns, I. Shea; Levick, Lainie; Cate, Averill; Kepner,

William; Semmens, Darius; Miller, Scott; Guertin, Phil. 2006. Automated Geospatial Watershed

Assessment (AGWA): A GIS-Based Hydrologic Modeling Tool for Watershed Managmeent and Landscape

Assessment. In: Proceedings, Third Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Reno, NV,

April 2-6, 2006.

Gresswell, Robert E. 1999. Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems in Forested Biomes of North America.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128(2): 193-221.

Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 2000. Century-scale climate forcing of fire regimes in

the American Southwest. The Holocene 10(2): 213-220.

Guertin, D. P.; Goodrich, D.C.; Burns, I.S.; Korgaonkar, Y.; Barlow, J. Sheppard, B.S.; Unkrich, C.; Kepner,

W. 2015. Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool (AGWA). Watershed Management 2015:

120-130.

22

Hawkins, R.H.; Barreto-Munoz, A. 2016. Wildcat5 for Windows, a rainfall-runoff hydrograph model: user

manual and documentation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-334. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 68 p.

Heede, Burchard H. 1986. Designing for dynamic equilibrium in streams. Journal of American Water Resources 22(3): 351-357. Ice, George G.; Neary, Daniel G.; Adams, Paul W. 2004. Effects of wildfire on soils and watershed processes. Journal of Forestry 102: 16-20. Inbar, M.; Tamir M.; Wittenberg, L. 1998. Runoff and erosion processes after a forest fire in Mount Carmel, a Mediterranean area. Geomorphology 24: 17-33. Johansen, Mathew P.; Hakonson, Thomas E.; Breshears, David D. 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from rainfall simulation: contrasting forest with shrublands and grasslands. Hydrological Processes 15: 2953-2965. Johansen, Mathew P.; Hakonson, Thomas E.; Whicker, F. Ward; Breshears, David D. 2003. Pulsed redistribution of a contaminant following forest fire: Cesium-137 in runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 32: 2150-2157. Krammes, J.S. 1960. Erosion from mountainside slopes after fire in southern California. United States Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Forest Service Research Note PSW-171, Berkeley, California. Kuyumjian, Greg. 2004. The BAER Team: Responding to Post-Fire Threats. Southwest Hydrology. September/October 2004: 14-15. Larsen, Isaac J.; MacDonald, Lee H. 2007. Predicting postfire sediment yields at the hillslope scale: testing RUSLE and Disturbed WEPP. Water Resources Research 43 W11412, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005560. Livingston, Russel K.; Earles, T. Andrew; Wright, Kenneth R. 2005. Los Alamos post-fire watershed recovery: a curve-number-based evaluation. In: Moglen, Glenn E., eds. Proceedings: 2005 watershed management conference-managing watersheds for human and natural impacts: engineering, ecological, and economic challenges; 2005 July 19-22; Williamsburg, VA. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers: 471-481. Loaiciga, Hugo A.; Pedreros, Diego; Roberts, Dar. 2001. Wildfire-streamflow interactions in a chaparral watershed. Advances in Environmental Research 5 (2001) 295-305. 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 Forest, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, USA, pp. 159-176. Minshall, G. Wayne. 2003. Response of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 155-161.

23

Moody, John A. and Martin, Deborah A. 2001. Post-fire, rainfall intensity-peak discharge relations for three mountainous watersheds in the western USA. Hydrological Processes 15: 1049-1070. Moody, John A. and Martin, Deborah A. 2004. Wildfire impacts on reservoir sedimentation in the western United States. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 2004. Yichang, China. Tsinghua University Press, China, pp. 1095-1102. Moody, John A.; Martin, Deborah A. 2009. Synthesis of sediment yields after wildland fire in different rainfall regimes in the western United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18: 96-115. Moody, John A.; Martin, Deborah A.; Haire, Sandra L.; Kinner, David A. 2008. Linking runoff response to burn severity after a wildfire. Hydrological Processes 22: 2063-2074. Napper, Carolyn. 2006. Burned Area Emergency Response Treatments Catalog. Technical Report. 06 25 1801-SDTDC, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Technology & Development Program, Watershed, Soil, Air Management. 266 p. [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/BAERCAT/lo_res/06251801L.pdf. National Association of Conservation Districts [NACD]. 2009. Community Wildfire Desk Guide & Toolkit. Neary, Daniel G.; Gottfriend, Gerald J.; Ffolliott, Peter F. 2003. Post-wildfire watershed flood responses. Second International Fire Ecology and Fire Management Congress, Orlando, Florida, 16-20 November, Paper 1B7. Neary, Daniel G.; Klopatek, Carole C.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Ffolliott, Peter F. 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management 122: 51-71. Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR_42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. New Mexico State Forestry (NMSU); Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Short Guide to Agencies, Programs, and Practices for Burned Area Rehabilitation. Retrieved from: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NM/Forestry_Woodland48a.pdf. Noss, R.F.; Franklin, J.F.; Baker, W.L.; Schoennagel, T.; Moyle, P.B. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 4: 481-487. Ongley, E.D.; Krishnappan, B.G.; Droppo, I.G.; Rao, S.S.; Maguire, R.J. 1992. Cohesive sediment transport:

emerging issues for toxic chemical management. Hydrobiologia 235/236: 177-187.

Parsons, Annette; Robichaud, Peter R.; Lewis, Sarah A.; Napper, Carolyn; Clark, Jess T. 2010. Field guide

for mapping post-fire soil burn severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-243. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p.

Phoenix Guide, The. 2014. Retrieved from: https://afterthefirewa.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ phoenix_guide.pdf

24

Poff, N. Leroy; Allan, J. David; Bain, Mark B.; Karr, James R.; Prestegaard, Karen L. Richter, Brian D.; Sparks, Richard E.; Stromberg, Julie C. 1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47(11): 769-784. Rice, R.M. 1982. Sedimentation in the chaparral: how do you handle the unusual events? In: Swanson, F.J., Janda, R.J., Dunne, T., Swanston, D.N. (Eds.), Sediment Budgets and Routing in Natural System, General Technical Report PNW-141. United States Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 39-49. Rice, R.M. Foggin III, G.T. 1971. Effects of high intensity storms on soil slippage on mountainous watersheds in southern California. Water Resources Research 7: 1485-1490. Rice, R.M., Corbett, E.S., Bailey, R.G. 1969. Soil slips related to vegetation, topography, and soil in southern California. Water Resources Research 5, 637-659. Rieman, B., R. Gresswell, J. Rinne. 2012. Fire and fish: A synthesis of observation and experience. In: Luce, C., P. Morgan, K. Dwire, D. Isaak, Z. Holden. B. Rieman. Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 159-175. Rieman, B. D, Lee, D. Burns, R. Gresswell, M. Young, R. Stowell, J. Rinne, P. Howell. 2003. Status of native fishes in the western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 197-211. Rinne, John N. 1996. Management Briefs: Short-Term effects of Wildfire on Fishes and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16(3): 653-658. Rinne J.N. and D.G. Neary. 1996. Fire effects on aquatic habitats and biota in Madrean-type ecosystems: Southwestern United States. In: Ffolliott, P.F., L.F. DeBano, M.B. Baker, G.J. gottfriend, G. Solis-Garza, C.B. Edminster, D.G. Neary, L.S. Allen, R.H. Hamre. tech. coord. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 135-145. Robichaud, Peter R. 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, Peter R.; Ashmun, Louise E.; Sims, Bruce D. 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. 62 p.

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.

Robichaud, Peter. R.; Elliot, William J.; Pierson, Frederick B.; Hall, David E.; Moffet, Corey A.; Ashmun,

Louise E. 2007. Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) user manual (version 2006.01.18). Gen. Tech. Re.

RMRS-GTR-188. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 24 p.

25

Shakesby, R.A. and S.H. Doerr. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. Earth-Science Reviews 74: 269-307. Smith, Hugh G.; Sheridan, Gary J.; Lane, Patrick N.J.; Nyman, Petter; Haydon, Shane. 2011. Wildfire effects on water quality in forest catchments: A review with implications for water supply. Journal of Hydrology 396: 170-192. Sophocleous, Marios. 2002. Interactions between groundwater and surface water: the state of the science. Hydrogeology 10: 52-67. Springer, Everett P.; Hawkins, Richard H. 2005. Curve number and peakflow responses following the Cerro Grande Fire on a small watershed. In: Moglen, Glenn E., eds. Proceedings: 2005 watershed management conference-managing watersheds for human and natural impacts: engineering, ecological, and economic challenges; 2005 July 19-22; Williamsburg, VA. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers: 459-470. Staley, Dennis M.; Negri, Jacquelyn A.; Kean, Jason W.; Laber, Jayme M.; Tillery, Anne, C.; Youbert, Ann M. 2016. Updated logistic regression equations for the calculation of post-fire debris-flow likelihood in the western United States. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1106, 13 p. Swanson, Frederick J. 1981. Fire and geomorphic processes. Pp. 410-420. In: Mooney, Harold A. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties, USDA Forest Service Genreal Technical Report WO-26, Washington, DC. Swetnam, T.W.; Allen, C.D.; Betancourt, J.L. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1189-1206. Swetnam, T. and Baisan, C. (1996). Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700. In: CD Allen (ed) Fire Effects in Southwestern Forest: Proceedings of the 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium, pp. 11-32. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. Tiedemann, A.R.; Conrad, C.E.; Dieterich, J.H.; Hornbeck, J.W.; Megahan, W.F.; Viereck, L.A.; Wade, D.D.

1979. Effects of fire on water: A state-of-the-art review. General Technical Report WO vol. 10. United

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Thomas, B.E.; Hjalmarson, H.W.; Waltemeyer, S.D. 1997. Methods for estimating magnitude and

frequency of floods in the southwestern United States: U.G. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper

2433, 195 p.

Wells II, W.G. 1987. The effect of fire on the generation of debris flows. In: Costa, J.E., Wieczorek, G.F.

(Eds.), Debris Flows/Avalanches, Geological Survey of America, Reviews in Engineering Geology vol. 7. ,

pp. 105-114.

Whicker, J.J.; Bresheres, D.D.; Wasidek, P.T.; Kirchner, T.B.; Tawani, R.A.; Schoep, D.A.; Rodgers, J.C.

2002. Temporal and spatial variation of episodic wind erosion in unburned and burned semi-arid

shrubland. Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 599-612.

26

Winterbottom, K. 1974. The effects of slope angle, aspect, and fire on snow avalanching in the field,

Lake Louise, and Marble Canyon region of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. M.S. thesis, University of

Calgary.