Evaluating Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques: A Narrative Review of Applications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Categorization of Post-Fire Protection Treatments—PPT
3. Application Examples
4. Site Suitability and Effectiveness of Different Treatment Types
- Land treatments can generally reduce runoff and/or sediment yields during the first rainfall events. Still, their effectiveness depends on several factors, such as the application rates [7], the proper installation (e.g., log barrier installation is vital for the effectiveness of the treatment [50]), post-fire climatological conditions (e.g., rainfall amount and intensity [37]), slope length and steepness-terrain gradient [37], make/brand of tackifier [37], and the time (e.g., seeding does not provide instant protective effect, especially in the first year) [7].
- Channel treatments seem more efficient in gentle gradients and areas of low or moderate flows, as the risk of failure is lower. Moreover, channel treatment effectiveness is highly correlated with the adjacent areas’ land treatments since these areas supply the channels with water and sediments [29]. However, specifically for check dams with finite storage capacity, their effectiveness is restricted due to their limited life expectancy (short-term sediment control solution) [51]. Moreover, channel treatment effectiveness is usually a function of the proper installation (e.g., log dams’ installation is essential for the effectiveness of the treatment [50]), the appropriate positioning of the treatment (e.g., some channel treatments should be constructed in series), their maintenance (e.g., debris basin maintenance) [29], and the post-fire climatological conditions (e.g., rainfall amount and intensity affect the erosion, sediment transport, and deposition processes).
- Road and trail treatments may benefit road facilities and deliver less sediment into channels. However, similar to the channel treatment, the effectiveness of these treatments can be affected due to their poor installation and/or due to insufficient maintenance. On the other hand, limited data are documenting their effectiveness [52].
5. Discussion
- The burn severity and extent, as it determines the damages caused;
- The climatic conditions, especially rainfall intensity, and duration, as it determines the risk;
- The slopes and roughness; or, in general, the terrain morphology (geomorphology) of the areas, as they affect the runoff and sediment movements, as well as the accessibility for applying the treatments reviewed;
- The proper application—installation of the works and their monitoring over time (e.g., annual time step) to ensure maximum efficiency;
- Other site-specific factors, including social and behavioral aspects, that define the response to human interventions and other criteria such as costs and rehabilitation efforts.
6. Conclusions
- Raising awareness and promoting action through such treatments rather than doing nothing.
- Carrying out more studies, extending the geographical scope beyond the USA, Spain, and Portugal [7] and exploring more diverse conditions, such as large-scale and other possible treatments (e.g., complex bioengineering works, nature-based solutions, etc.).
- Increased monitoring, and data reporting, to expand the (very poor) existing data for post-fire conditions and conditions after the application of PPTs.
- Hydraulic and sediment transport models, as well as water quality monitoring and modeling in burned areas, should explore different scenarios assessing the potential impact of different PPTs.
- Improve assessment of post-wildfire erosion impact on soils and runoff, carbon release, air pollution, and nutrient losses, and soil loss [57].
- Improve the modeling tools for impact assessment at the watershed level, considering finer resolutions and scales. These improvements are possible, especially considering the advances in modeling technologies, but detailed and integrated data are necessary.
- Integrate the wildfire events and the counter-measures into the overall assessments for land degradation. All assessments should include minimum background data, field reviews, and other information. Assessing and mapping soil burn severity is the important first step in any analysis, forming the basis for subsequent soil erosion, hydrology, and geomorphic hazard assessments [58].
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Work | Type of Treatment | Type of Works | Description | Suggested Suitable Sites | Specific Factors Regarding Appropriateness/Effectiveness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerial Hydromulch | Land treatment | Cover-based | Aerial hydromulch is the hydromulch of an area using aerial means. Thus, soil stabilizers and fiber mulches that form a matrix on the surface when mixed with water are used to help erosion reduction and plant growth. | Areas: (1) without ground access, (2) with burn severity high-moderate, (3) with high erodibility factor (K) and soils with decreased infiltration capability, (4) sporadically forested with 25–50% slopes, (5) where adjacent or lowland areas from the treatment sites have high risk values, (6) that includes domestic water supply subwatersheds, (7) prone to vigorous winds. | It can decrease sediment yields in the short term, but its long-term effectiveness is unknown. It works better on short slopes than longer slopes because longer slopes are more susceptible to concentrated flows. Its effectiveness is influenced by various factors, including the application rates, slope length and steepness, and the type of tackifier used. |
Ground Hydromulch | Land treatment | Cover-based | Hydromulch using ground means. Description of the hydromulch is presented in the Aerial Hydromulch description. | Areas: (1) with high-burn-severity soils, (2) with high erodible soils, (3) with steep slopes of 25–50% without cover, (4) with no litter or regrowth in the first year, (5) where adjacent or lowland areas from the treatment sites have high risk values, (6) with slopes lower from 25% with rocky surface and deeper than 20 cm soils. | Same as above. Hydromulch is wind resistant, but its effectiveness depends on multiple factors, as mentioned before. |
Straw Mulch | Land treatment | Cover-based | Straw mulching using weed-free straw is implemented to cover vulnerable areas to erosion. The straw dispersion can be achieved using aerial (large areas) or ground means (small areas). Straw is dispersed until a specific percent of ground cover is achieved or applied in contour strips. Straw mulching is a well-known treatment because it can efficiently and rapidly treat large areas before rainfall events. | Areas: (1) with high-moderate burn severity, (2) with up to 65% slopes, (3) with no vigorous winds, (3) that are compatible for seeding, (4) with rare or sensitive plants should be dodged, (5) where high-moderate severity impacted the upper watershed, (6) where the surface roughness can hold mulch or located limbed trees. | Straw mulch is higly effective in reducing surface erosion with an application rate exceeding 60% of ground cover and may reduce runoff. High winds can reduce its effectiveness. A combination of mulching and seeding is more effective in germination but not necessarily in surface cover. Wood-based mulches are equally or more effective than straw mulch in reducing post-fire erosion. |
Slash Spreading | Land treatment | Cover-based | Areas with high-moderate burn severity can be covered with slash spreading. Hillslope erosion can be decreased by covering the ground with slash spreading. Slash spreading can be generated using onsite materials involving felling, lopping, and scattering of sub-merchantable trees and brushes. | Areas: (1) with high-moderate burn severity, (2) that are burned but still exist onsite with available slash material, (3) that have high erodible-hazard rating soils. | The scattering of slash created by a chainsaw is generally not effective due to slow labor production rates and the large amount of material needed for soil cover. However, using mechanized equipment such as a hydro ax that masticates material is considered moderately effective. |
Erosion Control Mats | Land treatment | Cover-based | Until vegetation is established, soil stability can be achieved using rolled erosion control products (RECPs) or erosion control mats. Synthetic or organic materials are used for RECP construction and can be permanent or temporary. Organic and biodegradable RECPs are produced using several materials such as wood excelsior, coconut, or straw. Materials can be found with netting or netless with variable duration from months to years. Erosion by raindrops, as well as the overland flow absorption, can be treated using erosion control mats. Moreover, RECPs can help revegetation by conserving moisture and decreasing soil temperature. Erosion control mats are categorized as site-specific treatments. | Areas: (1) with effective soil cover loss and high burn severity, (2) with high risk values and small area size, (3) with a persistent hydrophobic layer, (4) that have highly erodible hazard rating soils, (5) where the threat by overland runoff is high. | Erosion Control Mats are costly solutions. There is limited information about their effectiveness, but they are reported to be effective when correctly installed. |
Log Erosion Barriers | Land treatment | Barriers | Timbered areas with high-moderate burn severity hillslopes and fire-affected hillslope erosion rates can be treated using Log Erosion Barriers (LEBs). Logs are installed parallel to the contour lines within shallow trenches. The LEBs aim to slow runoff, trap sediment when arranged in a bricklayer pattern on hillslopes, and lead to localized ponding. The potential sediment volume that can be trapped depends on the proper installation of the logs, the length and size of the logs, and the slope of the terrain. | Areas: (1) with high-moderate burn severity hillslopes, (2) with 25–60% slopes, (3) with water repellent soils, (4) that have highly erodible hazard rating soils, (5) with high risk values at a watershed scale. | Log erosion barriers have limited effectiveness in high-intensity rain events but can reduce runoff, peak flows, and sediment yields during low-intensity events [30]. Sediment storage decreases with each rain event but proper implementation can still achieve effective sediment storage and create microsites, which depends on slope, tree size and length, frequency, and use of berm traps. On the other hand, barrier construction remains a typical hillslope treatment that could be useful for the runoff velocity reduction and have better effectiveness when combined with other treatments [7]. |
Fiber Rolls or Wattles | Land treatment | Barriers | Fiber rolls or wattles are products made from coconut fiber, rice straw, or other fibers that are rolled into tubes or cylinders for use in erosion prevention and soil stabilization. The rolls are placed along the edge, in areas where the soil is prone to erosion, in areas with high burn severity, and where LEBs are impractical. Reduction of erosion using fiber rolls can be achieved due to the reduction of overland flow velocity and the slope length shortening. The fiber rolls can work as sediment traps, stabilize the soil, and help vegetation recovery. | Areas: (1) with high-moderate burn severity, (2) with 20–40% slopes, (3) with slopes less than 25 % surface rock, (4) with soils not less than 20 cm deep. | Similar to the previous one, these barriers may reduce runoff and sediment yields for low-intensity storms only. Wattles are reported to reduce total runoff and peak flow rates [30,37]. |
Silt Fences | Land treatment | Barriers | They are typically constructed with a series of metal or plastic posts driven into the ground and connected by a length of geotextile fabric. Silt fences are used as sediment traps and installed in high-risk areas where LEBs and Fiber Rolls may not be effective. Finally, silt fences are an effective tool for monitoring sediment movement during effectiveness monitoring. | Areas: (1) with high risk values, (2) where maintenance and inspection are accessible, (3) of specific interest such as heritage sites. | Silt fences have notably high effectiveness when properly installed and maintained. This requires them to be stably anchored into the soil, allowing water to pass through slowly while trapping sediment. Their maintenance requires significant effort and attention. Robichaud and Brown [63] measured their trap efficiency at over 90%. |
Soil Scarification, Plouching | Land treatment | Seeding | Highly erodible areas with high burn severity can be treated using soil scarification. Soil scarification is used to improve the water infiltration of the burned soils, improve the vegetation recovery rate, and prepare the soil for seeding. Soil scarification breaks up the surface soil, exposes bare mineral soil to the elements, and reduces the risk of runoff, water infiltration, and soil erosion. | Areas: (1) with high-moderate burn severity, (2) highly erodible slopes, (3) with slopes <20% (mechanical equipment), (4) with slopes 20–40% (hand tools), | While there is limited available information, this treatment is not efficient in reducing sediment yield, as compared to no treatment [31]. |
Seeding | Land treatment | Seeding | Spreading of seeds using aerial (large treatment areas) and/or ground means (small treatment areas). Hillslope erosion and wind erosion can be treated using seeding (vegetation cover). Moreover, seeding can be used in areas vulnerable to spreading invasive and noxious plants. | Areas: (1) with high burn severity, (2) with high risk value, (3) with high erodible soils, (4) with slopes >60%, (5) that are vulnerable to invasive and noxious plants spreading. | Seeding (e.g., <60% surface cover) is not very effective in the first year after a fire and is neutral in the following seasons. Combining seeding with mulching may increase the potential for germination. Sterile annual and cereal grain seeds can reduce soil erosion but may introduce invasive and noxious species. Despite the ongoing debate about seeding effectiveness, it still remains a common measure followed for wildfire treatment [32]. Seeding often proved ineffective concerning soil erosion and some studies showed a trend of soil stabilization for unseeded and seeded sites after five (5) years [32]. Further investigation on the long-term effects of seeding should be conducted [32]. |
Invasive Plants | Land treatment | Other works | Noxious and invasive weeds are treated as not desired species that can disturb the ecosystem. The treatment of these species involves hand, mechanical, chemical, and biological or prevention-seeding applications | Areas: (1) with weed species, (2) that invasive weeds or noxious entered. | Invasive plants seriously threaten the ecosystems’ stability and response, as they can eliminate other plants and their diversity. The effectiveness of removing invasive plants in preventing runoff and erosion has not been reported. |
Polyacrylamides (PAM) and Other Polymers | Land treatment | Chemical treatments | Application of chemicals and fertilizers to speed up cover and vegetation growth. Only two examples are reported, highlighting the importance of wetting the PAM after application. | There is not adequate information to generalize. Areas with very mild rainfall events are preferred, as they quickly boost vegetation development. | In one case reported, PAM did not affect runoff but reduced erosion by 35–57% compared to the untreated plots [33]. The other example shows that PAM did not affect runoff or erosion [34]. |
Check dams | Channel Treatment | Barriers | Check dams are used to trap and store the sediments, to reduce the water velocity and the peak flows. The construction materials can be logs, straw wattles, rock, etc., depending on the material availability. | Areas: (1) with smooth slopes where sediment storage can be achieved, (2) with high burn severity, (3) with high erodible soils, (4) with <20 % ground cover, (5) with high risk value, (6) <20,234 m2 and catchments with small drainage areas. | Check dams are more effective when placed in gentle gradients, high in the watershed and used in series. To be effective, in-channel treatments must be used together with adjacent hillslope treatments [7]. On the other hand, the research of Badia et al. [45] showed that the performance of log dams was about 90% for soil erosion and roughly 52% for runoff. Generally, check dams have short-term effectiveness and can retain sediment yield behind the dams [35]. Finally, recent research on check dams that consist of an embankment and spillway or a single embankment showed that they can efficiently reduce the peak discharge, and the flood volume, as well as increase the runoff concentration time [64]. |
In-Channel Tree Felling | Channel Treatment | Barriers | Debris and sediments can be trapped within a channel using tree felling. Moreover, tree felling can work as a valuable habitat for fishes and other life forms and provide channel stability. | Areas: (1) with high burn severity (consumed woody material sites), (2) high risk value (road crossing, sensitive aquatic species), (3) prone to high sediment load and unstable bedload, (4) where energy dissipation is essential within the channel | Same as in the previous case, the main drivers of the effectiveness of these barriers are the slope and the magnitude of the storm. |
Grade Stabilizers | Channel Treatment | Barriers | Channel downcutting and incising can be prevented using grade stabilizers. The main construction materials are logs, rocks, or plant materials. Grade stabilizers are also used for the reduction of channel scouring. | Areas: (1) with channels with stability issues, (2) with high burn severity, (3) with stream slope <6%, (4) with intermittent streams that have moderate to low flows, (5) where debris flow and soil cover loss exist, (6) that exist persistent hydrophobic conditions, (7) where the downstream uses are very beneficial. | The effectiveness of grade stabilizers is uncertain due to the lack of quantitative data, but they may work well for low to moderate-flow areas. They are recommended to be implemented in gentle gradients, high in the watershed, and placed in series. However, grade stabilizers may fail during large storms, and in-channel treatments without adjacent hillslope treatments are ineffective. |
Stream Channel Armoring | Channel Treatment | Barriers | Stream Channel Armoring is the reinforcement of the streambank using a protective covering such as riprap, gabions, boulders placement, etc. Thus, such protection covering can reduce bank erosion and cutting because of the high peak flows observed after a wildfire event. | Areas: (1) with streambanks vulnerable to erosion, (2) with high risk values | The effectiveness of streambank armoring has not been quantitatively monitored. This treatment is more likely to work better in gentle gradients, high in the watershed, and placed in series. However, there may be problems such as complete structure failure from large storms. It is also ineffective as an in-channel treatment without adjacent hillslope treatments. |
Channel Deflectors | Channel Treatment | Barriers | Channel deflectors are used for protecting infrastructure or a structure because of the high streamflows observed after a wildfire event. Such protection treatment is composed of structures such as rock barbs, j-hooks, and double- or single-wing deflectors. Therefore, channel deflectors divert the flow and velocity from non-stable banks and areas with high risk value and protect structures (e.g., hydraulic works, transportation infrastructures) from high streamflow and/or flooding. | Areas: (1) where roads are located parallel to the stream, (2) where facilities or structures are vulnerable to flooding or streambank erosion | Similar to the previous case, there is limited information for this treatment. It is more effective in gentle gradients and mild storms. |
Debris Basins | Channel Treatment | Barriers | Debris basins are emergency structures designed for the storage of important amounts of sediments and runoff. These structures are used where the probability of human life threats and property is high. On the other hand, the construction cost and maintenance are high, while the construction time is demanding since it is needed timeframes for engineered design and permit approvals. Debris basins have variable sizes and types and can be installed within the channel or off-channel. Their design, construction and operation, and reclamation needs are influenced by the selected type. | Areas: (1) with burn severity high-moderate, (2) that were prone to landslides and debris flow even before wildfire event, (3) of specific interest with high-value resources, (4) that have locations where there is enough space to storage important amounts of sediments, (5) where construction, maintenance, and inspection are accessible. | Debris basins are expensive treatments. Thus, they are the last resort option. No quantitative information is available on their effectiveness, and they require long-term maintenance following runoff events. |
Outsloping | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Outsloping is used in areas with high-moderate burn severity where runoff direction and storage can provide risk. Outsloping is when the road template is altered using machinery such as an excavator, dozer, and grader to reduce erosion and disperse the water. Usually is used on flat roads to disperse the surface flow to prevent runoff concentration on the road surface that can cause different types of erosion (e.g., rill, gully). Other road treatments are usually combined with outsloping such as armored crossing and rolling dips. | Areas: (1) prone to flow concentration, (2) with high-moderate burn severity, (3) with road slopes >10%, (4) that can be influenced and connected with adjacent burned areas. | No quantitative data exist for the effectiveness of outsloping roads, but informal observations suggest that they can provide both immediate and long-term benefits such as reduced sediment delivery to stream channels and less road maintenance. However, outsloping roads with unvegetated soils in highly erodible areas can increase erosion. Outsloping is typically used in conjunction with other road treatments such as rolling dips and armored crossings to manage water. |
Rolling Dips | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Roadway dips alter the road drainage allowing surface flows to frequently scatter across the road. Dips can be used on sloped roads (removing the water from the inside of the road and allowing it to flow across the road), and on an outsloped road, where frequent rolling dips change the grade of dispersed flows. | Areas: (1) Important road infrastructure to maintain water flow control, (2) roads with a continuous grade and infrequent drainage structures, (3) culverts that have diversion potential, (4) roads where frequencies between inspection and maintenance May be limited after the fire, (5) roads with grades less than 12%, and (6) roads where outsloping is not feasible. | Rolling dips and outsloping are common treatments. There are no monitoring data on their effectiveness. They can be easily constructed but often are too short in length, or too shallow to contain the expected flows. |
Overflow Structures | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Overflow structures (armored rolling dip, overside drain, or imbricated/overlapped rock-level spreader) are used on roads to control runoff and protect the road fill. They are placed in defined channels, or in areas between them, where increased storm runoff is predicted due to limited infiltration. The structure used depends on the road characteristics and conditions. | Areas: (1) Roads located below high and moderate burn severity areas, (2) road segments that have a long continuous grade and infrequent drainage, (3) sloped roads. | Armored rolling dips are effective and low-cost treatments when properly designed and implemented, but erosion problems can occur if they are too short or if insufficient riprap is used on the fill slope. Overside drains may fail if not designed, installed, and maintained properly. Imbricated rock-level spreaders were found to be effective in reducing erosion if they discharge directly onto a vegetated or wooded zone, according to initial qualitative monitoring data. |
Low-Water Stream Crossings (LWSC) | Road and Trail Treatment | Barriers | LWSCs protect transportation infrastructure, control water flows, and reduce water quality threats, by accommodating aquatic passages. They act as culverts under extreme watershed response conditions. The most common LWSC types are: Natural fords, Vented fords with pipes, and Low-water bridges. | Areas: (1) Roads crossing ephemeral or seasonally flowing channels, (2) where there is risk of interrupted traffic due to flooding, (3) when fisheries and water quality requirements allow vehicles to enter the stream, (4) when daily flow is less than 6 inches deep, (5) when expensive pipe sizes or pipes that do not fit the roadway cross section are required, (6) when culverts are at risk of plugging, (7) road crossings where high sediment delivery is expected. | Ford crossings effectively control water loss at road/stream crossings but must be properly designed and implemented to avoid damage to infrastructure and reduced water quality. Flexible structures are adaptable and not prone to undercutting, while boulder or riprap structures should be long enough to avoid being outflanked by high flows. Jersey barriers are not flexible and, therefore, less effective as an end wall material. |
Culvert Modification | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Replacing or upgrading damaged culverts in a compatible way with road and trail management plans, forest plans, and guidelines for culvert sizing. The cost of upgrading should be less than the cost to repair damages after they occur. The culvert upgrading design and implementation should consider hydraulic capacity and requirements for aquatic species passage. The treatment must be quickly designed and implemented to maintain access and protect aquatic resources. | Areas: (1) High-burn-severity watersheds, (2) drainages with undersized culverts, (3) where road access is required. | There are only informal qualitative clues about the effectiveness of this treatment. It performs well when new culverts are installed before the first rain, but poorly when the upgrade is delayed or when culverts are still insufficient to manage runoff events. |
Debris Rack and Deflectors | Road and Trail Treatment | Barriers | These are barriers that prevent large debris from passing through a culvert. They are designed for small and medium debris and must have enough storage area to retain debris expected in one storm. Debris racks can be made from rail, steel, wood, or chainlink fence material. Debris deflectors are V-shaped structures that divert medium and large debris and large rocks from the culvert inlet to a storage area where debris is removed after the flood subsides. Deflectors are suitable for high-velocity flows and heavy logs, stumps, or large boulders. | Areas/Cases: (1) Drainages at risk of plugging with debris, (2) culverts that can accommodate the storm runoff design capacity but may have increased bedload and debris, (3) movement of both bedload and debris, (4) identification of crossings where stream diversion is possible, (5) downstream infrastructure, public safety, or other resources are at risk. | Debris structures lack quantitative effectiveness data but may work if properly implemented and maintained according to anecdotal information. However, if the design structure is too small for the stormflows and associated debris, problems can occur. |
Riser Pipes | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | These low-cost sediment storage systems prevent culverts from plugging with sediment and debris. They allow the accumulation of sediment and ash in the basin, which can be removed later, reducing downstream water quality impacts. Riser pipes reduce peak flows by storing water and sediment, providing sediment storage upstream of a crossing that would otherwise plug. Each riser is designed for a specific crossing and is quickly implemented. | Areas: (1) limited access at road crossings, (2) drainages with high burn severity and erosion predictions indicate a high risk of sediment delivery, (3) channels (confined) that have high bedload transport, (4) culverts that range from 18 to 48 inches, (5) paved roads, (6) channels that have high bedload transport capabilities, (7) seasonal channels. | There is no formal effectiveness monitoring data for risers. However, reports indicate that they perform well when maintained, but problems can occur if they are not routinely checked and debris is not removed from the basin. Risers are inexpensive, easy to install, and can be quickly disassembled when no longer needed. |
Catchment-Basin Cleanout | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Catchment-basin cleanout removes sediment and debris from stream channels, culverts, and catchment basins to prevent blockages and flash floods. The frequency of cleanouts depends on the size of the basin and sediment sources. | Areas: (1) Road crossings where existing sediment reduces the culvert capacity, (2) streams where fish requirements are not a concern, (3) areas in high risk, (4) Locations where clearing can be done prior to the first damaging rain. | Almost no evidence is available for this case. Anecdotal information suggests that the treatment is effective. |
Storm Inspection and Response | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Storm inspection and response aims to maintain the functionality of culvert and drainage structures by cleaning sediment and debris from the inlet during storm events. It ensures road access throughout the designated storm season and should meet safety considerations. | Areas: (1) Road crossings where loss of control of water or exceedance is identified, (2) Road access is necessary throughout the storm season, (3) road crossings where high sediment and debris is anticipated, (4) roads susceptible to landslides, (5) roads with all-season surfacing (aggregate or asphalt). | No formal data are available to evaluate the effectiveness of storm inspection and response. Informal observations suggest that timely clearing and cleaning of road crossings can be cost-effective in preventing road problems. However, maintaining a dedicated inspection team can be challenging, and inadequate coverage may result from excessive areas to patrol. |
Trail Stabilization | Road and Trail Treatment | Barriers | Trail stabilization includes methods such as rolling dips, rubber belt water bars, rock water bars, and rock spillways used on trails lacking adequate drainage features for anticipated increased runoff. These methods aim to reduce trail erosion or damage and provide drainage and stability to reduce trail damage or downstream values at risk. | Areas -Trails: (1) within or below high-burn-severity areas, (2) with sustained grade through burned areas that lack adequate drainage, (3) segments that have the potential to deliver sediment to streams, (4) where previous drainage structures were damaged by the fire, (5) stream crossings with diversion potential. | No quantitative data available. |
Road Decommissioning | Road and Trail Treatment | Other works | Road decommissioning involves restoring the original hillslope conditions, recontouring the road fill, restoring drainage through the road prism, and reducing hillslope erosion. Subsoiling with an excavator and/or dozer with rippers improves infiltration and breaks through compacted soil layers. The process also restores hillslope hydrology, reduces erosion of sidecast material, and improves drainage. | Areas: (1) with high burn severity and high soil-erosion potential, (2) destabilized roads by the fire through vegetation loss, (3) loss of stabilizing vegetation to hold soil and prevent erosion, (4) vegetative treatments are unlikely to be effective, (5) hillslope with multiple unclassified roads (jammer roads). | No quantitative data available. Observations from visual inspection reported that this treatment can efficiently improve infiltration and reduce erosion by restoring the slope. |
References
- Bailey, R.W.; Copeland, O.L. Vegetation and Engineering Structures in Flood and Erosion Control; U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1961.
- DeBano, L.F.; Neary, D.G.; Ffolliott, P.F. Fire Effects on Ecosystems, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. Post-Fire, Rainfall Intensity-Peak Discharge Relations for Three Mountainous Watersheds in the Western USA. Hydrol. Process 2001, 15, 2981–2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blake, D.; Nyman, P.; Nice, H.; D’Souza, F.M.L.; Kavazos, C.R.J.; Horwitz, P. Assessment of Post-Wildfire Erosion Risk and Effects on Water Quality in South-Western Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2020, 29, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, P.R.; Beyers, J.L.; Neary, D.G. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2000.
- Santi, P.M.; deWolfe, V.G.; Higgins, J.D.; Cannon, S.H.; Gartner, J.E. Sources of Debris Flow Material in Burned Areas. Geomorphology 2008, 96, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girona-García, A.; Vieira, D.C.S.; Silva, J.; Fernández, C.; Robichaud, P.R.; Keizer, J.J. Effectiveness of Post-Fire Soil Erosion Mitigation Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Earth Sci. Rev. 2021, 217, 103611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasirzadehdizaji, R.; Akyuz, D.E. Predicting the Potential Impact of Forest Fires on Runoff and Sediment Loads Using a Distributed Hydrological Modeling Approach. Ecol. Modell. 2022, 468, 109959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebel, B.A.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Kinoshita, A.M.; Bladon, K.D. Hydrologic Recovery after Wildfire: A Framework of Approaches, Metrics, Criteria, Trajectories, and Timescales. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 2022, 70, 388–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, D.J.; Giardino, J.R. Debris Flow Occurrence under Changing Climate and Wildfire Regimes: A Southern California Perspective. Geomorphology 2023, 422, 108538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sosa-Pérez, G.; MacDonald, L. Wildfire Effects on Road Surface Erosion, Deposition, and Road–Stream Connectivity. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2017, 42, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemter, M.; Fischer, M.; Luna, L.V.; Schönfeldt, E.; Vogel, J.; Banerjee, A.; Korup, O.; Thonicke, K. Cascading Hazards in the Aftermath of Australia’s 2019/2020 Black Summer Wildfires. Earths Future 2021, 9, e2020EF001884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyman, P.; Yeates, P.; Langhans, C.; Schärer, C.; Noske, P.J.; Lane, P.N.J.; Haydon, S.; Sheridan, G.J. A Novel Approach for Determining Risk of Water Supply Disruptions Due to Post-Wildfire Debris Flows. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation, Golden, CO, USA, 10–13 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Roering, J.J.; Gerber, M. Fire and the Evolution of Steep, Soil-Mantled Landscapes. Geology 2005, 33, 349–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavi, I. Wildfires in Grasslands and Shrublands: A Review of Impacts on Vegetation, Soil, Hydrology, and Geomorphology. Water 2019, 11, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langhans, C.; Nyman, P.; Noske, P.J.; Van der Sant, R.E.; Lane, P.N.J.; Sheridan, G.J. Post-Fire Hillslope Debris Flows: Evidence of a Distinct Erosion Process. Geomorphology 2017, 295, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott’, D.F.; Van Wyk, D.B. The effects of wildfire on soil wettability and hydrological behaviour of an afforested catchment. J. Hydrol. 1990, 121, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreu, V.; Imeson, A.C.; Rubio, J.L. Temporal Changes in Soil Aggregates and Water Erosion after a Wildfire in a Mediterranean Pine Forest. Catena 2001, 44, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández, C.; Vega, J.A.; Jiménez, E.; Fonturbel, T. Effectiveness of Three Post-Fire Treatments at Reducing Soil Erosion in Galicia (NW Spain). Int. J. Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, F.J. Fire and Geomorphic Processes. In Proceedings of the Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties, Honolulu, HI, USA, 11 December 1981; Mooney, H., Bonnicksen, T.M., Christensen, N.L., Lotan, J.E., Reiners, W.A., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1981; pp. 410–420. [Google Scholar]
- Folador, L.; Cislaghi, A.; Vacchiano, G.; Masseroni, D. Integrating Remote and In-Situ Data to Assess the Hydrological Response of a Post-Fire Watershed. Hydrology 2021, 8, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rust, A.J.; Hogue, T.S.; Saxe, S.; McCray, J. Post-Fire Water-Quality Response in the Western United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2018, 27, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.G.; Hayes, M.P. Post-Fire Species Composition and Abundance of a Lentic-Breeding Amphibian Assemblage: Case Study of Ledson Marsh. Calif. Fish Wildl. J. 2020, 106, 110–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danilov, D.A.; Anisimova, I.M.; Belyaeva, N.V.; Kazi, I.A. Post-Fire Restoration of Tree Species in Various Soil Conditions after Surface Fires Zone. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 574, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zituni, R.; Wittenberg, L.; Malkinson, D. The Effects of Post-Fire Forest Management on Soil Erosion Rates 3 and 4 Years after a Wildfire, Demonstrated on the 2010 Mount Carmel Fire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2019, 28, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Błońska, E.; Bednarz, B.; Kacprzyk, M.; Piaszczyk, W.; Lasota, J. Effect of Scots Pine Forest Management on Soil Properties and Carabid Beetle Occurrence under Post-Fire Environmental Conditions—A Case Study from Central Europe. For. Ecosyst. 2020, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolly, W.M.; Cochrane, M.A.; Freeborn, P.H.; Holden, Z.A.; Brown, T.J.; Williamson, G.J.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Climate-Induced Variations in Global Wildfire Danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Time to Recover. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 1027. [CrossRef]
- Napper, C. Burned Area Emergency Response Treatments (BAER) Catalog; US Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA; San Dimas Technology and Development Center: San Dimas, CA, USA, 2006.
- Robichaud, P.R.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Brown, R.E.; Wohlgemuth, P.M.; Beyers, J.L. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Contour-Felled Log Erosion Barriers as a Post-Fire Runoff and Erosion Mitigation Treatment in the Western United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, P.R.; Lewis, S.A.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Brown, R.E.; Pierson, F.B. Quantifying Long-Term Post-Fire Sediment Delivery and Erosion Mitigation Effectiveness. Earth Surf. Process. Landf 2020, 45, 771–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peppin, D.; Fulé, P.Z.; Sieg, C.H.; Beyers, J.L.; Hunter, M.E. Post-Wildfire Seeding in Forests of the Western United States: An Evidence-Based Review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inbar, A.; Ben-Hur, M.; Sternberg, M.; Lado, M. Using Polyacrylamide to Mitigate Post-Fire Soil Erosion. Geoderma 2015, 239, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prats, S.A.; dos San tos Martins, M.A.; Malvar, M.C.; Ben-Hur, M.; Keizer, J.J. Polyacrylamide Application versus Forest Residue Mulching for Reducing Post-Fire Runoff and Soil Erosion. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 464–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boix-Fayos, C.; de Vente, J.; Martínez-Mena, M.; Barberá, G.G.; Castillo, V. The Impact of Land Use Change and Check-Dams on Catchment Sediment Yield. Hydrol. Process 2008, 22, 4922–4935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girona-García, A.; Cretella, C.; Fernández, C.; Robichaud, P.R.; Vieira, D.C.S.; Keizer, J.J. How Much Does It Cost to Mitigate Soil Erosion after Wildfires? J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 334, 117478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, P.R.; Ashmun, L.E.; Sims, B.D. Post-Fire Treatment Effectiveness for Hillslope Stabilization; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- Robichaud, P.R.; Lillybridge, T.R.; Wagenbrenner, J.W. Effects of Postfire Seeding and Fertilizing on Hillslope Erosion in North-Central Washington, USA. Catena 2006, 67, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, P.R.; Lewis, S.A.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Ashmun, L.E.; Brown, R.E. Post-Fire Mulching for Runoff and Erosion Mitigation. Part I: Effectiveness at Reducing Hillslope Erosion Rates. Catena 2013, 105, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas-Borja, M.E.; González-Romero, J.; Plaza-Álvarez, P.A.; Sagra, J.; Gómez, M.E.; Moya, D.; Cerdà, A.; de las Heras, J. The Impact of Straw Mulching and Salvage Logging on Post-Fire Runoff and Soil Erosion Generation under Mediterranean Climate Conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fernández, C.; Vega, J.A.; Fontúrbel, T. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Needle Cast and Straw Helimulching for Reducing Soil Erosion after Wildfire in NW Spain. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagenbrenner, J.W.; MacDonald, L.H.; Rough, D. Effectiveness of Tree Post-Fire Rehabilitation Treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrol. Process 2006, 20, 2989–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovreglio, R.; Giadrossich, F.; Scotti, R.; Murgia, I.; Tardío, G.; Mickovski, S.; García-Rodríguez, J.L. Observations on Different Post-Fire Bio-Engineering Interventions and Vegetation Response in a Pinus Canariensis C. Sm. Forest. Ann. Silvic. Res. 2020, 45, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, P.R.; Storrar, K.A.; Wagenbrenner, J.W. Effectiveness of Straw Bale Check Dams at Reducing Post-Fire Sediment Yields from Steep Ephemeral Channels. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 676, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badía, D.; Sánchez, C.; Aznar, J.M.; Martí, C. Post-Fire Hillslope Log Debris Dams for Runoff and Erosion Mitigation in the Semiarid Ebro Basin. Geoderma 2015, 237, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quiñonero-Rubio, J.M.; Nadeu, E.; Boix-Fayos, C.; de Vente, J. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Forest Restoration and Check-Dams to Reduce Catchment Sediment Yield. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 1018–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, P.; Zhang, Y.; Ren, Z.; Yu, Y.; Li, P.; Gong, J. Land-Use Changes and Check Dams Reducing Runoff and Sediment Yield on the Loess Plateau of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 664, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groen, A.H.; Woods, S.W. Effectiveness of Aerial Seeding and Straw Mulch for Reducing Post-Wildfire Erosion, North-Western Montana, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Raviña, M.; Martín, A.; Barreiro, A.; Lombao, A.; Iglesias, L.; Díaz-Fierros, F.; Carballas, T. Mulching and Seeding Treatments for Post-Fire Soil Stabilisation in NW Spain: Short-Term Effects and Effectiveness. Geoderma 2012, 191, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kastridis, A.; Kamperidou, V. Evaluation of the Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Control Works in the Area of Cassandra (Chalkidiki, North Greece). J. For. Res. 2015, 26, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margiorou, S.; Kastridis, A.; Sapountzis, M. Pre/Post-Fire Soil Erosion and Evaluation of Check-Dams Effectiveness in Mediterranean Suburban Catchments Based on Field Measurements and Modeling. Land 2022, 11, 1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foltz, R.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Rhee, H. A Synthesis of Postfire Road Treatments for BAER Teams: Methods, Treatment Effectiveness, and Decisionmaking Tools for Rehabilitation. Gen. Tech. Rep. MRS-GTR-228; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2009.
- Reid, L.M. Understanding and Evaluating Cumulative Watershed Impacts. In Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231; Elliot, W.J., Miller, I.S., Audin, L., Eds.; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2010; pp. 277–298. [Google Scholar]
- Maris, F.; Theofanous, N. The Main Problems Arousing during the Construction of Anti-Erosion Works after a Wildfire. The Case Study of Rhodes Island Forest Fire Occurred on July 2008. In Scientific Annals of The Department of Forestry and Management of The Environment and Natural Resources—Democritus University of Thrace; Maris, F., Ed.; Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources—Democritus University of Thrace: Orestiada, Greece, 2012; Volume 3, ISBN 978-960-9698-01-6. [Google Scholar]
- Canfield, H.E.; Goodrich, D.C.; Burns, I.S. Selection of Parameters Values to Model Post-Fire Runoff and Sediment Transport at the Watershed Scale in Southwestern Forests. In Proceedings of the Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts, Reston, VA, USA, 13 July 2005; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Ferreira, A.J.D.; Alegre, S.P.; Coelho, C.O.A.; Shakesby, R.A.; Páscoa, F.M.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Keizer, J.J.; Ritsema, C. Strategies to Prevent Forest Fires and Techniques to Reverse Degradation Processes in Burned Areas. Catena 2015, 128, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakesby, R.A. Post-Wildfire Soil Erosion in the Mediterranean: Review and Future Research Directions. Earth Sci. Rev. 2011, 105, 71–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hope, G.; Jordan, P.; Winkler, R.; Giles, T.; Curran, M.; Soneff, K.; Chapman, B. Post-Wildfire Natural Hazards Risk Analysis in British Columbia. Prov. B.C., Victoria, B.C. Land Manag. Handb. 69; Crown Publications: Hong Kong, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Haque, M.K.; Azad, M.A.K.; Hossain, M.Y.; Ahmed, T.; Uddin, M.; Hossain, M.M. Wildfire in Australia during 2019–2020, Its Impact on Health, Biodiversity and Environment with Some Proposals for Risk Management: A Review. J. Environ. Prot. 2021, 12, 391–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvestro, R.; Saulino, L.; Cavallo, C.; Allevato, E.; Pindozzi, S.; Cervelli, E.; Conti, P.; Mazzoleni, S.; Saracino, A. The Footprint of Wildfires on Mediterranean Forest Ecosystem Services in Vesuvius National Park. Fire 2021, 4, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlain, J.L.; Jones, K.W. Sociocultural Mapping of Ecosystem Service Values Can Inform Where to Mitigate Wildfire Risk: A Case Study from Colorado. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2023, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misal, H.; Varela, E.; Grillakis, M.; Rovithakis, A.; Voulgarakis, A.; Kountouris, Y. Assessing Public Preferences for a Wildfire Mitigation Policy in Crete, Greece. SSRN Electron. J. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, P.R.; Brown, R.E. Silt Fences: An Economical Technique for Measuring Hillslope Soil Erosion; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2002.
- Yuan, S.; Li, Z.; Chen, L.; Li, P.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wang, A.; Yu, K. Effects of a Check Dam System on the Runoff Generation and Concentration Processes of a Catchment on the Loess Plateau. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022, 10, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of Treatment | Typical Works | Suitability and Effectiveness |
---|---|---|
Land— Cover-based |
|
|
Land— Barriers |
|
|
Land— Seeding |
|
|
Land—Chemical treatments |
|
|
Channel—Barriers |
|
|
Road and Trail |
|
|
Factors | Description |
---|---|
1. Factors Unrelated to Fire: | |
Rainfall characteristics, especially rainfall intensity |
|
Topography |
|
Land use and management |
|
Treatment implementation-installation and design matters |
|
2. Fire-Dependent Factors: | |
Burn severity (also referred to as “fire severity”) |
|
Soil burn severity |
|
Amount of bare soil |
|
Soil water repellency |
|
Soil erodibility |
|
Time since the fire |
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Papaioannou, G.; Alamanos, A.; Maris, F. Evaluating Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques: A Narrative Review of Applications. GeoHazards 2023, 4, 380-405. https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards4040022
Papaioannou G, Alamanos A, Maris F. Evaluating Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques: A Narrative Review of Applications. GeoHazards. 2023; 4(4):380-405. https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards4040022
Chicago/Turabian StylePapaioannou, George, Angelos Alamanos, and Fotios Maris. 2023. "Evaluating Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques: A Narrative Review of Applications" GeoHazards 4, no. 4: 380-405. https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards4040022