Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

18
Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2 For WRAP FEJF Meeting Research in progress by the CAMFER fire group: Peng Gong, Ruiliang Pu, Presented by Nick Clinton

description

Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2. Research in progress by the CAMFER fire group: Peng Gong, Ruiliang Pu, Presented by Nick Clinton. For WRAP FEJF Meeting. Purpose. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Page 1: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

For WRAP FEJF Meeting

Research in progress by the CAMFER fire group:Peng Gong, Ruiliang Pu, Presented by Nick Clinton

Page 2: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

U.C. Berkeley –2

Purpose

“…to develop a method for producing coherent, consistent, spatially and temporally resolved GIS based emission estimates for wildfire and prescribed burning.”

Page 3: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

U.C. Berkeley –3

User Interface

VegetationCrosswalk

FuelModels

EmissionEstimation

Fuel Loading

FuelConsumption

VegetationCoverage

UserParameters

Sum

Modular System

Fire HistoryMap

EmissionsReporting

Page 4: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Vegetation Data

• The GAP vegetation layer– Statewide coverage– Less complex than

other vegetation layers such as CALVEG

– 1990 source data

Page 5: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

National Inputs

• The spatial inputs are the NFDRS fuel model grid (seen left) and a grid of remotely sensed fire detections (both 1km resolution).

• Utilizes the same emissions equations as with polygon processing.

• Requires crosswalk of FOFEM fuel models to NFDRS fuel models (proof of concept).

Page 6: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Fire History – Agency Data

• CDF fire polygons• Historical database• Completeness??• Remote sensing

based fire map

Page 7: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Algorithms

A. Hotspot Detection (modified to CCRS’)

Y ES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

AVHRR data preparation

Algorithm applied to each pixel

Test # 1T3 > 315 K?

Test # 2T3 –T4>=14 K?

Test # 3T4>=260 K?

Fire clear pixels

Eliminate cloudy pixel

Eliminate warm background, e.g., bare soil

Page 8: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

Test # 4Contextual info

R2<=30%?R2<=8 neighb P ave-1?T3>8 neighb P ave+5?

Test # 5Wild land cover types?

Test # 8|R1-R2|>1%?

Test # 7R1+R2<=75%?

Test # 6T4-T5<4.0 K and

T3-T4>=19 K?

Test # 9One of neighbor P passes

the 8 tests above?

True fire pixels False fire pixels

Eliminate highly reflecting clouds & surface and warm background

Eliminate urban, agriculture,dune, desert, water body

Eliminate single fire pixel

Eliminate sunglint pixels

Eliminate highly reflecting clouds & surface

Eliminate thin clouds with warm background

Single date fire mask

Page 9: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

AlgorithmsB. Burnt Scar mapping (modified to CCRS’ HANDS) with - Two NDVI composites of an interesting interval - One corresponding hotspot composite (fire mask) Step 1. Normalize NDVIpost to NDVIpre

normalized NDVIpost = Ratio.C * NDVIpost

Step 2. Calculate NDVI differencenormalized NDVIpost – NDVIpre

Step 3. Confirm hotspot pixels using NDVI difference (CBP)

,.NDVIpostofmean

NDVIpreofmeanCRatio

Page 10: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2
Page 11: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Fire History – RS Data

• Overlay of CDF and CAMFER data

• 1996 and 1999 (big fire years)

Page 12: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Overlay of CDF and CAMFER

Page 13: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Quantitative Comparison

Page 14: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

• Variation in mapping success between different ecosystem types.

• The amount of variation differs between methods (monthly or annual differencing), and between years.

• In general, the CAMFER method is more successful in the forest type.

Page 15: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Overlay of CDF and CAMFER

• RED is now RS detections. Green is Jepson ecoregion

• Lambert Conformal Conic Projection

• No Post-processing (filtering, nearest neighbor relationship to hotspots)

• Slightly reduced accuracy

• Potential for more data refinement by incorporating hotspots…

Page 16: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Overlay of CDF and CAMFER

• Green is annual NDVI differencing.

• Blue is monthly NDVI differencing

• Neither method is effective in detecting the entire burn area

Page 17: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Overlay of CDF and CAMFER

• Hotspots (Red) overlaid on the monthly and annual NDVI differencing

• Increase or at least negligible decrease in NDVI, especially over an annual time scale

• Problems with temporal resolution in hotspot detection

• Potential for more dynamic thresholding in burn scar mapping?

Page 18: Wildland Fire Emissions Study – Phase 2

Temporal Decomposition of RS Data

• Remotely sensed burn scar polygons can be decomposed to daily polygons based on a nearest neighbor relationship using hot spot detections

• Facilitates temporal allocation of emissions

• Useful to dispersion modeling, emissions tracking