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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lab for Remote Sensing Hydrology and Spatial Modeling Dept. of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, NTU Satellite Remote Sensing for Land-Use/Land-Cover.
Advertisements

Beyond Spectral and Spatial data: Exploring other domains of information GEOG3010 Remote Sensing and Image Processing Lewis RSU.
Session 7: Land Applications Burned Area RENATA LIBONATI Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) Brazil EUMETRAIN.
 nm)  nm) PurposeSpatial Resolution (km) Ozone, SO 2, UV8 3251Ozone8 3403Aerosols, UV, and Volcanic Ash8 3883Aerosols, Clouds, UV and Volcanic.
Daytime Cloud Shadow Detection With MODIS Denis Grljusic Philipps University Marburg, Germany Kathy Strabala, Liam Gumley CIMSS Paul Menzel NOAA / NESDIS.
Collection 6 MODIS Fire Products
The Alaska Forest Disturbance Carbon Tracking System T. Loboda, E. Kasischke, C. Huang (Univ. MD), N. French (MTRI) J. Masek, J. Collatz (GSFC), D. McGuire,
Toward Near Real Time Forest Fire Monitoring in Thailand Honda Kiyoshi and Veerachai Tanpipat Space Technology Applications and Research, School of Advanced.
THE OBSERVATIONS FROM SATELLITES TO HELP IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST FIRES. Romo, A., Casanova, J.L., Calle, A., and Sanz, J. LATUV - Remote Sensing Laboratory.
Fire Modeling Protocol MeetingBoise, IDAugust 31 – September 1, 2010 Applying Fire Emission Inventories in Chemical Transport Models Zac Adelman
Leila Talebi, Anika Kuczynski, Andrew Graettinger, and Robert Pitt
ReCover for REDD and sustainable forest management EU ReCover project: Remote sensing services to support REDD and sustainable forest management in Fiji.
Retrieval of smoke aerosol loading from remote sensing data Sean Raffuse and Rudolf Husar Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trends Analysis Washington.
MODIS Science Team Meeting - 18 – 20 May Routine Mapping of Land-surface Carbon, Water and Energy Fluxes at Field to Regional Scales by Fusing Multi-scale.
Green Vegetation Fraction (GVF) derived from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) sensor onboard the SNPP satellite Zhangyan Jiang 1,2,
Giant Kelp Canopy Cover and Biomass from High Resolution SPOT Imagery for the Santa Barbara Channel Kyle C Cavanaugh, David A Siegel, Brian P Kinlan, Dan.
Data Merging and GIS Integration
Potential of Ant Colony Optimization to Satellite Image Classification Raj P. Divakaran.
1 Sean Raffuse, Dana Sullivan, Lyle Chinkin, Daniel Pryden, and Neil Wheeler Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, CA Sim Larkin and Robert Solomon U.S. Forest.
Use of Remote Sensing Data for Delineation of Wildland Fire Effects
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to the MOPITT team, especially the groups at University of Toronto and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
The Use of AVHRR NDVI in Environmental Applications Contact: Elizabeth R. McDonald ERIN Remote Sensing Coordinator Department of the Environment and Heritage.
1 FIRE DETECTION BY SATELLITE FOR FIRE CONTROL IN MONGOLIA Global Geostationary Fire Monitoring Workshop on March, 2004 Darmstadt Germany S.Tuya,
MODIS/AIRS Workshop MODIS Level 2 Products 5 April 2006 Kathleen Strabala Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Mapping burned scars in Amazon region using MODIS data Big Bear Lake, California, USA, André Lima Yosio Edemir Shimabukuro Luiz Eduardo Aragão SCGIS.
Application of GI-based Procedures for Soil Moisture Mapping and Crop Vegetation Status Monitoring in Romania Dr. Adriana MARICA, Dr. Gheorghe STANCALIE,
Remote Sensing Applications Supporting Regional Transportation Database Development CLEM 2001 August 6, 2001 Santa Barbara, CA Chris Chiesa,
Assessment of Regional Vegetation Productivity: Using NDVI Temporal Profile Metrics Background NOAA satellite AVHRR data archive NDVI temporal profile.
Using spectral data to discriminate land cover types.
Estimates of Biomass Burning Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Emissions from the GOES Imager Xiaoyang Zhang 1,2, Shobha Kondragunta 1, Chris Schmidt 3 1 NOAA/NESDIS/Center.
ASPRS Annual Conference 2005, Baltimore, March Utilizing Multi-Resolution Image data vs. Pansharpened Image data for Change Detection V. Vijayaraj,
MODIS-Based Techniques for Assessing of Fire Location and Timing in the Alaskan Boreal Forest Nancy H.F. French 1, Lucas Spaete 1, Elizabeth Hoy 2, Amber.
A 2012 NASA-CMS Phase 2 study Lead Investigators: Nancy HF French, MTRI Don McKenzie, US Forest Service, PNW, FERA Eric Kasischke, University.
Giant Kelp Canopy Cover and Biomass from High Resolution Multispectral Imagery for the Santa Barbara Channel Kyle C Cavanaugh, David A Siegel, Brian P.
May 4 th (4:00pm) Multiple choice (50 points) Short answer (50 points)
The impacts of land mosaics and human activity on ecosystem productivity Jeanette Eckert.
February 23-24, 2005Salt Lake City, Utah1 In-house QC Semi-Automated Duplicate Checking, Large Fire Refinement Complex Fire Identification Phase 2 Fire.
What is an image? What is an image and which image bands are “best” for visual interpretation?
Vegetation Condition Indices for Crop Vegetation Condition Monitoring Zhengwei Yang 1,2, Liping Di 2, Genong Yu 2, Zeqiang Chen 2 1 Research and Development.
Recent increases in the growing season length at high northern latitudes Nicole Smith-Downey* James T. Randerson Harvard University UC Irvine Sassan S.
Andrew Heidinger and Michael Pavolonis
LDOPE QA Tools Sadashiva Devadiga (SSAI) MODIS LDOPE January 18, 2007.
February 23-24, 2005Salt Lake City, Utah1 Rangeland Burning (Non-Federal Lands) Methodology Phase 2 Fire Emission Inventory WRAP – FEJF.
Development of Wildland Fire Emission Inventories with the BlueSky Smoke Modeling Framework Sean Raffuse, Erin Gilliland, Dana Sullivan, Neil Wheeler,
Modeling Wildfire Emissions Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Technology and Satellite Data STI-3009 Presented by Neil J. M. Wheeler Sonoma Technology,
Cloud Mask: Results, Frequency, Bit Mapping, and Validation UW Cloud Mask Working Group.
November 2, 2005San Diego, California1 Calculation Tool for Estimating Projected Emissions - Methods Roll Out – (Day 2 – ) Phase III/IV Project.
Pollutant Emissions from Large Wildfires in the Western United States Shawn P. Urbanski, Matt C. Reeves, W. M. Hao US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research.
Co-Retrieval of Surface Color and Aerosols from SeaWiFS Satellite Data Outline of a Seminar Presentation at EPA May 2003 Sean Raffuse and Rudolf Husar.
Beyond Spectral and Spatial data: Exploring other domains of information: 3 GEOG3010 Remote Sensing and Image Processing Lewis RSU.
Denver 2004 TGP1 PM2.5 Emissions Inventory Workshop Denver, CO March 2004 Thompson G. Pace USEPA Emissions Estimation for Wildland Fires.
Co-Retrieval of Surface Color and Aerosols from SeaWiFS Satellite Data Outline of a Seminar Presentation at EPA May 2003 Sean Raffuse and Rudolf Husar.
Uncertainties in Wildfire Emission Estimates Workshop on Regional Emissions & Air Quality Modeling July 30, 2008 Shawn Urbanski, Wei Min Hao, Bryce Nordgren.
Wildfire Emissions Updated Methodology Neva Sotolongo Emission Inventory Branch.
Remote Sensing Theory & Background III GEOG370 Instructor: Yang Shao.
Data Processing Flow Chart Start NDVI, EVI2 are calculated and Rank SDS are incorporated Integrity Data Check: Is the data correct? Data: Download a) AVHRR.
Terrestrial ECVs Fire/burnt area, Land cover, Soil Moisture.
Application of Fuel Characteristic Classification System to Ph II EI (add-on task to Inter RPO project) Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting Spokane, WA.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey October 22, 2015 EROS Fire Science Understanding a Changing Earth.
Forecasting smoke and dust using HYSPLIT. Experimental testing phase began March 28, 2006 Run daily at NCEP using the 6Z cycle to produce a 24- hr analysis.
Soil type Vegetation type / Forest density Land Use Fire activity Slopes Support NWS Flash Flood Warning Program: Development of Flash Flood Potential.
CMUG meeting – March 2016 Fire_cci phase 2 progress. Interactions with other ECVs Phase 2 of the Climate Change Initiative Fire_cci project Emilio.
Fire, Smoke & Air Quality: Tools for Data Exploration & Analysis : Data Sharing/Processing Infrastructure This project integrates.
REMOTE SENSING FOR VEGETATION AND LAND DEGRADATION MONITORING AND MAPPING Maurizio Sciortino, Luigi De Cecco, Matteo De Felice, Flavio Borfecchia ENEA.
MANE-VU 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory Megan Schuster Inter-RPO Fire and Smoke Technical and Policy Coordination Meeting Austin, TX February 2005.
Potential Landsat Contributions
Image Information Extraction
Phase 1 – 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory
Remote Sensing Landscape Changes Before and After King Fire 2014
Smoke Management in Alaska
Presentation transcript:

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

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.”

U.C. Berkeley –3 User Interface Vegetation Crosswalk Fuel Models Emission Estimation Fuel Loading Fuel Consumption Vegetation Coverage User Parameters Sum Modular System Fire History Map Emissions Reporting

Vegetation Data The GAP vegetation layer –Statewide coverage –Less complex than other vegetation layers such as CALVEG –1990 source data

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).

Fire History – Agency Data CDF fire polygons Historical database Completeness?? Remote sensing based fire map

Algorithms A. Hotspot Detection (modified to CCRS’) Y ES NO AVHRR data preparation Algorithm applied to each pixel Test # 1 T3 > 315 K? Test # 2 T3 –T4>=14 K? Test # 3 T4>=260 K? Fire clear pixels Eliminate cloudy pixel Eliminate warm background, e.g., bare soil

YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Test # 4 Contextual info R2<=30%?R2<=8 neighb P ave-1? T3>8 neighb P ave+5? Test # 5 Wild land cover types? Test # 8 |R1-R2|>1%? Test # 7 R1+R2<=75%? Test # 6 T4-T5<4.0 K and T3-T4>=19 K? Test # 9 One 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

Algorithms B. 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 difference normalized NDVIpost – NDVIpre Step 3. Confirm hotspot pixels using NDVI difference (CBP)

A CBP is assumed to have a negative NDVI difference Step 4. Calculate NDVI difference statistics (mean, SD) of CBP for each landscape type Step 5. Select potential burnt scar pixels (BSPs) A BSP NDVI difference <mean + c*SD (CBP), c can be 0~1 Step 6. Apply a sieve filter to BSPs Filter out a burnt patch of < 2 pixels Step 7. Confirm a BSP with a neighbor CBP and later on a neighbor BSP to create connected burn patches One to four neighbor CBP, BSP to be used for the confirmation Step 8. Filter out a BSP patch of < 2 pixels and false burnt patch Step 9. Output burnt area mask (in TIFF format)

Fire History – RS Data Overlay of CDF and CAMFER data 1996 and 1999 (big fire years)

Overlay of CDF and CAMFER

Quantitative Comparison

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.

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…

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

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?

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