[PPT] - Validation of National Burn Severity Validation of National Burn PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Validation of National Burn Severity Validation of National Burn Severity Validation of National Burn Severity Validation of National Burn Severity Mapping Project Techniques Within Mapping Project Techniques Within A i i A i i the Apalachicola National Forest the Apalachicola National Forest

Joshua J. Picotte

Dr. Kevin Robertson

SLIDE 2

Project Overview Project Overview

Background

Project Questions

Results

Problems

Conclusions

SLIDE 3

Background Background-

Burn Severity and

Burn Severity and Joint Fires Science Program (JFSP) Joint Fires Science Program (JFSP)

Burn Severity

Burn Severity-

ecosystem

ecosystem h d l d h d l d change and landscape change and landscape change change

System developed in 1996

System developed in 1996 b C l K d N t b C l K d N t by Carl Key and Nate by Carl Key and Nate Benson Benson

Started in the Western

Started in the Western U it d St t U it d St t

Key and Benson 1995

United States United States

Initial Fires Assessed

Initial Fires Assessed-

1994

1994 Glacier National Park Fires Glacier National Park Fires

Needs more work in East

JFSP was formed in 1998 to

JFSP was formed in 1998 to provide support for fuel and provide support for fuel and fire management programs fire management programs g p g g p g

Key and Benson 1995

SLIDE 4

Background Background-

Composite Burn Index

Composite Burn Index (CBI) and Normalized Burn Ratio (CBI) and Normalized Burn Ratio (CBI) and Normalized Burn Ratio (CBI) and Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR) (NBR)

i f b i i f b i

NBR

NBR-Remote sensing of burn severity Remote sensing of burn severity

Landsat bands R

Landsat bands R4 and R and R7

NBR = (R

NBR = (R4-R R7)/ (R )/ (R4+R +R7)

dNBR=NBR prefire-NBR postfire

CBI

CBI-

Ground measure of burn severity

Ground measure of burn severity

30 m plot

30 m plot p

CBI should validate NBR values

SLIDE 5

Background Background-

deltaNormalized Burn

deltaNormalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) Ratio (dNBR) Ratio (dNBR) Ratio (dNBR)

dNBR: Change in reflectance

30m 30m 30m

between pre-fire (1 year pre-fire) and post-fire NBR values d dNBR=NBRprefire-NBRpostfire Weighted dNBR = Average of plot t d (N 5)

100 99 Unburned dNBR Severity

center and corners (N=5)

439 659 Moderate High 269 - 439 Low-Moderate 99 - 269 Low

100 - 99

Unburned 659 - 1300 High 439 - 659 Moderate-High

SLIDE 6

Background Background-

Composite Burn

Composite Burn Index (CBI) Index (CBI) Index (CBI) Index (CBI)

Burn Index: 0

Burn Index: 0-3

Burn Index: 0

Burn Index: 0 3

0-Unburned

Unburned

3-Severe Burn

Severe Burn

Five Strata

Five Strata

4-5 Ratings Factors

5 Ratings Factors

Averaged

CBI Score

CBI Score

Average of Five Strata

SLIDE 7

Background Background-

Apalachicola National

Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) Forest (ANF) Forest (ANF) Forest (ANF)

Gulf of Mexico

Unburned

2006 Dormant dNBR

Low Severity Low-Moderate Severity Moderate-High Severity High Severity g y

²

13,716 27,432 6,858 Meters

²

SLIDE 8

Background Background-

Habitats Within ANF

Habitats Within ANF

A. A.

Sandhill Pineland Sandhill Pineland

A.

Turkey Oak

Turkey Oak

Wiregrass

Wiregrass

Bracken Fern

Bracken Fern

Long

Long-

Leaf Pine

Leaf Pine

B. B.

Flatwood Pineland Flatwood Pineland

Palmetto Palmetto B.

Palmetto

Palmetto

Long

Long-

Leaf/Slash Pine

Leaf/Slash Pine

C. C.

Depression Swamp Depression Swamp

C

Cypress

Cypress

Titi

Titi

Pond Pine

Pond Pine C.

SLIDE 9

Project Questions Project Questions

1. 1.

Does this system adequately describe burn severity Does this system adequately describe burn severity y q y y y q y y with the South East ecosystems? with the South East ecosystems?

2. 2.

How long after a fire can burn perimeters be How long after a fire can burn perimeters be l d l d remotely sensed? remotely sensed?

3. 3.

Are there differences in the effectiveness of using Are there differences in the effectiveness of using CBI and dNBR to categorize burn severity in the CBI and dNBR to categorize burn severity in the CBI and dNBR to categorize burn severity in the CBI and dNBR to categorize burn severity in the three community types of the ANF? three community types of the ANF?

4. 4.

What are the appropriate ranges dNBR for given What are the appropriate ranges dNBR for given W e e pp op e ges d

g ve

W e e pp op e ges d

g ve

burn severity categories? burn severity categories?

5. 5.

What problems arise in assessing burn severity? What problems arise in assessing burn severity?

SLIDE 10

Results Results-

Sandhill Burn Severity

Sandhill Burn Severity

25

²

671 1341 335 Meters

15 20

Area

146.7 Unburned Acres Severity

10

Percent Fire

0.225 High 9.675 Moderate-High 318.6 Low-Moderate 617.625 Low

5

dNBR

946.125 Total Burned 1092.825 Total

SLIDE 11

Results Results-

Flatwood Burn Severity

Flatwood Burn Severity

Wet Flatwoods, Initial Assessment

18 20

²

16,002 32,004 8,001 Meters

Acres Severity

12 14 16 18

e Area

1312.2 Moderate-High 3442.725 Low-Moderate 5673.825 Low 9850.5 Unburned

4 6 8 10

Percent Fire

10597.73 Total Burned 20448.23 Total 168.975 High

2 4

dNBR

SLIDE 12

Sandhill

Results Results-

Correlation Between CBI

Correlation Between CBI and dNBR and dNBR

Overall

2 2.5

Sandhill

2 2.5

and dNBR and dNBR

1 1.5

CBI

1 1.5

CBI

0.5

100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

dNBR Weighted

0.5 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

dNBR Weighted

Flatwoods

2 2.5 1 1.5 2

CBI

<0 001 0 767 Flatwoods 0.913 0.000 Sandhills 0.005 0.125 Overall P>Fr R2

0.5

100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

dNBR Weighted

<0.001 0.767 Flatwoods

SLIDE 13

Results Results-

Correlations between CBI

Correlations between CBI and dNBR Within Substrates and dNBR Within Substrates

0.733 0.002 Substrates P>Fr R2

Overall

and dNBR Within Substrates and dNBR Within Substrates

0.079 0.032 Upper Canopy Trees 0.174 0.040 Subcanopy Trees <0.001 0.187 1m < Vegetation < 5m <0.001 0.212 Vegetation < 1m 0.733 0.002 Substrates 0.079 0.032 Upper Canopy Trees

2

Sandhills

2

Flatwoods

39 0 00 S 0.278 0.038 1m < Vegetation < 5m 0.556 0.011 Vegetation < 1m 0.312 0.033 Substrates P>Fr R2 001 09 S <.001 0.499 1m < Vegetation < 5m <.001 0.372 Vegetation < 1m 0.002 0.304 Substrates P>Fr R2 0.328 0.032 Upper Canopy Trees 0.739 0.005 Subcanopy Trees <.001 0.516 Upper Canopy Trees <.001 0.509 Subcanopy Trees

SLIDE 14

Burn Severity Change Detection Burn Severity Change Detection-

Water

Water Water Water

²

2006 Dormant dNBR

823 1646 411 Meters

²

100 201 50 Meters

²

Unburned Low Severity Low-Moderate Severity Moderate-High Severity Moderate High Severity High Severity

Actual Pond Boundary Lakes and Ponds

SLIDE 15

Problematic detection of Low Burn Problematic detection of Low Burn Severity Severity

2006 Dormant dNBR

A. B.

Severity Severity

Unburned Low Severity Low-Moderate Severity Moderate-High Severity

!

30m Plots

High Severity

C.

dNBR CBI Plot

C.

89.6 1.27 C. 59.2 1.23 B. 1 1.23 A.

²

610 1,020 305 Meters

²

SLIDE 16

Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions

Successful in high fire frequency communities

Extrapolation to other communities within the East

U f l t f b it i U f l t f b it i

Useful system for burn monitoring

Sense perimeter months following the burn

Season of remote

Season of remote-

sensing (dNBR) may be

sensing (dNBR) may be limited limited

Useful in assessing the “success” of burn

Useful in assessing the “success” of burn management plans management plans g p g p

SLIDE 17

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

Nate Benson

Jason Drake

Leigh Lentile

Caroline Noble

Joe Noble

Don Ohlen

Kathy Marois

David Printiss

Greg Titus

Eugene Watkins