multi-scale mapping of fire regime condition class

Multi-scale MappingMulti-scale MappingOfOf

Fire Regime Condition ClassFire Regime Condition Class

Why Map?

• Communication• “Guidebook”

characterizes FRCC but not spatially

• Spatially identify restoration opportunities

Why Develop a Tool?

• Most land managers lack GIS skills

• Many analytical tasks are repetitive

• Automation saves time, money, and reduces analytical errors

• Consistency & repeatability

Mapping Tool Objectives

• Compare existing condition to the reference condition• Derive and spatially display departure indices• Spatially identify restoration opportunities• Report change necessary to mimic reference condition• Conduct change detection between existing condition & proposed

treatment

Excessive Similar Deficient

Relative Amount

FRCC Mapping Tool

Model inputs

Spatial Data• Biophysical setting (e.g., BpS)• Existing condition of successional

states (e.g., veg-fuel classes)• Landscapes (e.g., reporting units)

Tabular Data• Reference condition table• Landscape to BpS crosswalk

Model outputs

Spatial Data• Veg-Fuel Class Percent Difference• Veg-Fuel Class Relative Amount• Veg-Fuel Condition Class: std level• Veg-Fuel Class Departure• Veg-Fuel Condition Class• Landscape Departure

Tabular Data• Landscape Reports

Model Inputs

• Data Requirements

– Continuous & consistent

– Any scale (geographic extent & resolution)

– Capable of discriminating BpS & Veg-Fuel classes

• Data Sources

– Remote Sensing

• Satellite imagery

• Photo interpretation

– Stand exam

– Field-level mapping

Biophysical Settings(BpS)

Derivation of BpSPvt Hfr BpS

abgr1 ms1 PPDF1

abgr1 ms2 PPDF1

abgr1 nl PPDF1

abgr2 ms2 DFIR2

abgr2 sr1 GFDF

abgr3 ms2 GFDF

abla1 ms2 SPFI1

abla2 ms2 SPFI1

abla2 sr1 SPFI1

abla3 ms2 SPFI1

abla3 sr1 SPFI1

abla4 ms3 SPFI2

abla4 sr1 SPFI2

drygrass ii MGRA1

dryshrub iii MSHB1

fesida ii MGRA2

fessca ii MGRA1

laly ms3 SPFI2

mesicshrub iii MSHB1

pial ms3 SPFI2

•Biophysical setting (PVT)•Historical Fire Regime (HFR)•75 unique combinations in R1VMP

PVT HFR

Vegetation-Fuel Class(Structural Stage Class)

• Structure– Open

– Closed

• Seral state– Early seral

– Mid seral

– Late seral

Derivation of Veg-fuel Class• PVT• HFR• BpS• Dominance type• Size class• Canopy cover class

BpS Dom Size Canopy Vegfuel

PPDF1 GFB grass/forb grass/forb a

PPDF1 IMXS 0-5 in dbh high a

PPDF1 IMXS 0-5 in dbh low a

PPDF1 IMXS 0-5 in dbh moderate a

PPDF1 IMXS 10-15 in dbh high b

PPDF1 IMXS 10-15 in dbh low c

PPDF1 IMXS 10-15 in dbh moderate b

PPDF1 IMXS 15+ in dbh high e

PPDF1 IMXS 15+ in dbh low d

PPDF1 IMXS 15+ in dbh moderate e

PPDF1 IMXS 5-10 in dbh high b

PPDF1 IMXS 5-10 in dbh low c

PPDF1 IMXS 5-10 in dbh moderate b

}4,500 combinations in R1VMP

Derivation of Veg-fuel Class - R1VMP

Size Canopy Cover Veg-fuel Class

0-5 in dbh all A – early seral

5-10 in dbh

10-15 in dbhhigh (>60%) B – mid-seral; closed

5-10 in dbh

10-15 in dbh

low (10-25%)

moderate (25-60%)C – mid-seral; open

>15 in dbhlow (10-25%)

moderate (25-60%)D – late-seral; open

>15 in dbh high (>60%) E – late-seral; closed

**Except where PVT = PICO, PIFL, PIPO, PSME1

Landscapes• Geographic units for deriving composition of veg-fuel

classes for any given BpS

• Nested hierarchy; up to 3 levels

• Vary by BpS/Fire regime group

HUC6 HUC5 HUC4

HFR I and II HFR III HFR IV and V

Landscapes(Reporting Units)

• Geographic units for deriving composition of veg-fuel classes for any given BpS

• Nested hierarchy; up to 3 levels

• Vary by BpS/Fire regime group

HUC6 HUC5 HUC4

HFR I and II HFR III HFR IV and V

Reference Condition (HRV)

Potential Natural Vegetation (BpS)Vegetation-fuel

Class Composition

FireRegime

LandscapeHierarchy

Code Name A B C D E

AAOW Alder-Ash (Oregon, Washington) 22 52 3 2 21 IV 3

CAME California Mixed Evergreen 10 30 15 20 25 I 1

CHDF Cedar-Hemlock_Douglas-fir 10 35 5 5 45 V 3

CHPI Cedar-Hemock-Pine (Washington) 15 49 1 5 30 IV 3

DFIR1 Douglas-fir Interior Pacific Northwest 10 10 20 45 15 I 1

DFIR2 Douglas-fir Interior Rocky Mountains 15 25 20 25 15 III 2

FHWO1 Fir-Hemlock (Washington, Oregon), Forest 15 25 5 10 45 V 3

GFDF Grand Fir-Douglas fir 15 45 10 5 25 III 2

LPSC Lodgepole pine-Subalpine CA 20 10 30 30 10 III 2

MCAN Southwestern Mixed Conifer 10 5 20 60 5 I 1

•Midpoint of HRV for veg-fuel classes•Derived from VDDT•Includes landscape hierarchy

Veg-Fuel ClassPercent Difference

• The difference between existing veg-fuel class composition and the reference condition

• Indicates the veg-fuel classes that are most deficient to most excessive

• Most informative of all the indices

Values: -100 to 100Negative = too little;Positive = too much

Veg-Fuel ClassRelative Amount

• Classification of the Percent Difference (lose information)

• Identifies excessive and deficient amounts of veg-fuel classes

• Suggests management scenarios– Maintain veg-class (similar)– Recruit veg-class (deficient)– Reduce veg-class (excessive)

Trace Under Represent Similar Over Represent Abundant

Veg-Fuel Condition Class: Stand Level

• Classification of relative abundance

• Suggest management scenarios:– CC1 = maintain/recruit

– CC2 = reduce

– CC3 = reduce

• Useful for NFPORS reporting

PercentDifference

(%)Relative Abundance

Std-levelFRCC

<25Similar, Under Represented, Trace

1

25 to 75 Over Represented 2

>75 Abundant 3

Veg-Fuel ClassDeparture

• Signifies the overall departure across all vegetation-fuel classes within a BpS

• Values = 0 to 100• Useful for prioritizing

BpSs for restoration

Veg-Fuel Condition Class(BpS-level)

• Classification of Veg-Fuel departure

• Stratified by BpS & landscape

• Represents the vegetation component of FRCC

Vegetation-FuelDeparture (%)

Vegetation-FuelCondition Class

<34 1

34 to 66 2

>66 3

Landscape Departure

• Area-weighted average of Veg-Fuel departure at lowest level of the landscape hierarchy

• Useful for prioritizing landscapes

• Values range between 0 and 100

Reports• How much change is necessary to mimic the

reference condition?• What Veg-Fuel Classes need to be treated?• Unique by landscape level

Where are we??

• Completed 1st round of beta-testing– Gila– Northern Region– Klamath

• Testing change detection• Editing “User Manual”• Release beta version in March

All models are wrong…

…but some are useful.

George E. P. Box