-
#7/23/2020 Tall Timbers Interim Report Notes # SE FireMap Scoping INT REP 2.pdf How are you spatially assigning active fire detections with burned area products? This requires a lot of processing, so efficiency is key. How did you tag active fire detections with FFS OBA? FMT code that estimates burn severity breakpoints could be easily re-written for GEE. # Questions for call # Are there any gaps or proposed modifications we should consider? Could TTRS potentially create some kind of a fire probability layer? This could be done by examining convergence of all fire detections or potentially by assigning probability to the modelling process. How could TTRS improve the fire modeling process? # What do we like and what do we think is missing? I really the like the multi-faceted approach in considering many data sources that TTRS has considered. How does TTRS get around some of the modeling limitations of BA product? Using their own modeled products? How does TTRS get around the inherent problems with the prescribed fire data records? Can they start using area burned as a way to narrow down the fire location? # How can TTRS improve the scoping process? Share their proposed processing or actual processing schemas. It would be nice to see the details.
Located in
Copy SE FireMap - Technical Oversight Team
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
#7/23/2020 Tall Timbers Interim Report Notes # SE FireMap Scoping INT REP 2.pdf How are you spatially assigning active fire detections with burned area products? This requires a lot of processing, so efficiency is key. How did you tag active fire detections with FFS OBA? FMT code that estimates burn severity breakpoints could be easily re-written for GEE. # Questions for call # Are there any gaps or proposed modifications we should consider? Could TTRS potentially create some kind of a fire probability layer? This could be done by examining convergence of all fire detections or potentially by assigning probability to the modelling process. How could TTRS improve the fire modeling process? # What do we like and what do we think is missing? I really the like the multi-faceted approach in considering many data sources that TTRS has considered. How does TTRS get around some of the modeling limitations of BA product? Using their own modeled products? How does TTRS get around the inherent problems with the prescribed fire data records? Can they start using area burned as a way to narrow down the fire location? # How can TTRS improve the scoping process? Share their proposed processing or actual processing schemas. It would be nice to see the details.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
#7/23/2020 Tall Timbers Interim Report Notes # SE FireMap Scoping INT REP 2.pdf How are you spatially assigning active fire detections with burned area products? This requires a lot of processing, so efficiency is key. How did you tag active fire detections with FFS OBA? FMT code that estimates burn severity breakpoints could be easily re-written for GEE. # Questions for call # Are there any gaps or proposed modifications we should consider? Could TTRS potentially create some kind of a fire probability layer? This could be done by examining convergence of all fire detections or potentially by assigning probability to the modelling process. How could TTRS improve the fire modeling process? # What do we like and what do we think is missing? I really the like the multi-faceted approach in considering many data sources that TTRS has considered. How does TTRS get around some of the modeling limitations of BA product? Using their own modeled products? How does TTRS get around the inherent problems with the prescribed fire data records? Can they start using area burned as a way to narrow down the fire location? # How can TTRS improve the scoping process? Share their proposed processing or actual processing schemas. It would be nice to see the details.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
#7/23/2020 Tall Timbers Interim Report Notes # SE FireMap Scoping INT REP 2.pdf How are you spatially assigning active fire detections with burned area products? This requires a lot of processing, so efficiency is key. How did you tag active fire detections with FFS OBA? FMT code that estimates burn severity breakpoints could be easily re-written for GEE. # Questions for call # Are there any gaps or proposed modifications we should consider? Could TTRS potentially create some kind of a fire probability layer? This could be done by examining convergence of all fire detections or potentially by assigning probability to the modelling process. How could TTRS improve the fire modeling process? # What do we like and what do we think is missing? I really the like the multi-faceted approach in considering many data sources that TTRS has considered. How does TTRS get around some of the modeling limitations of BA product? Using their own modeled products? How does TTRS get around the inherent problems with the prescribed fire data records? Can they start using area burned as a way to narrow down the fire location? # How can TTRS improve the scoping process? Share their proposed processing or actual processing schemas. It would be nice to see the details.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
#7/23/2020 Tall Timbers Interim Report Notes # SE FireMap Scoping INT REP 2.pdf How are you spatially assigning active fire detections with burned area products? This requires a lot of processing, so efficiency is key. How did you tag active fire detections with FFS OBA? FMT code that estimates burn severity breakpoints could be easily re-written for GEE. # Questions for call # Are there any gaps or proposed modifications we should consider? Could TTRS potentially create some kind of a fire probability layer? This could be done by examining convergence of all fire detections or potentially by assigning probability to the modelling process. How could TTRS improve the fire modeling process? # What do we like and what do we think is missing? I really the like the multi-faceted approach in considering many data sources that TTRS has considered. How does TTRS get around some of the modeling limitations of BA product? Using their own modeled products? How does TTRS get around the inherent problems with the prescribed fire data records? Can they start using area burned as a way to narrow down the fire location? # How can TTRS improve the scoping process? Share their proposed processing or actual processing schemas. It would be nice to see the details.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
Although I couldn't attend the meeting, I did watch the entirety of the presentation. I wanted to thank Joe and Eli for such a great presentation! I also wanted to provide some more questions that I have after watching the presentation and the follow-up question/answer session:
1) Would it be helpful to start classifying the fire detections by the ecosystem type in which they encompass? If you're doing the entire SE, you could consider using LANDFIRE or NLCD. Ultimately you would want to decide how narrowly that you want to subdivide vegetation into categories. If you're just interested in doing this for Florida, you could consider FNAI.
The reason that I make this suggestion, is because you'll probably find that some vegetation types are accurately defined by remote products (e.g. BA), while others are not. In my experience, the upland vegetation types are generally easier to map fire than the wetlands. Inherent problems with changes in water levels affect remote sensing products.
2) I think that it might make sense to subdivide the area of interests by equally sized grids or property boundaries to determine where the remote sensing products work and where they don't. I really liked Todd's suggestion about considering managed areas like TTRS as units in which you could then monitor for fire activity.
3) If it's determined that some kind of burn severity products are required as part of the output, you should consider converting differenced Normalized Burned Ratio (dNBR) products to Composite Burn Index. CBI data was been compiled for the conterminous U.S. and Sean Parks has subsequently created a Google Earth Engine workflow to use Random Forest to calculate CBI (see https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/6/879/htm). Additionally I have been developing regression equations based on different scales/vegetation products that could be used. These equations could be implemented in GEE as well and I have already implemented them to convert MTBS dNBR products to CBI.
4) The "scale" of the project really needs to be taken into account. What is the minimum mapping unit? At what scale is accuracy assessed? All of the remote sensing products that are being assessed inherently have different scales at which they're accurate. Product scale and accuracy need to be taken into account for the scoping of this project.
5) At some point in the scoping it might be nice to determine what the options are for processing and subsequently serving data. Admittedly, these would just be suggestions. Whoever ends up subsequently doing the work would decide how to proceed. At least there would be some already researched options available.
6) Could past fire perimeters somehow be used to help map future? Many areas in the Southeast are burned in specific burn units on a specific time interval (e.g. 2 years). If we use a product like the BA product to intersect where areas burn over a specific amount of time, it might be possible to estimate where these burns typically occur and on what interval. You could then "forecast" where burns will likely happen. These forecasts could be potentially tied to specific burn permits so you know essentially "who burns where".
7) What steps could be taken to get private landowners "buy in" for potentially participating in the tracking of burned areas? Maybe it's framed like "if we monitor burned areas we can help determine where hazards might exist for your property". Or, it could be framed as "we produce these products that can help you with your management of your lands". Some landowners will likely have potential issues with being monitored. But, if you can frame it as "we're giving you something that you can use to better manage your lands" it might help.
8) At the end of the day the data "products" that could be produced should be examined. Depending on your audience, you'll want to range between simple (e.g. summaries, pdfs, kmzs) and actual geospatial data products. If these products are planned well for different users, you might get more buy-in from private land-owners. I really think that TTRS is positioned well to be able to "sell" the idea of how this work can lead to better management outcomes, while maintaining landowner privacy.
Located in
Copy SE FireMap - Technical Oversight Team
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
Although I couldn't attend the meeting, I did watch the entirety of the presentation. I wanted to thank Joe and Eli for such a great presentation! I also wanted to provide some more questions that I have after watching the presentation and the follow-up question/answer session:
1) Would it be helpful to start classifying the fire detections by the ecosystem type in which they encompass? If you're doing the entire SE, you could consider using LANDFIRE or NLCD. Ultimately you would want to decide how narrowly that you want to subdivide vegetation into categories. If you're just interested in doing this for Florida, you could consider FNAI.
The reason that I make this suggestion, is because you'll probably find that some vegetation types are accurately defined by remote products (e.g. BA), while others are not. In my experience, the upland vegetation types are generally easier to map fire than the wetlands. Inherent problems with changes in water levels affect remote sensing products.
2) I think that it might make sense to subdivide the area of interests by equally sized grids or property boundaries to determine where the remote sensing products work and where they don't. I really liked Todd's suggestion about considering managed areas like TTRS as units in which you could then monitor for fire activity.
3) If it's determined that some kind of burn severity products are required as part of the output, you should consider converting differenced Normalized Burned Ratio (dNBR) products to Composite Burn Index. CBI data was been compiled for the conterminous U.S. and Sean Parks has subsequently created a Google Earth Engine workflow to use Random Forest to calculate CBI (see https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/6/879/htm). Additionally I have been developing regression equations based on different scales/vegetation products that could be used. These equations could be implemented in GEE as well and I have already implemented them to convert MTBS dNBR products to CBI.
4) The "scale" of the project really needs to be taken into account. What is the minimum mapping unit? At what scale is accuracy assessed? All of the remote sensing products that are being assessed inherently have different scales at which they're accurate. Product scale and accuracy need to be taken into account for the scoping of this project.
5) At some point in the scoping it might be nice to determine what the options are for processing and subsequently serving data. Admittedly, these would just be suggestions. Whoever ends up subsequently doing the work would decide how to proceed. At least there would be some already researched options available.
6) Could past fire perimeters somehow be used to help map future? Many areas in the Southeast are burned in specific burn units on a specific time interval (e.g. 2 years). If we use a product like the BA product to intersect where areas burn over a specific amount of time, it might be possible to estimate where these burns typically occur and on what interval. You could then "forecast" where burns will likely happen. These forecasts could be potentially tied to specific burn permits so you know essentially "who burns where".
7) What steps could be taken to get private landowners "buy in" for potentially participating in the tracking of burned areas? Maybe it's framed like "if we monitor burned areas we can help determine where hazards might exist for your property". Or, it could be framed as "we produce these products that can help you with your management of your lands". Some landowners will likely have potential issues with being monitored. But, if you can frame it as "we're giving you something that you can use to better manage your lands" it might help.
8) At the end of the day the data "products" that could be produced should be examined. Depending on your audience, you'll want to range between simple (e.g. summaries, pdfs, kmzs) and actual geospatial data products. If these products are planned well for different users, you might get more buy-in from private land-owners. I really think that TTRS is positioned well to be able to "sell" the idea of how this work can lead to better management outcomes, while maintaining landowner privacy.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
Although I couldn't attend the meeting, I did watch the entirety of the presentation. I wanted to thank Joe and Eli for such a great presentation! I also wanted to provide some more questions that I have after watching the presentation and the follow-up question/answer session:
1) Would it be helpful to start classifying the fire detections by the ecosystem type in which they encompass? If you're doing the entire SE, you could consider using LANDFIRE or NLCD. Ultimately you would want to decide how narrowly that you want to subdivide vegetation into categories. If you're just interested in doing this for Florida, you could consider FNAI.
The reason that I make this suggestion, is because you'll probably find that some vegetation types are accurately defined by remote products (e.g. BA), while others are not. In my experience, the upland vegetation types are generally easier to map fire than the wetlands. Inherent problems with changes in water levels affect remote sensing products.
2) I think that it might make sense to subdivide the area of interests by equally sized grids or property boundaries to determine where the remote sensing products work and where they don't. I really liked Todd's suggestion about considering managed areas like TTRS as units in which you could then monitor for fire activity.
3) If it's determined that some kind of burn severity products are required as part of the output, you should consider converting differenced Normalized Burned Ratio (dNBR) products to Composite Burn Index. CBI data was been compiled for the conterminous U.S. and Sean Parks has subsequently created a Google Earth Engine workflow to use Random Forest to calculate CBI (see https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/6/879/htm). Additionally I have been developing regression equations based on different scales/vegetation products that could be used. These equations could be implemented in GEE as well and I have already implemented them to convert MTBS dNBR products to CBI.
4) The "scale" of the project really needs to be taken into account. What is the minimum mapping unit? At what scale is accuracy assessed? All of the remote sensing products that are being assessed inherently have different scales at which they're accurate. Product scale and accuracy need to be taken into account for the scoping of this project.
5) At some point in the scoping it might be nice to determine what the options are for processing and subsequently serving data. Admittedly, these would just be suggestions. Whoever ends up subsequently doing the work would decide how to proceed. At least there would be some already researched options available.
6) Could past fire perimeters somehow be used to help map future? Many areas in the Southeast are burned in specific burn units on a specific time interval (e.g. 2 years). If we use a product like the BA product to intersect where areas burn over a specific amount of time, it might be possible to estimate where these burns typically occur and on what interval. You could then "forecast" where burns will likely happen. These forecasts could be potentially tied to specific burn permits so you know essentially "who burns where".
7) What steps could be taken to get private landowners "buy in" for potentially participating in the tracking of burned areas? Maybe it's framed like "if we monitor burned areas we can help determine where hazards might exist for your property". Or, it could be framed as "we produce these products that can help you with your management of your lands". Some landowners will likely have potential issues with being monitored. But, if you can frame it as "we're giving you something that you can use to better manage your lands" it might help.
8) At the end of the day the data "products" that could be produced should be examined. Depending on your audience, you'll want to range between simple (e.g. summaries, pdfs, kmzs) and actual geospatial data products. If these products are planned well for different users, you might get more buy-in from private land-owners. I really think that TTRS is positioned well to be able to "sell" the idea of how this work can lead to better management outcomes, while maintaining landowner privacy.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
Although I couldn't attend the meeting, I did watch the entirety of the presentation. I wanted to thank Joe and Eli for such a great presentation! I also wanted to provide some more questions that I have after watching the presentation and the follow-up question/answer session:
1) Would it be helpful to start classifying the fire detections by the ecosystem type in which they encompass? If you're doing the entire SE, you could consider using LANDFIRE or NLCD. Ultimately you would want to decide how narrowly that you want to subdivide vegetation into categories. If you're just interested in doing this for Florida, you could consider FNAI.
The reason that I make this suggestion, is because you'll probably find that some vegetation types are accurately defined by remote products (e.g. BA), while others are not. In my experience, the upland vegetation types are generally easier to map fire than the wetlands. Inherent problems with changes in water levels affect remote sensing products.
2) I think that it might make sense to subdivide the area of interests by equally sized grids or property boundaries to determine where the remote sensing products work and where they don't. I really liked Todd's suggestion about considering managed areas like TTRS as units in which you could then monitor for fire activity.
3) If it's determined that some kind of burn severity products are required as part of the output, you should consider converting differenced Normalized Burned Ratio (dNBR) products to Composite Burn Index. CBI data was been compiled for the conterminous U.S. and Sean Parks has subsequently created a Google Earth Engine workflow to use Random Forest to calculate CBI (see https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/6/879/htm). Additionally I have been developing regression equations based on different scales/vegetation products that could be used. These equations could be implemented in GEE as well and I have already implemented them to convert MTBS dNBR products to CBI.
4) The "scale" of the project really needs to be taken into account. What is the minimum mapping unit? At what scale is accuracy assessed? All of the remote sensing products that are being assessed inherently have different scales at which they're accurate. Product scale and accuracy need to be taken into account for the scoping of this project.
5) At some point in the scoping it might be nice to determine what the options are for processing and subsequently serving data. Admittedly, these would just be suggestions. Whoever ends up subsequently doing the work would decide how to proceed. At least there would be some already researched options available.
6) Could past fire perimeters somehow be used to help map future? Many areas in the Southeast are burned in specific burn units on a specific time interval (e.g. 2 years). If we use a product like the BA product to intersect where areas burn over a specific amount of time, it might be possible to estimate where these burns typically occur and on what interval. You could then "forecast" where burns will likely happen. These forecasts could be potentially tied to specific burn permits so you know essentially "who burns where".
7) What steps could be taken to get private landowners "buy in" for potentially participating in the tracking of burned areas? Maybe it's framed like "if we monitor burned areas we can help determine where hazards might exist for your property". Or, it could be framed as "we produce these products that can help you with your management of your lands". Some landowners will likely have potential issues with being monitored. But, if you can frame it as "we're giving you something that you can use to better manage your lands" it might help.
8) At the end of the day the data "products" that could be produced should be examined. Depending on your audience, you'll want to range between simple (e.g. summaries, pdfs, kmzs) and actual geospatial data products. If these products are planned well for different users, you might get more buy-in from private land-owners. I really think that TTRS is positioned well to be able to "sell" the idea of how this work can lead to better management outcomes, while maintaining landowner privacy.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
-
Although I couldn't attend the meeting, I did watch the entirety of the presentation. I wanted to thank Joe and Eli for such a great presentation! I also wanted to provide some more questions that I have after watching the presentation and the follow-up question/answer session:
1) Would it be helpful to start classifying the fire detections by the ecosystem type in which they encompass? If you're doing the entire SE, you could consider using LANDFIRE or NLCD. Ultimately you would want to decide how narrowly that you want to subdivide vegetation into categories. If you're just interested in doing this for Florida, you could consider FNAI.
The reason that I make this suggestion, is because you'll probably find that some vegetation types are accurately defined by remote products (e.g. BA), while others are not. In my experience, the upland vegetation types are generally easier to map fire than the wetlands. Inherent problems with changes in water levels affect remote sensing products.
2) I think that it might make sense to subdivide the area of interests by equally sized grids or property boundaries to determine where the remote sensing products work and where they don't. I really liked Todd's suggestion about considering managed areas like TTRS as units in which you could then monitor for fire activity.
3) If it's determined that some kind of burn severity products are required as part of the output, you should consider converting differenced Normalized Burned Ratio (dNBR) products to Composite Burn Index. CBI data was been compiled for the conterminous U.S. and Sean Parks has subsequently created a Google Earth Engine workflow to use Random Forest to calculate CBI (see https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/6/879/htm). Additionally I have been developing regression equations based on different scales/vegetation products that could be used. These equations could be implemented in GEE as well and I have already implemented them to convert MTBS dNBR products to CBI.
4) The "scale" of the project really needs to be taken into account. What is the minimum mapping unit? At what scale is accuracy assessed? All of the remote sensing products that are being assessed inherently have different scales at which they're accurate. Product scale and accuracy need to be taken into account for the scoping of this project.
5) At some point in the scoping it might be nice to determine what the options are for processing and subsequently serving data. Admittedly, these would just be suggestions. Whoever ends up subsequently doing the work would decide how to proceed. At least there would be some already researched options available.
6) Could past fire perimeters somehow be used to help map future? Many areas in the Southeast are burned in specific burn units on a specific time interval (e.g. 2 years). If we use a product like the BA product to intersect where areas burn over a specific amount of time, it might be possible to estimate where these burns typically occur and on what interval. You could then "forecast" where burns will likely happen. These forecasts could be potentially tied to specific burn permits so you know essentially "who burns where".
7) What steps could be taken to get private landowners "buy in" for potentially participating in the tracking of burned areas? Maybe it's framed like "if we monitor burned areas we can help determine where hazards might exist for your property". Or, it could be framed as "we produce these products that can help you with your management of your lands". Some landowners will likely have potential issues with being monitored. But, if you can frame it as "we're giving you something that you can use to better manage your lands" it might help.
8) At the end of the day the data "products" that could be produced should be examined. Depending on your audience, you'll want to range between simple (e.g. summaries, pdfs, kmzs) and actual geospatial data products. If these products are planned well for different users, you might get more buy-in from private land-owners. I really think that TTRS is positioned well to be able to "sell" the idea of how this work can lead to better management outcomes, while maintaining landowner privacy.
Located in
Workspace
/
…
/
General TOT Scoping Recommendations & Feedback
/
General Scoping Recommendations/Discussion
