Berry Fire (2016) Fire Behavior and Hydrology Correlation

HUC (17040101), Grand Teton, Wyoming

Saad Baloch FOR 433

FMP Part 3 1

Berry Fire (2016) Fire Behavior and Hydrology Correlation

Abstract Wildfires are a natural hazard that occur every year in the US and are potential hazards
for the vegetation, water resources and wildlife. The focus of this project was the Berry wildfire
that took place in the Grand Teton National Park in 2016. It was the largest fire in the history of
Grand Teton. Wildfires have a profound impact on the hydrology of the area, and it influences
hydrological processes such as evapotranspiration (ET), streamflow and discharge. The results of
the analysis showed that the overall ET for the months of August and September were reduced in
2016 and the area experienced a peak runoff during and after month of September in 2016. These
results can help in a better understanding of wildfire hydrological implications and can help in a
better water resource management.

Project Introduction The study area is located in the Grand Teton national park, Wyoming, and
comes under the region of HUC-17040101 watershed. The watershed as a whole is part of the
Upper Snake River Basin. The coordinates of the area are 44°01'29.11" N and 110°44'23.90"
with an elevation 7336ft above sea level. The 17040101 watershed is called the Snake
Headwaters, and the watershed spans over an area of 4431.06 km2. The Grand Teton national
part is situated south of Yellowstone National park and towards of the town of Jackson. The
Grand Teton spreads over 310,000 acres consisting of valley floors, mountain meadows, alpine
lakes and the rising peaks of the Teton Range.

The study area focuses on the 2016 Berry Creek Fire, that was the largest wildfire in
Grand Teton National Park’s History. The wildland fire burned approximately 20,000 acres of
timber and grassland along with trails and trail structures, such as bridges, retaining walls,
causeways and timber steps. As we know that hydrology and wildfire are highly correlated to
one another and hydrology plays an influential part on wildfires, and even the wildfires impact
the hydrology of the area. So, it would be interesting to synthesize information on how the
hydrological conditions were prior to the fire? and how the post-wildfire hydrology was affected
by the Berry wildfire. The aim of this project is to perform an analysis on the hydrology
influenced by the Berry wildfire. By understanding the relationship between the hydrology and
fire behavior of the area, it can better inform agencies to manage the wildfires as well as water
resources of the area.
FMP Part 3 2

Figure 1 Study Area

FMP Part 3 3

Models Introduction Fire management analysis relies on multiple models and programs for
successful execution of the project. These models/programs are interdependent on one another in
several ways. Each program is designed for a specific purpose, and the results from one program
can be used as input in another model. For this project, several programs were used, which
include Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FBFM), Fire Family Plus (FFP), The Interagency Fuel
Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS), FlamMap, and LANDFIRE. The first part of the
project was to create a weather summary report in FFP for the Berry wildfire area (Grand Teton)
using the LANDFIRE data. Furthermore, vegetation impacted by the Berry wildland fire was
analyzed in IFTDSS. FFP is a free publicly accessible software for observing past weather, fire
hazard rating and fire incidence probability. Limitations of FFP include not having the option to
save the graphs and figures generated (Andrews, Loftsgaarden, & Bradshaw, 2003). Before
LANDFIRE, there was Fire Area Simulator (FARSITE) landscape file (LCP), but this file was
restricted to places which had the experience, financial capacity and requirements for fire
analysis. Thus, leading to an irregular collection of LCPS for fire and fuel management experts.
But with introduction of the LANDFIRE database, which covered the entire U.S. including the
islands, Hawaii and Alaska, these limitations that prevalent in LCPs were diminished or taken
care of. This was also since LANDFIRE consisted of fire, vegetation and fuel mapping data that
gave country wide uniform and regular products, and data could be easily and mostly free
obtained (Krasnow, Schoennagel, & Veblen, 2009). LANDFIRE data has its limitations such as
location precision due to low spatial resolution (30m), this is leads to inaccurately differentiated
vegetation and soil types and landcover change. The second part of the project involved
validation of LANDFIRE output using FlamMap. FlamMap is a Windows based 64-bit spatial
fire mapping and investigation software, which models possible fire activity. One of the things to
look out for in FlamMap is that the default values used in FlamMap for a scenario may not
necessarily match with the real-world observations in that temporal window. So, it would be
wise to compare FlamMap values with ground observations. Non spatial models such as
FlamMap have never used by NEPA and or in a legal framework (Ager, Vaillant, & Finney,
2011).The third part of the project involved hydrological analysis of the study area and
correlating the modeling results with the Berry wildfire modeling results. Before discussing each
of these models one thing to keep in mind is that every model is wrong, some are useful.
Weather Overview The average climatology (2007-2017) of the Berry wildfire area based on
the analysis performed on FFP using the Coyote Station information is such that the
snow/precipitation season starts in October, meaning the temperature and burning index start to
decrease and the relative humidity starts to rise. On the other hand, during the dry season, the
burning index starts to rise due to less humidity (moisture) content and higher temperatures. For
the purpose of the analysis, several climatology variables were selected for this comparison
analysis. These variables include the dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, burning index,
precipitation amount, precipitation duration, 1-hour fuel moisture, 10- hour fuel moisture, 100-
hour fuel moisture, herbaceous fuel moisture and the woody fuel moisture. This has been shown
in Figures 2. Similarly, the weather summary for the Berry wildfire year 2016 has been shown in
Figure 3.
FMP Part 3 4

Figure 2 10-year weather summary for temperature, burning index (BI) and relative humidity (RH)

Figure 3 Fire year weather summary for temperature, BI and RH

Landscape Overview The key vegetation characteristic values for the Berry wildfire year are
given in Figure 4. The graphs show the values for major fuel types (TU1, TU5 and TL3 in this
case), canopy cover (CC), canopy base density (CBD) and canopy base height (CBH). The zero-
value bar in CC, CBD and CBH graphs is quite high, which does seem to represent the severity
of the Berry wildfire. This information for the Berry wildland fire can be validated by comparing
it with field data. Furthermore, the major fuel types show in Figure 4 can be validated by
comparing it will NLCD landcover/vegetation type classification system for 2016. Figure 5
showing the NLCD 2016 classification does seem to correspond with the major fuel types
reported by IFTDSS, as most of vegetation in the fire area is dominated by evergreen forest and
shrub/scrubs. The map zone for the Berry fire study area falls under map zone 21. The FBFM
models for the Berry wildfire area were produced in IFTDSS and are shown in Figure 6. Since
the resolution of the pixels is 30x30, we cannot get results with absolute certainty. Upon
comparing NLCD classification with LANDFIRE classification as shown in Figure 7, the NLCD
2016 classification shows NB9 as shrubs and herbaceous plants, so which classification is more
FMP Part 3 5

accurate then relies on field data. Another way to help with resolution issues and data quality
would be to use LiDAR data, as LiDAR data’s resolution is very high.

Figure 4 Key vegetation characteristics values

FMP Part 3 6

Figure 5 NLCD 2016 vegetation classification

FMP Part 3 7

Figure 6 FBFM types

FMP Part 3 8

Figure 7 NB9 (below) and open land (above)

Fire Behavior Overview The IFTDSS fire behavior analysis were generated by using the fire
behavior model tool under cycle section of the IFTDSS website. The initial moisture and wind
data were taken from FFP, Scott/Reinhardt method was chosen with 100% foliar moisture
content under crown fire input. The rest of the options were not changed. The moisture variables
and wind values used for the analysis are shown in Table 1. Once the models were generated for
90th and 9th percentile, the vector data was imported into ArcGIS for map generation and the
tables were imported into Microsoft Excel to produce bar graphs.
FMP Part 3 9

Table 1 IFTDSS Landscape behavior values

Fuel 1 Hr 10 Hr 100 Hr Live Live Wind Wind

Moisture Fuel Fuel Fuel Herbaceous Woody Speed Direction
Moisture Moisture Moisture Fuel Fuel
Moisture Moisture
All 2 4 8 161 173 15 243
All 3 4 8 178 188 19 322

In case of crown fire activity (CFA), both the 90th and 97th percentile data show (Figure 8
and 9) that the Berry Fire area during a 10-year period (2006-2016) is mostly impacted by
surface fire activity. There are some patches of unburned and passive crown fire present as well
in the area. The passive fire is due to the surface fuels involved in spreading of the fire for stand
torching. The rate of spread (ROS) analysis generated by IFTDSS shows that the study is mostly
influenced by low rate of spread. Although, there is a small patch of ROS from 5.1-10% in the
90th percentile in Figures 10 and 11. The flame length (FL) data from IFTDSS reveals a lower
value for the 10-year period. The FL range from 4.1-8 shows variation in the two percentiles in
Figures 12 and 13.

Crown Fire Acti vity Comparison

20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Non-burnable Surface Fire Passive Fire Active Fire

15mph 19mph

Figure 8 CFA 15mph vs 19mph

FMP Part 3 10

Figure 9 CFA
FMP Part 3 11

Rate of Spread Comparison

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
Non-burnable >0 - 2 >2 - 5 >5 - 20 >20 - 50 >50 - 150 >150

15mph 19mph

Figure 10 15mph vs 19mph

FMP Part 3 12

Figure 11 ROS 90th percentile vs 97th percentile

FMP Part 3 13

Flame Length Comparison

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
Non-burnable >0 - 1 >1 - 4 >4 - 8 >8 - 11 >11 - 25 >25

15mph 19mph

Figure 12 Wind speeds 15mph vs 19mph

FMP Part 3 14

Figure 13 FL

Methods and Data The analysis was based on literature review to affirm the findings from the
SNOTEL and stream gage data along with ET data. SNOTEL station 764 and stream gage
13010065 were chosen for the hydrological analysis. These stations are in very close proximity
of the study area, and so the data is a better representative of the area. Furthermore, the SNOTEL
station data was collected from the NRCS website (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/), and
the stream gage data was collected from the USGS website
(https://waterdata.usgs.gov/wy/nwis/uv?site_no=13010065). The precipitation data was inserted
FMP Part 3 15

into the SNOTEL shapefile attribute table in ArcGIS in order to create the precipitation
comparison graph. Furthermore, The ET was collected from the USGS Early Warning and
Environmental Monitoring Program Product (https://earlywarning.usgs.gov/ssebop/modis/8-
day/607). The data was in raster format and imported into ArcGIS and clipped in accordance to
the study area, so that representative values of ET could be derived.

Discussion and Results The decrease in vegetation cover and variations in soil properties linked
with wildfires prompt a rise in erosion rates after a high burn severity wildfire. Various
influences govern the size and time period of erosion rate increment, the size and extremity of
wildfires are a couple of these factors. These factors also command the magnitude of vegetation
loss and variation in soil properties and surface run off after the wildfire (Caitlin & Pelletier
2016). Moreover, wildfires lead to a reduced evapotranspiration (ET) due to a loss of vegetation
foliage and hydrological processes. Similarly, grass superseding trees with deep roots can also
cause a lower ET. The decrease in ET is associated with reduced precipitation change to vapor,
hence more water is available for runoff. Since ET plays a major role in water budget, a change
in ET can transfer the division among governing water fluxes like infiltration and surface runoff.
This reduction in ET after the wildfire is associated to landscape variations caused by a wildfire
(Poon & Kinoshita, 2018).

This was also the case for the Berry fire, this was confirmed by downloading the actual
ET data for the Berry fire area from the USGS Early Warning and Environmental Monitoring
Program. The ET comparison was done for the years 2015-2017. As seen in Figure 14 and 15,
the ET was lower in 2016 than both 2015 and 2017 for the months of August and September.
The ET highest value for 08/2015 is 128, which is less than both 2016 and 2017 for the same
month. Similarly, the highest value of ET for September for 2016 is 69, which is again less than
2015 and 2017 for the same month. In the end, a comparison map (Figure 16) between the fire
behavior and evapotranspiration was performed in order to see how the fire behavior corresponds
to the ET values for 08/16.
FMP Part 3 16

Figure 14 ET three-year comparison for August

FMP Part 3 17

Figure 15 ET three-year comparison for September

FMP Part 3 18

Figure 16 ET three-year comparison for September

Canopy height and cover change along with the burnt extent of the vegetation play a
major role in the surface hydrology processes. Loss in canopy cover means there will be a
reduction in interception, which will result in more through fall. This is can in return result in
increased runoff. Similarly, wildfires can also enhance the runoff rate due to the storms after a
wildfire impact on soil along with reducing the evapotranspiration rate (Hallema, et al. 2017).
Moreover, wildfire increase hydrophobicity of the soil and this can make the soil highly erosive
until soils lose their hydrophobicity and vegetation starts to grow back again (Leitch et al., 1983).
Furthermore, due to the reduction in soil infiltration and transpiration because of the loss of
vegetation canopy leads to an increased streamflow (Wine & Cadol 2016). Similarly, wildfires
have a great influence on streamflow by changing the overall precipitation, infiltration, ET etc.
This is due to impact of wildfires on near soil hydrological processes (Hallema, et al. 2017).

The effects of wildland fires can also be the cause of an increase in peak discharges as
reported by (Leopardi & Scorzini 2015). This was also the case for the Berry fire. Discharge data
FMP Part 3 19

was collected for a three-year period from 2015-2017. The data for the Snake River AB Jackson
Lake at Flagg ranch, WY, stream gage (13010065), as this stream gage is situated at along the
Berry fire area. The data was collected from the USGS website. It can be in Figure 4 that there is
peak discharge after the month of September for the year 2016. Whereas this is not the case for
the month of September for both 2015 and 2016. This can be again attributed to the impact of
Berry fire on the hydrophobicity of soils, decreased infiltration capacity of soils and reduced
canopy interception. This was further verified by the collecting the discharge data for the same
time period and stream gage station. And those results also showed a peak in discharge after the
month of September in 2016 due to the altered hydrological properties of the study area. The
results can be Figure 5 Furthermore, it was found out that the year 2016 received an overall
lesser amount of precipitation than the year 2017. This explains that the year 2016 was a hotter
and drier year than 2017, thus being the precursor for the Berry fire. The precipitation data for
the Berry Area was collected in accordance with the Snake river SNOTEL station 764, as station
764 is along the Berry area, and so is more representative of the meteorological conditions of the
area. The map seen in Figure 6 was produced in ArcGIS.
FMP Part 3 20

The streamflow data was verified by collecting the discharge data for the same time period. This
can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 18 Discharge three-year comparison

FMP Part 3 21

Figure 19 Precipitation Comparison 2016-2017

Conclusion The resutls from the hydrological analysis shows how the Berry fire altered the
hydrological processes of the area in 2016, which resulted in reduced ET. Fruthermore, the area
experienced a peak runoff in 2016 soon after the Berry fire. These findings can be attributed to
the weather summary and vegetation analysis performed in Project 1 and Project 2. Thus, the
project shows how wildfires impact the hydrological, vegetation and soil characteristics of an
area. Similarly, the peak runoff woould have also resulted in erosion, sediment/litter depostion
and contamination of nearby streams. During the project analysis, it was found that no research
have been performed on the Berry wildfire hydrological implictaions. Hence, there is a potetnial
to perform a comprehensive hydrological analysis of the study area before and after the Berry
fire. The results from this research can better inform concerned agencies on water resource
management and understading the strong correlation between wildfires and hyrlogy.
FMP Part 3 22

References

Ager, A. A., Vaillant, N. M., & Finney, M. A. (2011). Integrating Fire Behavior Models and
Geospatial Analysis for Wildland Fire Risk Assessment and Fuel Management
Planning. Journal of Cmbustion, 2011. doi: doi.org/10.1155/2011/572452
Andrews, P. L., Loftsgaarden, D. O., & Bradshaw, L. S. (2003). Evaluation of fire danger rating
indexes using logistic regression and percentile analysis. International Journal of Wildland
Fire, 12(2), 213. doi: 10.1071/wf02059
Hallema, Dennis W., et al. “Regional Patterns of Postwildfire Streamflow Response in the
Western United States: The Importance of Scale‐Specific Connectivity.” Hydrological Processes,
vol. 31, no. 14, 2017, pp. 2582–2598., doi:10.1002/hyp.11208
Krasnow, K., Schoennagel, T., & Veblen, T. T. (2009). Forest fuel mapping and evaluation of
LANDFIRE fuel maps in Boulder County, Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and
Management, 257(7), 1603–1612. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.020
Leopardi, M, and Ar Scorzini. “Effects of Wildfires on Peak Discharges in Watersheds.” IForest
- Biogeosciences and Forestry, vol. 8, no. 3, Jan. 2015, pp. 302–307., doi:10.3832/ifor1120-007.
Orem, C. A., & Pelletier, J. D. (2016). The predominance of post‐wildfire erosion in the long‐
term denudation of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth
Surface,121(5), 843-864. doi:10.1002/2015jf003663
Poon, P. K., & Kinoshita, A. M. (2018). Spatial and temporal evapotranspiration trends after
wildfire in semi-arid landscapes. Journal of Hydrology, 559, 71-83.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.023
Wine, Michael Louis, and Daniel Cadol. “Hydrologic Effects Of Large Southwestern Usa
Wildfires Significantly Increase Regional Water Supply: Fact Or Fiction? .” 2016,
doi:10.1130/abs/2016am-284957.
FMP Part 3 23