Analysis of Elevation Changes Detected from Multi-Temporal LiDAR Surveys in Forested Landslide Terrain in Western Oregon

We examined elevation changes detected from two successive sets of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data in the northern Coast Range of Oregon. The first set of LiDAR data was acquired during leaf-on conditions and the second set during leaf-off conditions. We were able to successfully identify and map active landslides using a differential digital elevation model (DEM) created from the two LiDAR data sets, but this required the use of thresholds (0.50 and 0.75 m) to remove noise from the differential elevation data, visual pattern recognition of landslide-induced elevation changes, and supplemental QuickBird satellite imagery. After mapping, we field-verified 88 percent of the landslides that we had mapped with high confidence, but we could not detect active landslides with elevation changes of less than 0.50 m. Volumetric calculations showed that a total of about 18,100 m3 of material was missing from landslide areas, probably as a result of systematic negative elevation errors in the differential DEM and as a result of removal of material by erosion and transport. We also examined the accuracies of 285 leaf-off LiDAR elevations at four landslide sites using Global Positioning System and total station surveys. A comparison of LiDAR and survey data indicated an overall root mean square error of 0.50 m, a maximum error of 2.21 m, and a systematic error of 0.09 m. LiDAR ground-point densities were lowest in areas with young conifer forests and deciduous vegetation, which resulted in extensive interpolations of elevations in the leaf-on, bare-earth DEM. For optimal use of multi-temporal LiDAR data in forested areas, we recommend that all data sets be flown during leaf-off seasons.

[1]  P. Reichenbach,et al.  Identification and mapping of recent rainfall-induced landslides using elevation data collected by airborne Lidar , 2007 .

[2]  William H. Schulz,et al.  Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR imagery and historical records, Seattle, Washington , 2007 .

[3]  W. W. Carson,et al.  Accuracy of a high-resolution lidar terrain model under a conifer forest canopy , 2003 .

[4]  Emmanuel P. Baltsavias,et al.  Airborne laser scanning: basic relations and formulas , 1999 .

[5]  Aloysius Wehr,et al.  Airborne laser scanning—an introduction and overview , 1999 .

[6]  Alessandro Corsini,et al.  Use of multitemporal airborne lidar surveys to analyse post-failure behaviour of earth slides , 2007 .

[7]  Jeffrey A. Coe,et al.  Volumetric analysis and hydrologic characterization of a modern debris flow near Yucca Mountain, Nevada , 1997 .

[8]  Lowland.  High-Resolution Lidar Topography of the Puget Lowland, Washington , 2003 .

[9]  J. McKean,et al.  Objective landslide detection and surface morphology mapping using high-resolution airborne laser altimetry , 2004 .

[10]  D. Varnes.  SLOPE MOVEMENT TYPES AND PROCESSES , 1978 .

[11]  Jonathan P. McKenna,et al.  Regional landslide-hazard assessment for Seattle, Washington, USA , 2005 .

[12]  Rou-Fei Chen,et al.  Topographical changes revealed by high-resolution airborne lidar data; the 1999 Tsaoling landslide induced by the Chi-chi earthquake , 2006 .

[13]  J. Colby,et al.  Spatial Characterization, Resolution, and Volumetric Change of Coastal Dunes using Airborne LIDAR: Cape Hatteras, North Carolina , 2002 .

[14]  M. Eeckhaut,et al.  Tracking landslide displacements by multi-temporal DTMs: A combined aerial stereophotogrammetric and LIDAR approach in western Belgium , 2008 .

[15]  D. Harding,et al.  Fault Scarp Detection Beneath Dense Vegetation Cover: Airborne Lidar Mapping of the Seattle Fault Zone, Bainbridge Island, Washington State , 2000 .

[16]  Christian Scheidl,et al.  The use of airborne LiDAR data for the analysis of debris flow events in Switzerland , 2008 .

[17]  Zachary H. Bowen,et al.  EVALUATION OF LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING (LIDAR) FOR MEASURING RIVER CORRIDOR TOPOGRAPHY 1 , 2002 .

[18]  Thomas J. Douglas,et al.  Geologic, geomorphic, and meteorological aspects of debris flows triggered by Hurricanes Frances and Ivan during September 2004 in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of Macon County, North Carolina (southeastern USA) , 2008 .

[19]  Yong Wang,et al.  Utilizing DEMs derived from LIDAR data to analyze morphologic change in the North Carolina coastline , 2003 .

[20]  W. Dietrich,et al.  Characterizing structural and lithologic controls on deep-seated landsliding: Implications for topographic relief and landscape evolution in the Oregon Coast Range, USA , 2005 .

[21]  M. Hodgson,et al.  An evaluation of LIDAR- and IFSAR-derived digital elevation models in leaf-on conditions with USGS Level 1 and Level 2 DEMs , 2003 .

[22]  D. Staley,et al.  Surficial patterns of debris flow deposition on alluvial fans in Death Valley, CA using airborne laser swath mapping data , 2006 .

[23]  Nir J. Shaviv,et al.  Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate , 2003 .

[24]  D. J. Chadwick,et al.  Analysis of LiDAR-derived topographic information for characterizing and differentiating landslide morphology and activity , 2006 .

[25]  Lee H. MacDonald,et al.  DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH TO STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING 1 , 2002 .

[26]  K. C. Slatton,et al.  Airborne Laser Swath Mapping: Achieving the resolution and accuracy required for geosurficial research , 2007 .

[27]  P. Bierman,et al.  Accuracy assessment of LiDAR‐derived DEMs of bedrock river channels: Holtwood Gorge, Susquehanna River , 2007 .

[28]  J. Chandler,et al.  Evaluation of Lidar and Medium Scale Photogrammetry for Detecting Soft‐Cliff Coastal Change , 2002 .

[29]  Soren W. Henriksen,et al.  Manual of photogrammetry , 1980 .