[3pt] FIM 3 Gaps in Huc6 020200 - upstate New York (fix or explanation needed ASAP for APG support)

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

APG - support for the NERFC Tabletop exercises for the August 2011 event in NY:

History: Last year (2020) I generated RnR 5-day Max Inundation maps (using the FIM v2.x libraries) for a set of event dates and times using max streamflows calculated from their 2011 forecasts. To fix the gaps seen in Fort Hunter, NY area, we decided in January 2021 to recreate these maps using the FIM v3.x libraries, but still generating 2-D vector maps.

Current: There are now 2 gaps in the Schoharie Creek area where they are focusing the exercises (HUC8 = 02020005) - in Middleburgh and Gilboa.

I tried to include as much FIM v3.x data in the detail map screenshots, as well as the streamflow lines with Feature IDs. Let me know if you need anything else.

Note: They prefer to have this corrected, not patched. They're expectation is that whatever they demo for the tabletop will be the inundations they can expect when the services are released later this year.

In addition, there are several more gaps in the other Huc 8 areas. Those are less of a priority, but IF this is a fairly easy fix, they would like those as well.

Mostly, I am looking for guidance on what to report back to them as soon as possible. If this looks fixable well ahead of the June Tabletop, when they can expect it, etc. They are just trying to plan :)

Attached are screenshots of the latest inundation maps, showing the new RnR FIM v3.x inundations in Blue, and the older RnR FIM 2.x in Red:

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

Sorry duplicate maps included in the above initial description! Ignore the very first image...

[BrianAvant]

@KatherinePowell-NOAA What is the ahps/lid name?

[BradfordBates-NOAA]

@KatherinePowell-NOAA Which version of FIM 3.X is this ticket in reference to?

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

Middleburgh = Schoharie Creek at Middleburgh (MDBN6) https://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?01350500 (USGS)

Gilboa = Schoharie Creek at Gilboa Dam (GILN6) https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/uv?site_no=01350101 (USGS)

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

I cannot access my network drive currently, the vrsion number is on the Transfer drive in temp\Laura folder... dated January 19, 2021 (Laura acquired these to help fix the Fort Hunter junction)

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

I cannot access my network drives currently, the version number is on the Transfer drive in temp\Laura folder... dated January 19, 2021 (Laura acquired these to help fix the Fort Hunter junction)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Brad @.***> wrote:

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA Which version of FIM 3.X is this ticket in reference to?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-809665345, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDSRHPLXZ3LPYWN4VMTTGDKURANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

[BradfordBates-NOAA]

I don't see a temp/Laura folder, but I do see a temp/laura.keys folder, but no subdirectories dated Jan 19. However, if the version is from Jan 19, then I would wager that this bug has been addressed already in the latest FIM version. I believe that Corey has the latest version for CONUS (fim_3_0_9_0_ms_c). @CoreyKrewson-NOAA can you please confirm?

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

That's correct... laura.keys folder (I just remembered it incorrectly). I'll check with Corey and let you know... thanks!

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:58 PM Brad @.***> wrote:

I don't see a temp/Laura folder, but I do see a temp/laura.keys folder, but no subdirectories dated Jan 19. However, if the version is from Jan 19, then I would wager that this bug has been addressed already in the latest FIM version. I believe that Corey has the latest version for CONUS (fim_3_0_9_0_ms_c). @CoreyKrewson-NOAA https://github.com/CoreyKrewson-NOAA can you please confirm?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-809671042, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDXEWMNCIYBAEJZTAPTTGDLXVANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

[BrianAvant]

Gilboa =This gap is in a NWM Lake feature:

Really we should be removing all of the inundation mapped within lake boundaries (gray polygons) but for now that should explain why the missing area isn't mapped. It's the only polygon actually doing what it is supposed to. This inconsistency is a known issue and will get cleaned up in a future version.

[BradfordBates-NOAA]

Yes, we mask inundation at waterbodies intentionally in FIM3.x and would recommend that the maps produced from FIM2 data also mask NWM waterbodies.

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

I can verify, but I believe the NERFC hydrologists treat the area that is a "reservoir" as a part of the stream as that was a flood issue during this event. Also, I have Feature ID = 3247586, the reach just south of the "waterbody" you indicated as the area that is the gap for the Gilboa Dam area. Why would that be?

[BrianAvant]

Middleburgh = Looks like this has been addressed in FIM v3.0.9.0:

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

That is great! I also really appreciate the clarification about the waterbodies... they just want to understand the FIMs better.

[CoreyKrewson-NOAA]

We do have the fim_3_0_9_0 for MS and FR, but that is only on AWS and using gridded output.

Our on prem system is using 2.X (not sure what exact version), and using the flood stack library output.

We could move to FIM 3.X for our on prem system but that would require us to compute the flood stack libraries.

[BrianAvant]

I can verify, but I believe the NERFC hydrologists treat the area that is a "reservoir" as a part of the stream as that was a flood issue during this event. Also, I have Feature ID = 3247586, the reach just south of the "waterbody" you indicated as the area that is the gap for the Gilboa Dam area. Why would that be?

We currently do not support FIM for lakes/reservoirs in FIM v2/3. I'm not sure I follow the second question.. are you saying that you are seeing another gap downstream of the lake boundary?

Here is what I am seeing with FIM v3.0.9.0:

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

OK, Brian, this image helps. ..thanks. Looks like I would need to recreate these with the latest FIM 3.

Corey, this is a special case where I use a modified inundation script that Laura created just for this NERFC map output - using the FIM 3 libraries, but converting the output to vector (no depth). No need to move FIM 3.X to the on prem system currently. I just need flood stacks for the fim_3_0_9_0 for MS only, and only for HUC6 = 020200.

[BrianAvant]

@KatherinePowell-NOAA can I close this ticket? If you are still seeing these gaps in FIM v3.0.9.0 we can start a new one.

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

I am still seeing a gap at Gilboa Dam, but let me verify - could be flow dependent. I'll let you know...

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 1:52 PM brian.avant @.***> wrote:

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA can I close this ticket? If you are still seeing these gaps in FIM v3.0.9.0 we can start a new one.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-812104141, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDXERC52RRTM4SNMD4TTGS6GVANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

OK, we can close this, but can you open a ticket for the gap at Gilboa Dam? Thanks! [image: image.png]

Katherine

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:03 PM Katherine Powell - NOAA Affiliate < @.***> wrote:

I am still seeing a gap at Gilboa Dam, but let me verify - could be flow dependent. I'll let you know...

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 1:52 PM brian.avant @.***> wrote:

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA can I close this ticket? If you are still seeing these gaps in FIM v3.0.9.0 we can start a new one.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-812104141, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDXERC52RRTM4SNMD4TTGS6GVANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

[BrianAvant]

@KatherinePowell-NOAA looks like that image didn't load properly, can you repost it? Just to be clear there still should not be any mapping where there is a lake feature. Are you saying that there is a gap upstream or downstream of the lake feature?

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

OK, looks like the image made it this time! It is a reach north of the feature you are calling a lake, though any water bodies along here are reservoirs. I have the feature IDs listed. Let me know if you need more info...

[frsalas-noaa]

@KatherinePowell-NOAA was this fully addressed either in this ticket or in another ticket? Since the NWM treats NWM feature_ids 3247586 and 3247592 as waterbodies, we should not be creating inundation extents for either of these reaches with the FIM 3.X capability. If there was inundation during the Schoharie event along these reaches, I think we say at this time we can not provide guidance on inundation in this area as we only create inundation extents along NWM reaches and not NWM waterbodies. Inundation for NWM waterbodies is a feature enhancement in the backlog and would require some considerable attention if this capability is desired for the APG.

[BradfordBates-NOAA]

The conclusion of this discussion was that the NWM had mis-encoded this reach as a waterbody and that the customer is encouraged to submit this feedback to the NWM modeling team (or viz/FIM can submit). Once the NWM is updated, then FIM would recognize as a reach and provide inundation for it. We agreed that FIM should not be attempted at waterbodies at present.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:06 PM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA was this fully addressed either in this ticket or in another ticket? Since the NWM treats NWM feature_ids 3247586 and 3247592 as waterbodies, we should not be creating inundation extents for either of these reaches with the FIM 3.X capability. If there was inundation during the Schoharie event along these reaches, I think we say at this time we can not provide guidance on inundation in this area as we only create inundation extents along NWM reaches and not NWM waterbodies. Inundation for NWM waterbodies is a feature enhancement in the backlog and would require some considerable attention if this capability is desired for the APG.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-820730322, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQS66E5LW2VF3T3ZP2ODRNTTI5INPANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

--

Brad Bates

Geospatial Developer

NOAA Office of Water Prediction | U.S. Department of Commerce

@.***

NOAA Affiliate, Lynker

[frsalas-noaa]

Ok. Just confirming NERFC expectations after this was communicated. Also, doesn't look to me like the NWM is incorrectly representing feature_id 3247592. Looks like the tail end of the waterbody in the imagery.

@KatherinePowell-NOAA all good from the NERFC perspective?

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

Hi Fernando - all good with NERFC, Whitney and I have had several conversations with them and we keep reinforcing that they are getting a hybrid RnR FIM solution that doesn't yet exist and they are OK with it. They want to dig into these details! As for any gaps or areas that don't seem correct, ones that have a FIM 2 solution but not one in the latest FIM 3.... such as at Gilboa... first we have clarified what Brad mentioned above - that anything the NWM designates as a waterbody really can't correctly have a synthetic rating curve or FIM. Therefore, we will have a FIM using both in the tabletop in order to cover the area at GIlboa. They will explain the version differences to participants.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:33 PM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Ok. Just confirming NERFC expectations after this was communicated. Also, doesn't look to me like the NWM is incorrectly representing feature_id

3247592. Looks like the tail end of the waterbody in the imagery.

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA all good from the NERFC perspective?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-820825249, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDQUBO24BDGGYCPBYJDTI6AVTANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

[frsalas-noaa]

Thanks Katherine. So the plan is to use FIM 2 and FIM 3 for the tabletop? If so, we should make clear that the operational system will not provide inundation guidance along that reach unless a feature enhancement is delivered to provide inundation guidance at waterbodies. Would like to make sure our stakeholders understand this as well so that they don't expect guidance in that location during a future flood event. If this causes confusion suggest we stick with FIM 3 and message that guidance is currently not available along waterbodies. We should then discuss where this waterbody feature enhancement lies on our dev priority list.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, KatherinePowell-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Hi Fernando - all good with NERFC, Whitney and I have had several conversations with them and we keep reinforcing that they are getting a hybrid RnR FIM solution that doesn't yet exist and they are OK with it. They want to dig into these details! As for any gaps or areas that don't seem correct, ones that have a FIM 2 solution but not one in the latest FIM 3.... such as at Gilboa... first we have clarified what Brad mentioned above - that anything the NWM designates as a waterbody really can't correctly have a synthetic rating curve or FIM. Therefore, we will have a FIM using both in the tabletop in order to cover the area at GIlboa. They will explain the version differences to participants.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:33 PM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Ok. Just confirming NERFC expectations after this was communicated. Also, doesn't look to me like the NWM is incorrectly representing feature_id

3247592. Looks like the tail end of the waterbody in the imagery.

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA all good from the NERFC perspective?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-820825249, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ ASLKYDQUBO24BDGGYCPBYJDTI6AVTANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821162542, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO6EII6YEMKVIO4M6HX4AYTTJAZKTANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

-- Fernando R. Salas National Water Center Geo-Intelligence Division | Office of Water Prediction NOAA National Weather Service Office: (205) 347-1455 | @. @.> http://water.noaa.gov http://water.noaa.gov*

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

Fernando - They do understand all of that, and they also understand that future guidance will change. However, they are simply unwilling to have a solution that has a gap at that location (GIlboa) for the tabletop exercise.

Please note:

1) The hybrid FIM 3 solution generated for the NY exercise is already a non-existent solution. The current RnR FIM was translated to a 2-D shapefile, when it will actually be a raster with depth information when FIM 3 is released with HydroViz. 2) They FULLY understand that the areas designated as water bodies shouldn't have FIM guidance in the future and they understand why. 3) They want a process by which to question and change reaches that they deem mis-identified by the NWM team as "water bodies" so that there may be FIM guidance in the future. 4) The event for which the maps were generated is still the record flood event for the Schoharie creek area and these FIMs are extraordinary. 5) I will be participating in the June tabletop and they are encouraging me to clarify all of this and give any additional information at that time.

I hope this helps!

Katherine

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:37 AM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Thanks Katherine. So the plan is to use FIM 2 and FIM 3 for the tabletop? If so, we should make clear that the operational system will not provide inundation guidance along that reach unless a feature enhancement is delivered to provide inundation guidance at waterbodies. Would like to make sure our stakeholders understand this as well so that they don't expect guidance in that location during a future flood event. If this causes confusion suggest we stick with FIM 3 and message that guidance is currently not available along waterbodies. We should then discuss where this waterbody feature enhancement lies on our dev priority list.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, KatherinePowell-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Hi Fernando - all good with NERFC, Whitney and I have had several conversations with them and we keep reinforcing that they are getting a hybrid RnR FIM solution that doesn't yet exist and they are OK with it. They want to dig into these details! As for any gaps or areas that don't seem correct, ones that have a FIM 2 solution but not one in the latest FIM 3.... such as at Gilboa... first we have clarified what Brad mentioned above - that anything the NWM designates as a waterbody really can't correctly have a synthetic rating curve or FIM. Therefore, we will have a FIM using both in the tabletop in order to cover the area at GIlboa. They will explain the version differences to participants.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:33 PM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Ok. Just confirming NERFC expectations after this was communicated. Also, doesn't look to me like the NWM is incorrectly representing feature_id

3247592. Looks like the tail end of the waterbody in the imagery.

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA all good from the NERFC perspective?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-820825249 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ ASLKYDQUBO24BDGGYCPBYJDTI6AVTANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821162542, or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO6EII6YEMKVIO4M6HX4AYTTJAZKTANCNFSM42AHMCMA

.

-- Fernando R. Salas National Water Center Geo-Intelligence Division | Office of Water Prediction NOAA National Weather Service Office: (205) 347-1455 | @. @.> http://water.noaa.gov http://water.noaa.gov*

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821183469, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDSCNINRHXJKU5SKBX3TJA4QFANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

[frsalas-noaa]

Thanks Katherine. Appreciate it. Glad you're participating in the tabletop.

Feedback for the NWM dev team should go through VLab. Look for the National Water Model Output Assessment project and create a ticket.

However, NWM waterbodies are derived from NHDPlus waterbodies and the extent of the waterbodies are informed by USGS/EPA and local stewards. This particular area has a NHDPlus waterbody present. In order to modify the representation here, we would need to alter the NHDPlus waterbody polygon when creating the NWM hydrofabric. Up until now I believe we have tried to limit edits to NHDPlus features for reproducibility purposes and instead submit feedback to the NHDPlus development team. This can be a slow process.

IMO this waterbody should stay as is and we should instead enhance our capabilities to perform FIM on waterbodies.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, KatherinePowell-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Fernando - They do understand all of that, and they also understand that future guidance will change. However, they are simply unwilling to have a solution that has a gap at that location (GIlboa) for the tabletop exercise.

Please note:

1) The hybrid FIM 3 solution generated for the NY exercise is already a non-existent solution. The current RnR FIM was translated to a 2-D shapefile, when it will actually be a raster with depth information when FIM 3 is released with HydroViz. 2) They FULLY understand that the areas designated as water bodies shouldn't have FIM guidance in the future and they understand why. 3) They want a process by which to question and change reaches that they deem mis-identified by the NWM team as "water bodies" so that there may be FIM guidance in the future. 4) The event for which the maps were generated is still the record flood event for the Schoharie creek area and these FIMs are extraordinary. 5) I will be participating in the June tabletop and they are encouraging me to clarify all of this and give any additional information at that time.

I hope this helps!

Katherine

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:37 AM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Thanks Katherine. So the plan is to use FIM 2 and FIM 3 for the tabletop? If so, we should make clear that the operational system will not provide inundation guidance along that reach unless a feature enhancement is delivered to provide inundation guidance at waterbodies. Would like to make sure our stakeholders understand this as well so that they don't expect guidance in that location during a future flood event. If this causes confusion suggest we stick with FIM 3 and message that guidance is currently not available along waterbodies. We should then discuss where this waterbody feature enhancement lies on our dev priority list.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, KatherinePowell-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Hi Fernando - all good with NERFC, Whitney and I have had several conversations with them and we keep reinforcing that they are getting a hybrid RnR FIM solution that doesn't yet exist and they are OK with it. They want to dig into these details! As for any gaps or areas that don't seem correct, ones that have a FIM 2 solution but not one in the latest FIM 3.... such as at Gilboa... first we have clarified what Brad mentioned above - that anything the NWM designates as a waterbody really can't correctly have a synthetic rating curve or FIM. Therefore, we will have a FIM using both in the tabletop in order to cover the area at GIlboa. They will explain the version differences to participants.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:33 PM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Ok. Just confirming NERFC expectations after this was communicated. Also, doesn't look to me like the NWM is incorrectly representing feature_id

3247592. Looks like the tail end of the waterbody in the imagery.

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA all good from the NERFC perspective?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment- 820825249 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ ASLKYDQUBO24BDGGYCPBYJDTI6AVTANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821162542 , or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO6EII6YEM KVIO4M6HX4AYTTJAZKTANCNFSM42AHMCMA

.

-- Fernando R. Salas National Water Center Geo-Intelligence Division | Office of Water Prediction NOAA National Weather Service Office: (205) 347-1455 | @. @.> http://water.noaa.gov http://water.noaa.gov*

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821183469, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDSCN INRHXJKU5SKBX3TJA4QFANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821198127, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO6EII6GIB2S6L3XO5YSOG3TJA7H5ANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

-- Fernando R. Salas National Water Center Geo-Intelligence Division | Office of Water Prediction NOAA National Weather Service Office: (205) 347-1455 | @. @.> http://water.noaa.gov http://water.noaa.gov*

[KatherinePowell-NOAA]

OK, thanks Fernando. Agreed - sounds like the preferred solution to a situation like this one is to enhance our capabilities. I will submit feedback as a VLab ticket, and likely add significantly to that ticket after the tabletop.

Cheers,

Katherine

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:21 AM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Thanks Katherine. Appreciate it. Glad you're participating in the tabletop.

Feedback for the NWM dev team should go through VLab. Look for the National Water Model Output Assessment project and create a ticket.

However, NWM waterbodies are derived from NHDPlus waterbodies and the extent of the waterbodies are informed by USGS/EPA and local stewards. This particular area has a NHDPlus waterbody present. In order to modify the representation here, we would need to alter the NHDPlus waterbody polygon when creating the NWM hydrofabric. Up until now I believe we have tried to limit edits to NHDPlus features for reproducibility purposes and instead submit feedback to the NHDPlus development team. This can be a slow process.

IMO this waterbody should stay as is and we should instead enhance our capabilities to perform FIM on waterbodies.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, KatherinePowell-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Fernando - They do understand all of that, and they also understand that future guidance will change. However, they are simply unwilling to have a solution that has a gap at that location (GIlboa) for the tabletop exercise.

Please note:

1) The hybrid FIM 3 solution generated for the NY exercise is already a non-existent solution. The current RnR FIM was translated to a 2-D shapefile, when it will actually be a raster with depth information when FIM 3 is released with HydroViz. 2) They FULLY understand that the areas designated as water bodies shouldn't have FIM guidance in the future and they understand why. 3) They want a process by which to question and change reaches that they deem mis-identified by the NWM team as "water bodies" so that there may be FIM guidance in the future. 4) The event for which the maps were generated is still the record flood event for the Schoharie creek area and these FIMs are extraordinary. 5) I will be participating in the June tabletop and they are encouraging me to clarify all of this and give any additional information at that time.

I hope this helps!

Katherine

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:37 AM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Thanks Katherine. So the plan is to use FIM 2 and FIM 3 for the tabletop? If so, we should make clear that the operational system will not provide inundation guidance along that reach unless a feature enhancement is delivered to provide inundation guidance at waterbodies. Would like to make sure our stakeholders understand this as well so that they don't expect guidance in that location during a future flood event. If this causes confusion suggest we stick with FIM 3 and message that guidance is currently not available along waterbodies. We should then discuss where this waterbody feature enhancement lies on our dev priority list.

On Friday, April 16, 2021, KatherinePowell-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Hi Fernando - all good with NERFC, Whitney and I have had several conversations with them and we keep reinforcing that they are getting a hybrid RnR FIM solution that doesn't yet exist and they are OK with it. They want to dig into these details! As for any gaps or areas that don't seem correct, ones that have a FIM 2 solution but not one in the latest FIM 3.... such as at Gilboa... first we have clarified what Brad mentioned above - that anything the NWM designates as a waterbody really can't correctly have a synthetic rating curve or FIM. Therefore, we will have a FIM using both in the tabletop in order to cover the area at GIlboa. They will explain the version differences to participants.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:33 PM FernandoSalas-NOAA @.***> wrote:

Ok. Just confirming NERFC expectations after this was communicated. Also, doesn't look to me like the NWM is incorrectly representing feature_id

3247592. Looks like the tail end of the waterbody in the imagery.

@KatherinePowell-NOAA https://github.com/KatherinePowell-NOAA all good from the NERFC perspective?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment- 820825249 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ ASLKYDQUBO24BDGGYCPBYJDTI6AVTANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821162542 , or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO6EII6YEM KVIO4M6HX4AYTTJAZKTANCNFSM42AHMCMA

.

-- Fernando R. Salas National Water Center Geo-Intelligence Division | Office of Water Prediction NOAA National Weather Service Office: (205) 347-1455 | @. @.> http://water.noaa.gov http://water.noaa.gov*

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821183469 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDSCN INRHXJKU5SKBX3TJA4QFANCNFSM42AHMCMA .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821198127, or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO6EII6GIB2S6L3XO5YSOG3TJA7H5ANCNFSM42AHMCMA

.

-- Fernando R. Salas National Water Center Geo-Intelligence Division | Office of Water Prediction NOAA National Weather Service Office: (205) 347-1455 | @. @.> http://water.noaa.gov http://water.noaa.gov*

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-OWP/cahaba/issues/334#issuecomment-821212459, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASLKYDTCPFL56COCL3S7KT3TJBBXBANCNFSM42AHMCMA .