[1pt] PR: Unmask leveed areas update

[mluck]

Levee-protected areas are associated with levelpaths based on a 1000 m buffer on each side of the levee line. However, not all levees are designed to protect against all associated levelpaths, especially where the levelpath flows through the levee-protected area. Levee-protected areas are unmasked by removing levelpaths from association that don't intersect levees but instead flow around them which allows inundation by these branches.

Fixes #1124.

Changes

• src/associate_levelpaths_with_levees.py: Finds levelpaths that don't intersect levees and removes them from their association with their levee-protected area.

Testing

• Needs significant testing (watching .csv files)

Deployment

• Run its own UAT set on it.
• Aim for next big 4.5 prod push but can be held over if necessary (try to get it in)

Issuer Checklist (For developer use)

You may update this checklist before and/or after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, please ask, we're here to help! These items are what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• Informative and human-readable title, using the format: [_pt] PR: <description>
• Links are provided if this PR resolves an issue, or depends on another other PR
• If submitting a PR to the dev branch (the default branch), you have a descriptive Feature Branch name using the format: dev-<description-of-change> (e.g. dev-revise-levee-masking)
• Changes are limited to a single goal (no scope creep)
• The feature branch you're submitting as a PR is up to date (merged) with the latest dev branch
• pre-commit hooks were run locally
• Any change in functionality is tested
• Passes all unit tests locally (inside interactive Docker container, at /foss_fim/, run: pytest unit_tests/)
• New functions are documented (with a description, list of inputs, and expected output)
• Placeholder code is flagged / future todos are captured in comments
• CHANGELOG updated with template version number, e.g. 4.x.x.x
• Reviewers requested
• Add yourself as an assignee in the PR as well as the FIM Technical Lead

Merge Checklist (For Technical Lead use only)

• Update CHANGELOG with latest version number and merge date
• Update the Citation.cff file to reflect the latest version number in the CHANGELOG
• If applicable, update README with major alterations

[RobHanna-NOAA]

This ran perfectly fine in the processing part of the fim-pipeline. It failed in post-processing but it is unrelated. If you know of a couple of HUCs that have levee data, this can be validated.

[mluck]

I merged dev (v.4.5.0.1) and ran fim_pipeline.sh on two leveed HUCs (10300101 and 12030105) and it ran fine including post-processing. Of course those HUCs may not have the problem but at least those two cases seem to have worked.

[ZahraGhahremani]

After comparing the new results with the previous ones, it was found that 174 levelpaths out of 1868 were removed in the new run. Although the inundation results demonstrate success in most areas, there are cases where a protected area intersects the levee lines (as shown in the figure below). In these cases, the levee system should not be unmasked, but it was unmasked.

[CarsonPruitt-NOAA]

Zahra, your example appears to show a flowline that intersects a levee. Isn't this PR only addressing protected areas that do NOT intersect levee lines? If so, this levee system should remain masked.

[mluck]

Yeah, that’s what I’m looking at now. Also to see if it’s a quick fix or not.

…

On May 14, 2024, at 11:59 AM, Carson Pruitt ***@***.***> wrote: Zahra, your example appears to show a flowline that intersects a levee. Isn't this PR only addressing protected areas that do NOT intersect levee lines? If so, this levee system should remain masked. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1136 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABSPM5RWLQWAWNTD6CTSFYTZCJGJ3AVCNFSM6AAAAABHAPNJMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJQHAYTENZTHE>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

[mluck]

The latest commit (439f0e9) fixes the bug that was masking the levee-protected area if the levelpath intersects the levee multiple times. However, there is still the possibility that this FB may unintentionally unmask inundation where a levelpath doesn't cross a levee line but does cross through a levee-protected area.

In the example below, the levee-protected area in yellow is associated with the levee in red. The red levee is protecting agains the green levelpath near its downstream confluence with the purple mainstem and doesn't intersect the red levee line. However, further upstream, the green levelpath crosses the yellow levee-protected area above the red levee. The green levelpath appears to be erroneous since it also crosses a different levee at this location. In addition, the yellow leveed area appears to be a bit too large and extends into the channel beyond this other levee where the green levelpath also crosses it. This FB would unmask the yellow leveed area and allow inundation by the green levelpath in the yellow leveed area, even behind the red levee. More investigation is being done to evaluate the extent of this issue and if it causes more problems than it solves.

[ZahraGhahremani]

It is difficult to compare the new results with fim_4_4_15_0 due to discrepancies in folder names. Example below shows the levelpath IDs for huc 21010005 in fim_4_4_15_0 and the new results.
Instead, the new results were compared with fim_4_5_0_1, revealing that 36 levelpaths (from 15 unique HUCs) were removed. The metrics comparing the new results with the recent FIM version (fim_4_5_0_1) are promising. When examining the metrics individually, only two metrics have changed, both of which are among those listed with different numbers in the levee_levelpaths.csv. Therefore, this PR is unlikely to have unintended effects.

[RobHanna-NOAA]

We just put out 4.5.2.0. Is there merit in merging the latest dev into this branch and re-running this branch? Does that give you new material to compare that might be more helpful?

[CarsonPruitt-NOAA]

@mluck @ZahraGhahremani Since Zahra's last review, I believe you two told me that you re-checked and there were very few differences between dev and this branch's levee masks and you were able to spot-check a few levees where the results were all as intended. I just want to confirm before merging this one in. Thanks!

[ZahraGhahremani]

Yes, that's correct. Everything looks good to me. I spot checked several levees and everything matched our expectations.

[RobHanna-NOAA]

sorry.. correction. @mluck , can you merge latest dev into it, then Zahra can just re-approve. :)

[RobHanna-NOAA]

So.. Is this one ready for approval now @ZahraGhahremani ? Actually.. we should do another quick test on it, in light of the dev merge catchup.

[ZahraGhahremani]

So.. Is this one ready for approval now @ZahraGhahremani ? Actually.. we should do another quick test on it, in light of the dev merge catchup.

Yes!

[RobHanna-NOAA]

after double checking it, I am pretty sure another quick test is not needed. :)