Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
| Authors: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
| Type: | Resource | |
| Storage: | The size of this resource is 3.0 MB | |
| Created: | Jun 25, 2026 at 6:16 p.m. (UTC) | |
| Last updated: | Jun 25, 2026 at 6:37 p.m. (UTC) | |
| Citation: | See how to cite this resource |
| Sharing Status: | Public |
|---|---|
| Views: | 12 |
| Downloads: | 11 |
| +1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
| Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
This workshop walks through a complete pipeline for building a relational flood inundation map (FIM) database that integrates outputs from multiple modeling sources and ties them to the National Water Model. The motivating problem is fragmentation: flood maps are produced by NOAA OWP, FEMA, USACE, USGS, InFRM, and FHWA in different formats and at different standards, with no common platform connecting them to operational NWM forecasts. The proposed solution is an 8-table SQLite schema storing extent polygons, depth and water-surface-elevation rasters, rating curves, and source metadata, with each flood map linked to NWM feature IDs so that a forecasted flow can be used to retrieve the matching map on demand. Participants work through a four-stage Python workflow split across three Jupyter notebooks. The first stage generates HAND-based FIMs using FIMServe: an area of interest and HUC8 are selected, hydrofabric is pulled from the CIROH S3 bucket, return-period flows are retrieved through the NWM API, and HUC-8 flood maps are merged and clipped as needed. The second stage harmonizes maps from different models by aligning projection, resolution, data type, no-data representation, and grid alignment, then dissolves and smooths vector extents and compresses rasters to reduce file size. Metadata files are then generated to populate the database tables. The third stage builds and populates the SQLite database with content from HAND, HEC-RAS, SRH-2D, AutoRoute, FIER, and satellite-derived sources, and uploads the result to HydroShare. The fourth stage uses the Tulane FIM visualization tool to display flood scenarios, compare maps across models, and overlay custom user files. The workshop closes with implications for research and operations and a look at planned extensions for velocity, impact, and ensemble/probabilistic visualization.
Acknowledgements:
This research was supported by the Cooperative Institute for Research to Operations in Hydrology (CIROH) with funding under award NA22NWS4320003 from the NOAA Cooperative Institute Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of NOAA.
Subject Keywords
Content
Additional Metadata
| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| thumbnail_url | https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/2113ee2d79e4425a8c7ba6e6edc29433/data/contents/thumbnail.png |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment