Investigate Alaska FIM Issues

[cfitzpat479]

WPOD is reporting various issues with dynamic and static FIM services in Alaska:

1. NRP FIM draws and looks good in some areas, like here:
   
2. In other areas it looks bad (this is the word the shift used). More specifically, it looks like the different thresholds have the same footprint:
   
   This may just be a result of the geomorphology of the area, but it's worth double-checking
3. Certain CatFIM sites seem to only draw one threshold. After discussion with Rob Hanna, this may just be a data issue from WRDS. If that's the case, consider adding information to the attributes that certain thresholds are unavailable. Example:
   There is no major flood flow-based CatFIM footprint for krka2 (upper left), but it is available for the adjacent site.
   
   Another example below. Only action and minor are available for grsa2 for flow based CatFIM. And only action, minor, and record are available at that same location for stage-based:
   
4. Dynamic FIM is drawing on some streams of stream orders below 5. It not drawing in some locations where High Flow Magnitude signals are above the 50% threshold just adjacent to these smaller streams, example:
   The feature below is stream order 4 with 10% HFM threshold met. It is drawing FIM. To the left, those streams - also stream orders 3 or 4 - are meeting similar HFM thresholds and not drawing FIM. This is for SRF 15-hour FIM, but the pattern is seen on MRF FIM as well.
   

I will continue to update the ticket if I find anything else.

[RobHanna-NOAA]

@EmilyDeardorff is looking at the data from the original dataset that FIM created for CatFIM to see what we can find. The CatFIM stage "sites" data set should give us some info on it. It isn't; that layer pubilshed in HV? I, @RobHanna-NOAA will look at where the HV layer.