Urban Flood Mitigation Model - Output - shapefile

Hello!

I ran the flood mitigation model today and it worked, all expected rasters were generated, but the shapefile with the runoff retention values was not created. There was no error in the log file, but I’m sending it anyway. Does anybody know what could be wrong? Thanks in advance.

2020-05-12 15:14:54,306 utils.prepare_workspace(111) INFO Writing log messages to C:/Users/Maira/Documents/SHPs/MESTRADO/teste_lapa2\InVEST-UrbanFloodRiskMitigation-log-2020-05-12–15_14_54.txt
2020-05-12 15:14:54,321 model._logged_target(1629) Level 100 Starting model with parameters:
Arguments for InVEST natcap.invest.urban_flood_risk_mitigation 3.8.1:
aoi_watersheds_path C:/Users/Maira/Documents/SHPs/MESTRADO/TESTE_LAPA/BACIAS_HIDRO.shp
built_infrastructure_vector_path
curve_number_table_path C:/Users/Maira/Documents/SHPs/MESTRADO/TESTE_LAPA/TESTE_lapa_CN.csv
infrastructure_damage_loss_table_path
lulc_path C:/Users/Maira/Documents/SHPs/MESTRADO/TESTE_LAPA/USO_SOLO.tif
n_workers -1
rainfall_depth 114
results_suffix
soils_hydrological_group_raster_path C:/Users/Maira/Documents/SHPs/MESTRADO/TESTE_LAPA/LITOTIPOS.tif
workspace_dir C:/Users/Maira/Documents/SHPs/MESTRADO/teste_lapa2

2020-05-12 15:14:56,119 geoprocessing.align_and_resize_raster_stack(752) INFO 1 of 2 aligned: aligned_lulc.tif
2020-05-12 15:14:56,867 geoprocessing.align_and_resize_raster_stack(752) INFO 2 of 2 aligned: aligned_soils_hydrological_group.tif
2020-05-12 15:14:56,868 geoprocessing.align_and_resize_raster_stack(754) INFO aligned all 2 rasters.
2020-05-12 15:14:57,079 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(375) INFO starting stats_worker
2020-05-12 15:14:57,109 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(381) INFO started stats_worker <Thread(Thread-2, started daemon 6456)>
2020-05-12 15:14:57,569 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete
2020-05-12 15:14:57,571 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate
2020-05-12 15:14:57,571 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.
2020-05-12 15:14:57,572 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating
2020-05-12 15:14:57,805 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(375) INFO starting stats_worker
2020-05-12 15:14:57,818 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(381) INFO started stats_worker <Thread(Thread-3, started daemon 6992)>
2020-05-12 15:14:57,906 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete
2020-05-12 15:14:57,907 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate
2020-05-12 15:14:57,908 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.
2020-05-12 15:14:57,908 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating
2020-05-12 15:14:58,107 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(375) INFO starting stats_worker
2020-05-12 15:14:58,112 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(381) INFO started stats_worker <Thread(Thread-4, started daemon 7808)>
2020-05-12 15:14:58,204 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete
2020-05-12 15:14:58,206 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate
2020-05-12 15:14:58,207 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating
2020-05-12 15:14:58,206 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.
2020-05-12 15:14:58,397 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(375) INFO starting stats_worker
2020-05-12 15:14:58,404 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(381) INFO started stats_worker <Thread(Thread-5, started daemon 2284)>
2020-05-12 15:14:58,484 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete
2020-05-12 15:14:58,485 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate
2020-05-12 15:14:58,486 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating
2020-05-12 15:14:58,486 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.
2020-05-12 15:14:58,749 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(375) INFO starting stats_worker
2020-05-12 15:14:58,755 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(381) INFO started stats_worker <Thread(Thread-6, started daemon 7380)>
2020-05-12 15:14:58,818 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete
2020-05-12 15:14:58,819 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate
2020-05-12 15:14:58,821 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating
2020-05-12 15:14:58,820 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.
2020-05-12 15:14:59,014 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(375) INFO starting stats_worker
2020-05-12 15:14:59,019 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(381) INFO started stats_worker <Thread(Thread-7, started daemon 5456)>
2020-05-12 15:14:59,087 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete
2020-05-12 15:14:59,089 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate
2020-05-12 15:14:59,090 geoprocessing.raster_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.
2020-05-12 15:14:59,091 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating
2020-05-12 15:14:59,229 model._logged_target(1638) INFO Execution finished
2020-05-12 15:14:59,236 utils.prepare_workspace(117) INFO Elapsed time: 4.93s

Thanks for posting. After reviewing the model, it looks like the summary shapefile is only created when the optional Built Infrastructure inputs are used.

The runoff retention values are stored in an output raster, so if desired, you could do a zonal statistics operation in GIS to summarize those values by your AOI watersheds.

I’m not sure if the model skips that zonal stats step by design, or if it should be corrected to do that operation. Summarizing the retention values by the watersheds does not seem like it needs to be dependent on the built infrastructure layer. @rich or @Perrine, any opinions on this?

It worked when I used the built infrastructure input, thank you!