June 15, 2021, 09:23:55 PM


Due to SPAM attacks, new members must be approved before posting.  Please email jclough@warrenpinnacle.com when registering and your account will be approved.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - caroline

Using SLAMM / Re: Initial condition (time zero)
August 27, 2013, 08:02:43 PM
Thanks Marco,

I had the elevation pre-processor set to false. What I mean is I clicked on the 'Set map attributes' button then selected 'analysis tools' 3D view and boxed in my region of concern. I then slid the toggle from MLLW, to MTL, to MHHW to Salt Boundary to see how they looked. The areas flooded (visually) with the higher Salt Elevation, but didn't when I set it to 2. Hope this makes more sense. Thanks.

Using SLAMM / Re: Output files
August 27, 2013, 07:39:23 PM
Thanks Marco,

Thanks, I tried as you suggested but that takes some time too, so I will stick with my Ascii conversions as I rename them as I go. My ArcGIS batch function seems to be finally working (it wasn't before for unknown reasons) so that saves some time. Now if I could just import a color scheme to all the files at once, instead of one at a time (ESRI needs to do), it would be real efficient.
Using SLAMM / Initial condition (time zero)
August 21, 2013, 11:30:57 PM

I am working in northern Maine. I am fiddling with my salt elevation and finally got the initial condition/1983 (my NWI year) to practically match in my region. Yay! I initially started with 8.6 m (the highest spring tide on historical NOAA tide sheets) for the salt elevation, but realized that was incorrect after reading the forum, so based on 4.11 m I ran it again. I used the GT from NOAA (5.87)/2 x 1.4 (the average to multiply by per the forum), as per the forum technique, to get 4.11. This is close to what was used by the FWS in this region on two SLAMM studies (3.99 and 4.08).

Although this helped my problem- two low spots in my lidar were converting from undeveloped dry land to transitional marsh and ocean beach- it still was way over a 5% difference (which I have read in this forum is the cutoff for more accurate results). So I played around with the elevation pre-processor and it looked as if a value of '2' m would work. So I used it, and now my initial condition (time zero) and 1983 match! However this number is not really 'science' but an educated guess; is that acceptable when running the model? If they match up does that mean I 'guessed' correctly? I am assuming (from other posts too) that my salt elevation is not in line with my elevation data. This region has very high tides, could that have something to do with it? Thanks for any advice or ideas!


Using SLAMM / Output files
August 20, 2013, 11:28:21 PM
I am wondering if anyone has a script or tool that will batch convert my numerous SLAMM ASCII output files to raster? I tried one but the file names are more than 13 characters so it wouldn't work. In future versions I would like to see the output files in raster already so they don't need to be converted to raster. Also it would be nice that the names were automatically output to less than 13 characters. Thanks!

Ok. Thanks Jonathan,

Another question. If there is no accretion/erosion data for my region how do we go about field collecting the data to put in to SLAMM? Is there a technique/s (or references) you suggest for collecting these parameters- marsh, swamp and tidal falt erosion rates, and salt marsh, brackish marsh and tidal fresh accretion rates?

Hi Jonathan,

I am doing some SLAMM modeling near Eastport Maine (on the Passamaquoddy Indian Reservation). I read the Moosehorn and Petit Manan NWR reports to find local parameters. The closest accretion data I could find was in Cobscook Bay from the referenced journal article in the NWR studies by Goodman et. al. Nowhere in the reports does it say where the erosion rate parameters are from. Marsh, swamp and tidal flat erosion respectively used throughout the subsites are 1.8, 1 and 0.5 m/yr. Where did these come from? I am assuming they are for this local region?  Thanks.

Model Formulation & Parameters / Re: impervious layer
February 19, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
Thanks for the quick response Jonathan. So most likely major roads would be protected and minor roads not so?
Model Formulation & Parameters / impervious layer
February 15, 2013, 11:55:15 PM

I am creating my own impervious layer, as the NLCD layer is not as current or detailed as my ortho-photo. Do I need to include roads in the impervious layer? Thanks.

Ok. Thanks Jonathan!
Model Formulation & Parameters / C-Cap conversion to SLAMM
September 07, 2011, 05:12:09 PM
I am using C-Cap data instead of NWI to convert to SLAMM codes. Please advise if these would be the correct codes. I am mostly unsure of the last code (CCAP 23) Thanks. Caroline

CCap                                                                    SLAMM
2-5,           developed                                                    1
6-12, 20     natural areas, bare land                                  2
13-14         paulustrine scrub/schrub/emergent wetlands      3
15              paulstrine emergent wetland                           5
17              estuarine scrub/shrub wetland                        7
18              estuarine emergent wetland                           8
19              unconsolidated shore                                  11
21              open water                                               17
23              estuarine aquatic bed                                 20
Model Formulation & Parameters / Re: slamm 5 vs 6
February 28, 2011, 09:13:31 PM
Yes I also noted a difference in SLAMM 5.0.2 and 6.0.1. SLAMM 6 showed more beach erosion and much more estuarine beach erosion than SLAMM 5. SLAMM 5 showed tidal flats moving inland further. I used Lidar data, so no pre-processing and the exact same parameters for each run.

Using SLAMM / Re: slamm 6.0.1 memory error
June 08, 2010, 09:33:20 PM
I'm running a 32 bit XP OS. Thanks for the info.
Using SLAMM / Re: slamm 6.0.1 memory error
June 04, 2010, 07:45:43 PM

I've been running Slamm 6.0.1 on my second data set (27,100,961 cells, 1.59 gb memory) and again find some interesting Slamm behavior. Again I couldn't set the attributes (memory error) but I could run Slamm and the output looked ok. However when I went to run it a second time (I made a modification to my NWI data but nothing else was different- same size ascii file) I kept getting memory errors.  Then I changed the tracking from blank to 'do not track high elevations and open water' and it ran (and the set attributes also worked)! The cel size/gigs were then reduced to 9,396,996 cells, 0.55 gb.

Using SLAMM / Re: slamm 6.0.1 memory error
June 03, 2010, 11:23:07 PM
Hi Jonathan,

I've attempted to recreate my errors using the same datasets and sometimes I get an out of memory error when either setting attributes and/or executing the program, and sometimes I don't! I noticed that when I set up count first and then set attributes that it worked. I think maybe it has to do with the order I select the choices on the opening form?

In Word I get the following error:  'Runtime error copying map to microsoft word for year 0'. I tried to paste a screen shot into the word document (per http://warrenpinnacle.com/SLAMMFORUM/index.php?topic=87.0) but when I say yes to repaste it it creates a new word document so this doesn't work. So I tried your suggetion to run Slamm with the initial zoom set to 12.5% and it worked! :)

I imported slamm5 data and got these errors:  NWI: "does not include "description" identifier. Dem, Dike, slp and site files: "tide range has been collapsed in v6, reading tide inland as primary tide input". I am assuming these are not a problem, but maybe that could be an issue?

Looking closer at my output data, although the long streaks are gone (when I uncheck the soil saturation selection) for my non-tidal swamp I now have some shorter streaks for undeveloped land, estuarine beach and tidal flats that weren't there before.

The first time I ran this set of data (in 6.0.1) it took most of the day but the second two times it only took an hour or two. Odd. Thanks for the 64 bit update, 32 works fine for now- I can run Slamm in the background while I do other things. This is my western section of my area. I ran the entire area in Slamm 5 and it took a week or so but Slamm 6 crashed, and also Slamm 6.0.1- I get an "Error creating map in memory, write map to disk instead? I answered yes, when setting map attributes and then it runs awhile and then I get a 'not enough storage is available to process this command' (90,046,282 cells, 5.28 gb memory utilization), when I try to run it I get a 'range check' error. I am sure it must be way too big but it is interesting that it ran in slamm5.

I can send you the input ascii files via zipped file (they are 135,557 kb in size) if you'd like as I can't figure out how to get an ftp link to work.



Using SLAMM / slamm 6.0.1 memory error
June 02, 2010, 07:00:08 PM
hi Jonathan,

I am happy to report I can run my 21,177,910 cel sized NC map that uses 1.24 gb with the updated version (it would crash in 6 although it ran in 5). I unclicked the soil saturation and I don't have streaks - this was a major problem before.  :) Thanks.

I can't get it to write to Word however (same error as others) even using the workaround mentioned in this forum. It also tells me I am out of memory when I attempt to set the attributes so that part doesn't work. Is this necessary? My output looks reasonable. Looking forward to the 64 bit compatible version so it doesn't take so long to run.