Ok Great!  Thanks!

We treat Riverine Tidal as open water.  Jonathan may be able to further clarify our definition.

Evan

The wetland classification is in the National Wildlife Federations SLAMM report for the Chesapeake Bay.  We used the same NWI breakout as them and I just want to know what the "Riverine Tidal" class is.  I believe Jonathan ran the model for NWF so maybe he knows what "Riverine Tidal" is.  It may not be a wetland type but rather a form of water body.  Here's the link to the report:  http://cf.nwf.org/sealevelrise/pdfs/sealevelriseandcoastalhabitats_chesapeakeregion.pdf

Which final wetland conversion chart?  Do you mean Riverine Tidal Open Water?

Thanks for clarifying Evan.  I have one additional question about the NWI breakout for the NWF study.  What is the description of Riverine Tidal wetlands?  It's listed in the final wetland conversion chart but I can't find a description for it.  We used the same NWI breakout so a description would be super helpful.

Thanks,

Chelsie

We typically multiply the GT by the percentage of MHHW where water reaches at least once every 30 days, and divide by 2.  So, for the Chesapeake Bay region -- where this percentage is around 133% -- the calculation would be (GT)(1.33)/2.

I hope that answers you question.

Evan

Jonathan,

How do you calculate the salt elevation parameter?  Is it MHW or MHHW minus the MTL?  So far the model outputs are looking good with the LiDAR and new accretion calculation...its great to have a comparison (Maryland NWF study) to see the differences you've made to the model.

Thanks!

Chelsie

Hi again Jonathan,

Just to follow up - I discussed this with the wetland specialist in our research group (assoc prof Catherine Lovelock) and she confirmed that using the surface elevation change (accretion minus shallow subsidence) would indeed be the more sensible thing to do here. The deep subsidence is close to negligible in this region. The shallow subsidence varies with distance to water channel, so we will use the accretion model built into SLAMM and parameterise it with the surface elevation change data instead.

Also, Catherine mentioned that she is developing a research proposal and would be very interested in discussing the possibility to use and potentially adapt/develop the SLAMM model to other key coastal/marine environments in Australia. I'll forward your email address to her if that's OK so that she can contact you about this directly.

Cheers, Karin

Thanks for your (very informative) reply, Jonathan.

I will discuss your comments further with the wetland specialist in our group, and also run scenarios with both sets of values (accretion or surface elevation change) to see what effect it has on long-term wetland changes as you suggested.

Cheers, Karin

Hi J.

so do you expect that the fractal dimension calculated for different interfaces e.g. water-ocean beach class , water-estuarine beach class etc... can produce different fractal dimensions? .... probably yes however I do not expect huge variations from the fractal dimensions already provided.
(Also because the range of the fractal dimension is small by itself)

best,

Matteo