Upper Florida Keys 2002-2016 Seafloor Elevation Stability Models, Maps, and Tables

Frequently anticipated questions:

• What does this data set describe?
  1. How might this data set be cited?
  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?
  3. What does it look like?
  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?
  5. What is the general form of this data set?
  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?
• Who produced the data set?
  1. Who are the originators of the data set?
  2. Who also contributed to the data set?
  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
• Why was the data set created?
• How was the data set created?
  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?
  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?
  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?
• How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?
  1. How well have the observations been checked?
  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
  5. How consistent are the relationships among the data, including topology?
• How can someone get a copy of the data set?
  1. Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?
  2. Who distributes the data?
  3. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?
  4. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?
  5. How can I download or order the data?
• Who wrote the metadata?

What does this data set describe?

1. How might this data set be cited?
   Murphy, Kelly A., and Yates, Kimberly K., 20210628, Upper Florida Keys 2002-2016 Seafloor Elevation Stability Models, Maps, and Tables:.

   This is part of the following larger work.
   Murphy, Kelly A., and Yates, Kimberly K., 20210628, Upper Florida Keys 2002-2016 Seafloor Elevation Stability Models, Maps, and Tables: U.S. Geological Survey data release doi:10.5066/P94NIALN, U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL.

   Online Links:

   • https://doi.org/10.5066/P94NIALN

2. What geographic area does the data set cover?

   West_Bounding_Coordinate: -80.465007
   East_Bounding_Coordinate: -80.109513
   North_Bounding_Coordinate: 25.478116
   South_Bounding_Coordinate: 24.963888
   

3. What does it look like?
4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?

   Beginning_Date: 10-Jul-2001

   Ending_Date: 20-Feb-2017

   Currentness_Reference:

   ground condition

5. What is the general form of this data set?

   Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector, tabular and raster digital data
   

6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
   1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?
      This is a Point data set.
   2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?
      

      Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal Transverse Mercator
      Universal_Transverse_Mercator:

      UTM_Zone_Number: 17
      Transverse_Mercator:

      Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.9996
      Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -81.0
      Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 0.0
      False_Easting: 500000.0
      False_Northing: 0.0
      

      Planar coordinates are encoded using coordinate pair
      Abscissae (x-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.6096
      Ordinates (y-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.6096
      Planar coordinates are specified in METERS
      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum of 1983 National Spatial Reference System (2007).
      The ellipsoid used is GRS_1980.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378137.0.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/298.257222.
      

      Vertical_Coordinate_System_Definition:

      Altitude_System_Definition:

      Altitude_Datum_Name: North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) GEOID12B
      Altitude_Resolution: 0.2
      Altitude_Distance_Units: meters
      Altitude_Encoding_Method:

      Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates

7. How does the data set describe geographic features?

   Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:

   The detailed attribute descriptions for the stability data tables and maps are provided in the included data dictionaries (StabilityCategories_DataDictionary.pdf, StabilityTables_DataDictionary.pdf, and HabitatTypes_DataDictionary.pdf). These metadata are not complete without these files.

   Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:

   The entity and attribute information were generated by the individual and/or agency identified as the originator of the dataset. Please review the rest of the metadata record for additional details and information.

Who produced the data set?

1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)
   • Kelly A. Murphy
   • Kimberly K. Yates
2. Who also contributed to the data set?
3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
   Kimberly K. Yates

   Southeast Region: St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center

   Research Oceanographer

   600 4th Street South

   St. Petersburg, Florida
   

   United States

   727-502-8059 (voice)

   kyates@usgs.gov

Why was the data set created?

These data were used to identify areas of seafloor elevation stability and instability, from 2002 to 2016, in the Upper Florida Keys.

How was the data set created?

1. From what previous works were the data drawn?

   2002-2016 Upper Florida Keys elevation-change points (source 1 of 1)

   Kelly A. Murphy, Kimberley K. Yates, and David G. Zawada, 20210121, Seafloor Elevation Change From 2002 to 2016 in the Upper Florida Keys: U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL.

   Online Links:

   • https://doi.org/10.5066/P9P42DUR

   Type_of_Source_Media: Elevation-change data
   Source_Contribution:

   The original elevation-change points containing the calculated elevation change from 2002 to 2016 in the Upper Florida Keys.

2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?

   Date: 2020 (process 1 of 17)

   Step 1: The original 2002-2016 Upper Florida Keys (UFK) elevation-change points (2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile) were processed and published by Murphy and others (2021). For more information on the elevation-change data processing steps, source elevation data, and elevation-change points, see Murphy and others (2021). Horizontal coordinates are referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Horizontal Datum of 1983 (NAD83) National Spatial Reference System of 2007 (NSRS2007) National Readjustment and vertical coordinates are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), GEOID12B geoid model.

   Date: 2020 (process 2 of 17)

   Step 2: An elevation-change surface model was created in Esri ArcGIS Desktop Advanced version 10.6 (ArcMap) using the calculated elevation-change (Diff_m) points from the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile and methods of Yates and others (2017). Due to the memory limitation ArcMap encounters when attempting to edit large TINs, a Python script was developed to create and edit a TIN following the Yates and others (2017) TIN creation method. Using the Python script, a TIN was created using the “Create TIN (3D Analyst)” tool by specifying the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile as the “Input Feature Class”, Diff_m as the “Height Field” and Mass_Points as the “Type”, creating the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file. The 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file was delineated using the “Delineate TIN Data Area (3D Analyst)” tool by specifying the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file as the “Input TIN”, a “Maximum Edge Length” of 2.828428 (hypotenuse of a triangle with 2-meter (m) legs) and the “Method” set to ALL. The delineated 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN was then clipped to the extent of the 2002 and 2016 DEMs using the “Edit TIN (3D Analyst)” tool with the following parameters: “Input TIN”: 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file; “Input Features Class”: 2002-2016 geometric intersection footprint; “Height Field”: None; “Tag Field”: None; and “Type”: Hard clip. This step was required to remove unwanted triangles that spanned data gaps in the original DEMs used to generate the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile. For information on how to generate a geometric intersection between the 2002 and 2016 DEMs, see Yates and others (2017) and Murphy and others (2021).

   Date: 2020 (process 3 of 17)

   Step 3: The 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file was classified into five stability categories using a defined stability threshold to identify areas of stability and instability. The stability threshold is the total root mean square error (RMSE) calculated for the 2002-2016 UFK elevation-change points using the vertical uncertainty of the 2002 and 2016 DEMs. A total RMSE of 0.24 m was calculated and rounded up to create a conservative stability threshold of 0.25 m that was applied to the TIN. See Yates and others (2017) for methods on calculating the RMSE. Based on the specified stability threshold of 0.25 m, the following five stability categories were identified: Stable: 0.0 m to ±0.24 m or 0.0 m to ±0.49 m; Moderately stable: ±0.25 m to ±0.49 m; Moderately unstable: ±0.50 m to ±0.74 m; Mostly unstable: ±0.75 m to ±0.99 m; and Unstable: ±1.00 m to Max/Min elevation change. Category boundaries use the pattern of “lower bound < or = x < upper bound” to avoid inclusion of individual elevation-change values in multiple categories. The categories were assigned based on the absolute value of the elevation-change values. For example, values within ±0.24 m of change were classified as Stable.

   Date: 2020 (process 4 of 17)

   Step 4: Due to the large file size of the final 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file, ArcMap couldn’t render or run geoprocessing tools on the TIN, and therefore, ArcGIS Pro version 2.1.3 was used for subsequent processing steps. The 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file was opened in ArcGIS Pro and the “Symbology” window was opened by double clicking the TIN in the “Table of Contents” and selecting “Symbology”. Within the “Symbology” tab, “Surface” was set to Elevation, and “Classes” was set to 10. The following “Class Breaks” were used to classify and bin the elevation-change values into ten classes: -0.994999 (class1); -0.744999 (class 2); -0.494999 (class 3); -0.244999 (class 4); 0 (class 5); 0.244999 (class 6); 0.494999 (class 7); 0.744999 (class 8); 0.994999 (class 9); and maximum positive elevation-change value (class 10). The “Class Breaks” were based on the 0.25 m stability threshold, with each class increasing in increments of 0.24 m up to ±1 m of change. Classes 4, 5 and 6 represent the stable elevation-change values with no change detected (Stable), classes 1 and 10 represent the unstable elevation-change values with change greater than ±1 m (Unstable), and the remaining classes represent the elevation-change values in between (Moderately stable through Mostly unstable).

   Date: 2020 (process 5 of 17)

   Step 5: The color symbology of the classes listed in the “Class Breaks” were changed to represent each stability category. A color gradient of red, gray, and blue shades was applied to the binned TIN to distinguish the stability level of each elevation-change value and distinguish areas of erosion and accretion. Both positive and negative elevation-change values that fell within the Stable category were colored gray. However, red and blue shades were applied to elevation-change values that fell within categories Moderately stable through Unstable to distinguish areas of erosion and accretion. Blue shades were applied to elevation-change values with positive elevation change (accretion) and red shades were applied to elevation-change values with negative elevation change (erosion). Lighter shades indicate the smallest amount of change while darker shades indicate the largest amount of change.

   Date: 2020 (process 6 of 17)

   Step 6: Additionally, the 2002-2016 UFK elevation-change points were classified into the five stability categories. The process was similar to the methods described in steps 3-5; however, the “Class Breaks” were defined differently because the method for binning points is different than delineating break points for a TIN in ArcGIS Pro. The 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile was opened in ArcGIS Pro and the “Symbology” window was opened by double clicking the TIN in the “Table of Contents” and selecting “Symbology”. Within the “Symbology” tab, “Symbology” was set to Graduated Colors, “Field” was set to the attribute containing the elevation-change values (Diff_m) and “Classes” was set to 10. The following “Class Breaks” were used to classify and bin the Diff_m values into ten classes: -0.995 (class 1); -0.745 (class 2); -0.495 (class 3); -0.245 (class 4); 0 (class 5); 0.244999 (class 6); 0.494999 (class 7); 0.744999 (class 8); 0.994999 (class 9); and max positive Diff_m value (class 10). The remaining steps to change the color symbology are the same as described in step 5.

   Date: 2020 (process 7 of 17)

   Step 7: The above process steps were repeated four times using different stability categories to represent a total of five different resolutions of elevation-change stability maps. The same color scheme was used for each resolution map. The above stability categories and “Class Breaks” described in Steps 3-6 represent the highest resolution map, 5th order. The remaining four resolutions of maps (1st through 4th order) required different “Class Breaks” and stability category ranges. The specific parameters for each resolution map are described in steps 8 through 11.

   Date: 2020 (process 8 of 17)

   Step 8: The 4th order resolution map was generated for the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file using the following eight “Class Breaks”: -0.744999, -0.494999, -0.244999, 0, 0.244999, 0.494999, 0.744999, and max positive elevation-change value. The following eight “Class Breaks” were used for the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile: -0.745, -0.495, -0.245, 0, 0.244999, 0.494999, 0.744999, and max Diff_m value. The four associated stability categories for both are as follows: Stable: 0.0 m to ±0.24 m, Moderately stable: ±0.25 m to ±0.49 m, Moderately unstable: ±0.50 m to ±0.74 m, Unstable: ±0.75 m to Max/Min elevation change. The 4th order resolution maps combine the Mostly unstable values into the Unstable category.

   Date: 2020 (process 9 of 17)

   Step 9: The 3rd order resolution map was generated for the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file using the following six “Class Breaks”: -0.494999, -0.244999, 0, 0.244999, 0.494999, and max positive elevation-change value. The following six “Class Breaks” were used for the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile: -0.495, -0.245, 0, 0.244999, 0.494999, and max positive Diff_m value. The three associated stability categories for both are as follows: Stable: 0.0 m to ±0.24 m, Moderately stable: ±0.25 m to ±0.49 m, Unstable: ±0.50 m to Max/Min elevation change. The 3rd order resolution maps combine the Moderately unstable and Mostly unstable values into the Unstable category.

   Date: 2020 (process 10 of 17)

   Step 10: The 2nd order resolution map was generated for the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file using the following three “Class Breaks”: -0.494999, 0.494999, and max positive elevation-change value. The following three “Class Breaks” were used for the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile: -0.495, 0.494999, and max positive Diff_m value. The two associated stability categories for both are as follows: Stable: 0.0 m to ±0.49 m and Unstable: ±0.50 m to Max/Min elevation change. The 2nd order resolution maps combine the Moderately stable values into the Stable category, and the Moderately unstable and Mostly unstable values into the Unstable category.

   Date: 2020 (process 11 of 17)

   Step 11: The 1st order resolution map was generated using the same “Class Breaks” and stability category ranges as the 2nd order resolution map. However, both positive and negative values that fell within the Unstable category were colored dark red regardless of being negative or positive to depict only stable and unstable areas regardless of gain or loss in elevation.

   Date: 2020 (process 12 of 17)

   Step 12: The USGS SPCMSC analyzed seafloor elevation change and stability throughout the Florida Reef Tract (FRT) at potential coral reef restoration locations provided by partnering stakeholders. Ten reef locations of interest throughout the FRT were identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, two reefs of which (Carysfort reef and Horseshoe reef) fall within the bounds of the 2002-2016 UFK data extent. Additionally, seafloor stability data were requested from Mote Marine Laboratory for 50 authorized coral outplant sites (Special Activity License: SAL-18-1724-SCRP) and five potential coral outplant sites along the FRT. Four of the five potential outplant sites fell within the bounds of the 2002-2016 UFK data extent.

   Date: 2020 (process 13 of 17)

   Step 13: Boundaries for the coral reefs of interest were downloaded as a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped file (KMZ) from the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary webpage (https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/fknms_map/welcome.html; last accessed: 27 November 2019). Using ArcMap, the KMZ file was converted to a single merged polygon shapefile, creating the NOAA_CoralReef_LocationsOfInterest shapefile. The polygons encompassing the ‘Carysfort reef’ and ‘Horseshoe reef’ were included in this file. A point shapefile containing the four potential outplant sites (MotesPotential_OutplantSites shapefile) was created using the coordinate locations from Mote Marine Laboratory. Mote Marine Laboratory provided the USGS SPCMSC with the latitude, longitude, and site description of each outplant site. Horizontal coordinates are referenced to the UTM NAD83 (NSRS2007) National Readjustment and vertical coordinates are referenced to the NAVD88, GEOID12B geoid model.

   Date: 2020 (process 14 of 17)

   Step 14: Elevation-change information was extracted from the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file at the location of the MotesPotential_OutplantSites shapefile using the “Add Surface Information (3D Analyst)” tool in ArcGIS Pro by specifying the MotesPotential_OutplantSites shapefile as the “Input Features”, the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file as the “Input Surface”, Z as the “Output Property”, LINEAR as the “Method”, and “Sampling Distance” and “Z Factor” left blank. A single elevation-change value was extracted from the TIN at the location of each point that fell within the bounds of the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file.

   Date: 2020 (process 15 of 17)

   Step 15: The average elevation change and standard deviation was calculated from the 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile at the location of the ‘Carysfort reef’ and ‘Horseshoe reef’ polygons using the “Statistics” tool in ArcGIS Pro. When calculating average elevation change and standard deviation for locations defined by bounding box coordinates, the elevation-change points were used.

   Date: 2020 (process 16 of 17)

   Step 16: Using Microsoft Excel 2016, all statistics were entered into a table and color coded based on the defined stability colors for each map resolution. Additionally, average elevation changes and standard deviations calculated by the USGS SPCMSC for each habitat found within the 2002-2016 elevation-change points data extent were included in the table. No-data values are indicated by -99. For information on how to calculate elevation-change statistics by habitat type, see Yates and others (2017) and Murphy and others (2021).

   Date: 2020 (process 17 of 17)

   Step 17: Map packages (.mpkx) containing a map document and the data it contains were created for each resolution map. Each map document contains the MotesPotential_OutplantSites shapefile, NOAA_CoralReef_LocationsOfInterest shapefile, habitat map, and the binned and color coded 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_Points shapefile and 2002_2016_UFK_SeafloorStability_TIN file. For users that have access to ArcGIS Pro, the map packages can be downloaded and opened to display the coral restoration locations, habitat types, and binned points and TIN for each resolution. The individual contents of the map packages are also provided in this data release, including layer files that store the symbology information for each resolution of the seafloor stability points and TIN. The layer files can be applied to the stability points or TIN in ArcGIS Pro using the “Apply Symbology From Layer (Data Management)” tool.

3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?
   Murphy, Kelly A., Yates, Kimberly K., and Zawada, David G., 20210121, Seafloor Elevation Change From 2002 to 2016 in the Upper Florida Keys: U.S. Geological Survey data release doi:10.5066/P9P42DUR, U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL.

   Online Links:

   • https://doi.org/10.5066/P9P42DUR

   Yates, Kimberly K., Zawada, David G., Smiley, Nathan A., and Tiling-Range, Ginger, 20170420, Divergence of seafloor elevation and sea level rise in coral reef ecosystems: U.S. Geological Survey, Munich, Germany.

   Online Links:

   • https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-1739-2017

How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

1. How well have the observations been checked?
   Datasets were visually inspected by USGS staff in Esri ArcGIS Pro version 2.1.3 for identification of data inconsistencies.
2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
   For the 2016 lidar DEMs used to produce the point dataset, the data positions were obtained using post-processed kinematic global positioning system (KGPS) methods. The horizontal accuracy of the 2002 and 2016 data is better than plus or minus 1.0 m; Quantitative Value: 1.0 m.
3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
   For the 2016 lidar DEMs used to produce the point dataset, the data positions were obtained using post-processed KGPS methods. Data used to validate the lidar were collected with static GPS observational equipment and compared against the published data. The vertical accuracy of the 2002 data is better than plus or minus 0.20 m; Quantitative Value: 0.20 m. The vertical accuracy of the 2016 data is better than plus or minus 0.15 m; Quantitative Value: 0.15 m.
4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
   This dataset is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract section. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record and Murphy and others (2021) carefully for additional details.
5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?
   Data cover the area specified for this project, without any known issues.

How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?

Access_Constraints: none
Use_Constraints:

Public domain data from the U.S. Government are freely redistributable with proper metadata and source attribution. The U.S. Geological Survey requests to be acknowledged as originator of these data in future products or derivative research.

1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)
   
   Kimberly K. Yates

   Southeast Region: St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center

   Research Oceanographer

   600 4th Street South

   St. Petersburg, FL
   

   United States

   727-502-8059 (voice)

   kyates@usgs.gov
2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?
3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?

   Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The USGS shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described or contained herein. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

4. How can I download or order the data?
   • Availability in digital form:

     Data format:	JPEG, MPKX, SHP, LYRX, ADF, CSV, XLSX (version none, ArcGIS Pro 2.1.3, RFC 4180, Microsoft Excel 2016) Joint Photographic Experts Group, Esri map package, Esri point and polygon shapefiles, Esri layer files, Esri TIN, comma-separated values, Excel Microsoft Office Open XML Format Spreadsheet file.
     Network links:	https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/data-release/doi-P94NIALN/data/2002_2016_UFK_MapPackages_5Resolutions.zip https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/data-release/doi-P94NIALN/data/2002_2016_UFK_Maps_Point_5Resolutions.zip https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/data-release/doi-P94NIALN/data/2002_2016_UFK_Maps_TIN_5Resolutions.zip https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/data-release/doi-P94NIALN/data/2002_2016_UFK_Tables_5Resolutions.zip

   • Cost to order the data: None

5. What hardware or software do I need in order to use the data set?

   Users must have access to Esri ArcGIS Pro version 2.1.3 or later to open the map packages provided in this data release.

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:

Last modified: 21-May-2021

Metadata author:

Kimberly K. Yates

Southeast Region: St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center

Research Oceanographer

600 4th Street South

St. Petersburg, Florida

United States

727-502-8059 (voice)

kyates@usgs.gov

Metadata standard:

Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)