Core descriptions and sedimentologic data from vibracores and sand augers collected in 2021 and 2022 from Fire Island, New York

Metadata also available as - [Outline] - [Parseable text] - [XML]

Frequently anticipated questions:

What does this data set describe?

Title:
Core descriptions and sedimentologic data from vibracores and sand augers collected in 2021 and 2022 from Fire Island, New York
Abstract:
In 2021 and 2022, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) and the USGS New York Water Science Center (NYWSC), on behalf of SPCMSC, conducted sediment sampling and ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys at Point O' Woods and Ho-Hum Beach (NYWSC, 2021) and Watch Hill, Long Cove, and Smith Point (SPCMSC, 2022), Fire Island, New York. These data complement previous SPCMSC GPR and sediment sampling surveys conducted at Fire Island in 2016 (Buster and others, 2018; Forde and others, 2018).
Supplemental_Information:
Data were collected during USGS FAN 2021-312-FA. Additional survey and data details are available from the U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geoscience Data System (CMGDS) at, https://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov/fan_info.php?fan=2021-312-FA. Support analyses for this data are presented in Ciarletta and others (2024).
  1. How might this data set be cited?
    Bernier, Julie C., Everhart, Cheyenne S., Ciarletta, Daniel J., Miselis, Jennifer L., and DeWitt, Nancy T., 20230502, Core descriptions and sedimentologic data from vibracores and sand augers collected in 2021 and 2022 from Fire Island, New York:.

    This is part of the following larger work.

    Bernier, Julie C., Everhart, Cheyenne S., Ciarletta, Daniel J., Miselis, Jennifer L., and DeWitt, Nancy T., 20230502, Sediment Data from Vibracores and Sand Augers Collected in 2021 and 2022 From Fire Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey data release doi:10.5066/P91P1T88, U.S. Geological Survey - St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg, FL.

    Online Links:

  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?
    West_Bounding_Coordinate: -73.13055
    East_Bounding_Coordinate: -72.86852
    North_Bounding_Coordinate: 40.65065
    South_Bounding_Coordinate: 40.73381
  3. What does it look like?
  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?
    Beginning_Date: 29-Mar-2021
    Ending_Date: 22-Apr-2022
    Currentness_Reference:
    ground condition
  5. What is the general form of this data set?
  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
    1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?
      This is a Vector data set. It contains the following vector data types (SDTS terminology):
      • String (9)
    2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?
      Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal Transverse Mercator
      Universal_Transverse_Mercator:
      UTM_Zone_Number: 18
      Transverse_Mercator:
      Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.9996
      Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -75.0
      Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 0
      False_Easting: 500000.0
      False_Northing: 0.0
      Planar coordinates are encoded using Coordinate pair
      Abscissae (x-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.001
      Ordinates (y-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.001
      Planar coordinates are specified in Meters
      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum 1983.
      The ellipsoid used is Geodectic Reference System 80.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378137.0.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/298.257222101.
      Vertical_Coordinate_System_Definition:
      Altitude_System_Definition:
      Altitude_Datum_Name: North American Vertical Datum 1988
      Altitude_Resolution: 0.001
      Altitude_Distance_Units: meter
      Altitude_Encoding_Method: Attribute values
  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?
    2021-312-FA_CoreSites.csv, 2021-312-FA_CoreSites.xslx, 2021-312-FA_CoreSites.shp, 2021-312-FA_CoreSites.kml
    File containing the site locations and core parameters for 2021-312-FA vibracores and sand augers. Files are provided in Microsoft Excel (.xlsx), comma-separated values (.csv), Esri shapefile (.shp), and Keyhole Markup Language (KML) formats in the file 2021-312-FA_CoreSites.zip. (Source: USGS)
    FID
    Internal feature number (Source: Esri) Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Attribute inlcuded only in the shapefile.
    Shape
    Feature geometry (Source: Esri) Geometry type defining the features. Attribute inlcuded only in the shapefile.
    SiteID
    Site identification number. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: FAN-C##, where the FAN is 2021-312-FA, and C## is the unique core site number. For example, 2021-312-FA-C1.
    AltID
    Alternate site identification information. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: C## (LOC), where ## is the unique core site number, and LOC is the abbreviated site location name (POW for Point O Woods, HHB for Ho Hum Beach, SP for Smith Point, WH for Watch Hill, and LC for Long Cove). For example, C1 (POW).
    Location1
    General description of site location. (Source: USGS)
    ValueDefinition
    Fire IslandThe core site was located on Fire Island, NY.
    Location2
    Localized description of site location. (Source: USGS)
    ValueDefinition
    Point O WoodsThe core was collected at Point O Woods, Fire Island, NY.
    Ho-Hum BeachThe core was collected at Ho-Hum Beach, Fire Island, NY.
    Smith PointThe core was collected at Smith Point, Fire Island, NY.
    Watch HillThe core was collected at Watch Hill, Fire Island, NY.
    Long CoveThe core was collected at Long Cove, Fire Island, NY.
    Date_Coll
    Date the core was collected, written as DD-MON-YYYY (2-digit day, 3-letter month, 4-digit year). (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:29-Mar-2021
    Maximum:22-Apr-2022
    Lat_NAD83
    Latitude of site location, in decimal degrees relative to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:40.65065
    Maximum:40.73381
    Units:Decimal degrees
    Resolution:0.00001
    Lon_NAD83
    Longitude of site location, in decimal degrees (NAD83). (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:-73.13055
    Maximum:-72.86852
    Units:Decimal degrees
    Resolution:0.00001
    X_UTM18
    X-coordinate (easting) of site location, in meters (NAD83, Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 North [UTM 18N]). (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:658054.820
    Maximum:679986.063
    Units:Meters
    Resolution:0.001
    Y_UTM18
    Y-coordinate (northing) of site location, in meters (NAD83, UTM zone 18 N). (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:4501657.300
    Maximum:4511393.748
    Units:Meters
    Resolution:0.001
    Ortho_G12A
    Elevation (orthometric height) of site location, in meters relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) defined using the GEOID12A geoid model. (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:0.745
    Maximum:2.809
    Units:Meters
    Resolution:0.001
    Length_cm
    Vibracore length, in centimeters. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:153.5
    Maximum:243
    Units:Centimeters
    Resolution:0.5
    Penetration_cm
    Depth vibracore penetrated below the sediment surface, in centimeters. This is equal to core length plus core compaction. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:216
    Maximum:325
    Units:Centimeters
    Resolution:0.5
    Compaction_cm
    Vibracore compaction, in centimeters. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS)
    Range of values
    Minimum:28
    Maximum:173
    Units:Centimeters
    Resolution:0.5
    Int_Slv1_cm
    Coring interval for sand auger sleeve 1 (surface core), in centimeters. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: A-BB, where A and BB represent the depth below the surface of the top and the bottom of the core, respectively.
    Int_Slv2_cm
    Coring interval for sand auger sleeve 2, in centimeters. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: AA-BBB, where AA and BBB represent the depth below the surface of the top and the bottom of the core, respectively.
    Int_OSL_cm
    Coring interval for sand auger sleeve collected for OSL dating, in centimeters. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: AA-BBB, where AA and BBB represent the depth below the surface of the top and the bottom of the core, respectively.
    Int_Slv3_cm
    Coring interval for sand auger sleeve 3, in centimeters. A value of N/A was used for cores in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: AA-BBB, where AA and BBB represent the depth below the surface of the top and the bottom of the core, respectively.
    2021-312-FA_CoreLogs.zip
    File containing descriptive logs for each core in JPEG format. Credit, contact information, copyright, usage terms, image descriptions, attribution url, metadata link, and georeferencing information were added to the exchangeable image file format (EXIF) header of each core log image using Phil Harvey’s ExifTool (version 12.44). Please view the imagery headers for the image metadata. (Source: USGS)
    2021-312-FA_CorePhotos.zip
    File containing high-resolution photos of each core in JPEG format. Credit, contact information, copyright, usage terms, image descriptions, attribution url, metadata link, and georeferencing information were added to the exchangeable image file format (EXIF) header of each core log image using Phil Harvey’s ExifTool (version 12.44). Please view the imagery headers for the image metadata. (Source: USGS)
    2021-312-FA_CoreXRays.zip
    File containing high-resolution x-rays of each sand auger section in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) format. Credit, contact information, copyright, usage terms, image descriptions, attribution url, metadata link, and georeferencing information were added to the exchangeable image file format (EXIF) header of each core log image using Phil Harvey’s ExifTool (version 12.44). Please view the imagery headers for the image metadata. (Source: USGS)
    2021-312-FA_GrainSize_SumStats.csv, 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_SieveStats.csv, 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeStats.xlsx
    Summary LS13 320 and sieve grain-size data for vibracore and sand auger sediment samples. Files are provided in Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) and comma-separated values (.csv) formats. The averaged results for all samples, including the number of runs used, the standard deviation of the averaged results, and down-core plots, are provided. For full entity and attribute details, please refer to the accompanying data dictionary, 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_DataDictionary.docx included in the file 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeData.zip. 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeStats.xlsx contains a copy of the data dictionary as well as the summary LS13 320 and sieve data, separated by tabs. (Source: USGS)
    2021-312-FA_GrainSize_RunData.xlsx, 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_RunData.csv
    Raw LS13 320 output listing the class weight retained in each aperture bin as a percent of the total sample weight. Files are provided in Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) and comma-separated values (.csv) formats. Data for each core are separated by tabs in the .xlsx file. (Source: USGS)
    Sample Identity:
    Sample identification name (Source: USGS) Character string containing the sample identification information and set number.
    Analyst:
    Last name of the person analyzing the sample on the laser diffraction Coulter LS13 320 particle-size analyzer. (Source: USGS)
    ValueDefinition
    EverhartCheyenne Everhart of the USGS SPCMSC conducted the analysis of the sample.
    Date:
    Date and time the sample was analyzed in MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS AM/PM format. (Source: Beckman Coulter LS13 320 Software)
    Range of values
    Minimum:8/6/2021 10:02:00 AM
    Maximum:9/8/2022 03:17:00 PM
    Aperture (microns)
    Coulter software bin aperture, in microns (Source: Beckman Coulter LS13 320 Software)
    Range of values
    Minimum:0.375
    Maximum:2000
    Class Weight Retained (%)
    The percent of that class weight retained of the total sample for the given bin aperature (Source: Beckman Coulter LS13 320 Software)
    Range of values
    Minimum:0
    Maximum:12.4
    2021-312-FA_14C.csv, 2021-312-FA_14C.xlsx
    File containing the results of radiocarbon analyses for 2021-312-FA vibracore and sand-auger subsamples. Files are provided in Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) and comma-separated values (.csv) formats in the file 2021-312-FA_AgeControl.zip. (Source: USGS)
    Core ID
    Core identification number. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: FAN-C##, where the FAN is 2021-312-FA, and C## is the unique core site number. For example, 2021-312-FA-C1.
    Sample Depth (cm)
    Sample interval, in cm. (Source: USGS) Character string using the following convention: AA-BBB, where AA and BBB represent the upper and lower sample boundaries (depth in core barrel), respectively.
    Lab Number
    Sample number assigned by Beta Analytic. (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string using the format Beta-######.
    Analyzed Material
    Type of material analyzed. (Source: USGS)
    ValueDefinition
    plant materialPlant material extracted from the bulk sample was analyzed.
    organic sedimentThe organic sediment fraction from the bulk sample was analyzed.
    Conventional Age (BP)
    The conventional radiocarbon age of the sample in years before present (BP) where "present" by convention is 1950 CE (common era). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string using the following convention: AAA +/- BB, where AA and BB represent the conventional radiocarbon age and 1-sigma uncertainty in years, respectively.
    IRMS δ13C (o/oo)
    A measure of the fractionation of 12C to 13C, expressed as the ratio of 13C to 12C (delta 13C or d13C), in parts per thousand. This value reported is the isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS) d13C with respect to VPDB (Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite) and is used to correct the fraction modern and the conventional radiocarbon age of the sample. (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.)
    Range of values
    Minimum:-28.3
    Maximum:-11.5
    D14C (o/oo)
    The relative difference between the absolute international standard (base year 1950) and sample activity, corrected for age and d13C. (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string using the following convention: AA.AA +/- B.BB, where AA.AA and B.BB represent the measured D14C and 1-sigma uncertainty in parts per thousand, respectively.
    Calibrated Date (cal CE)
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age(s) in calendar years (common era), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years (common era).
    Calibrated Age (cal BP)
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age(s) in calendar years before present (where "present" is 1950), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years before present.
    Probability
    The relative likelihood of the 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated age(s) of the sample, determined using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.)
    Range of values
    Minimum:0.4%
    Maximum:95.4%
    Calibrated Date_1
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years (common era), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years (common era).
    Calibrated Age_1
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years before present (where "present" is 1950), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years before present.
    Probability_1
    The relative likelihood of the 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated age of the sample, determined using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.)
    Range of values
    Minimum:35.8%
    Maximum:95.4%
    Calibrated Date_2
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years, based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years (common era).
    Calibrated Age_2
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years before present (where "present" is 1950), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years before present.
    Probability_2
    The relative likelihood of the 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated age of the sample, determined using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable. A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.)
    Range of values
    Minimum:19.2%
    Maximum:42.7%
    Calibrated Date_3
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years, based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years (common era). A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable.
    Calibrated Age_3
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years before present (where "present" is 1950), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years before present. A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable.
    Probability_3
    The relative likelihood of the 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated age of the sample, determined using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.)
    Range of values
    Minimum:2.4%
    Maximum:28.6%
    Calibrated Date_4
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years, based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years (common era). A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable.
    Calibrated Age_4
    The 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated radiocarbon age in calendar years before present (where "present" is 1950), based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.) Character string relating the calibrated radiocarbon age(s) to calendar years before present. A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable.
    Probability_4
    The relative likelihood of the 2-sigma (95.6% probability) calibrated age of the sample, determined using the High Probability Density Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). A value of N/A was used for samples in which this attribute is not applicable. (Source: Beta Analytic, Inc.)
    Range of values
    Minimum:0.4%
    Maximum:7.3%
    Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
    The detailed attribute descriptions for the grain-size summary statistics are provided in the data dictionary 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_DataDictionary.docx included in the file 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeData.zip. These metadata are not complete without this file.
    Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
    The entity and attribute information was 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)
    • Julie C. Bernier
    • Cheyenne S. Everhart
    • Daniel J. Ciarletta
    • Jennifer L. Miselis
    • Nancy T. DeWitt
  2. Who also contributed to the data set?
    Funding and (or) support for this study were provided by the USGS Coastal and Marine Hazards and Resources Program. The authors thank Michael Noll, Chris Schubert, Anthony Chu, William Capruso, and Ron Busciolano of the USGS NYWSC, as well as Michael Bilecki, Jordan Raphael, and Jason Demers of the National Park Service Fire Island National Seashore, for their assistance in survey coordination and data collection. This document was improved by scientific and metadata reviews by Noreen Buster and Breanna Williams (SPCMSC).
  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
    U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center
    Attn: Julie C. Bernier
    Geologist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    727-502-8000 (voice)
    jbernier@usgs.gov

Why was the data set created?

The data release (Bernier and others, 2023) associated with this metadata record serves as an archive of vibracore and sand-auger sediment cores collected from back-barrier environments on Fire Island from March 29–April 3, 2021 and April 19–22, 2022 (USGS Field Activity Number [FAN] 2021-312-FA). GPR data collected during the same survey are available as a separate data release (Forde and others, 2023). Sedimentologic data from these cores, including descriptive core logs, grain-size data, and the results of radiocarbon (14C) analyses, are provided to characterize and date shallow subsurface stratigraphic units such beach, dune, or washover deposits and support analyses presented by Ciarletta and others (2024). Data acquisition and processing methods are modified from Bernier and others (2017) and Buster and others (2018).

How was the data set created?

  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?
  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?
    Date: 2021 (process 1 of 10)
    Vibracore acquisition- Vibracores (core sites C1-C4) were collected using an 8-horsepower Briggs and Stratton motor connected via an 8.5-meter-long (27.9-foot-long) shaft to a Dreyer 2 1/8-inch (5.4 centimeter [cm]) concrete vibrator head. The vibrator was attached to a 7.6-cm (3-inch) diameter aluminum core barrel using a clamp, and the core barrel was vibrated into the subsurface until refusal. Measurements were taken on the inside and outside of the core barrel prior to extraction to determine the amount of compaction, which is the difference between the recovered core length and the total depth the core barrel penetrated below the sediment surface. After extraction, each core was capped, sealed, and labeled with the core number and orientation. All cores were transported to the SPCMSC sediment laboratory for processing and analysis. Position and elevation data at each vibracore site were recorded using a Trimble R10 DGPS receiver and geodetic antenna receiving RTK corrections from the NYSNet (New York State Spatial Reference Network) real-time network. Person who carried out this activity:
    Julie C. Bernier
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Geologist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    jbernier@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreSites.zip
    Date: 2022 (process 2 of 10)
    Sand auger acquisition- Sand augers (core sites C5-C9) were collected using an AMS sand/loose sediment soil probe, which can accommodate a 2.54-cm (1 inch) diameter by approximately 96 cm (3 feet) plastic or stainless sleeve. At each core site, multiple core sections were collected: an initial core section was collected from the ground surface; then, a trench was dug to just above the depth of sediment recovery. Two additional core sections were collected from the bottom of this trench, with one core section collected using a stainless-steel core sleeve to prevent exposure to light for optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating. At core site C5, a fourth core section was collected from the trench to achieve deeper penetration than the original attempt; at core sites C7 and C9, no trench was dug and the OSL section was collected from the ground surface. After extraction, each core was capped, sealed, and labeled with the core number, depth interval, and orientation. All cores were transported to the SPCMSC sediment laboratory for processing and analysis. Position and elevation data at each sand auger site were recorded using a Spectra Precision SP80 DGPS receiver and geodetic antenna. Raw data were recorded for a minimum of 30 minutes and were subsequently processed through OPUS. Person who carried out this activity:
    Julie C. Bernier
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Geologist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    jbernier@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreSites.zip
    Date: 2021 (process 3 of 10)
    Vibracore processing- At the SPCMSC sediment laboratory, each vibracore was split lengthwise, photographed, described macroscopically using standard sediment-logging methods, and subsampled for grain-size analysis and age control. Because samples were collected for OSL dating, care was taken not to expose the sediment to light, and core splitting and sampling was conducted in the dark with only a photographer's red lamp and the sample half of each core was wrapped in lightproof material for storage. The split vibracores were photographed in approximately 20- to 25-cm, overlapping segments with a Nikon D80 digital camera with a 70 mm zoom lens using consistent (manually programmed) settings with autofocus from a fixed height. The raw images were white-balanced using GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) version 2.10 software, cropped to the same extent (to remove areas outside of the core barrel), and "stitched" together using The Panorama Factory version 4.5 software, providing seamless high-resolution whole-core images. Textural descriptions for the core logs are based on macroscopic observations. Sediment color is based on the Munsell soil color system (https://munsell.com/color-products/color-communications-products/environmental-color-communication/munsell-soil-color-charts/). Descriptive core logs were compiled using Rockware LogPlot 8 2021.6.2 software and exported as Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPG) images. Grain-size and age-control samples consisted of 2-cm sections sampled at varying intervals down-core depending on the number and thickness of the observed sedimentologic units. Samples collected for OSL dating were placed in lightproof film canisters, labeled, and sent to the USGS Luminescence Dating Laboratory (Denver, Colorado) for analysis. Samples collected for radiocarbon dating were sealed, labeled, and stored in a refrigerator prior to shipping to Beta Analytic, Inc. (Miami, Florida) for analysis. Person who carried out this activity:
    Julie C. Bernier
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Geologist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    jbernier@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_CorePhotos.zip
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreLogs.zip
    Date: 2022 (process 4 of 10)
    Sand auger processing- At the SPCMSC sediment laboratory, each sand auger section in a plastic sleeve was split lengthwise, photographed, x-rayed, described macroscopically using standard sediment-logging methods, and subsampled for grain-size analysis and age control. The split sand augers were photographed in approximately 15- to 20-cm, overlapping segments with a Nikon D80 digital camera with a 70 mm zoom lens using consistent (manually programmed) settings with autofocus from a fixed height. The raw images were white-balanced using GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) version 2.10 software, cropped to the same extent (to remove areas outside of the core barrel), and "stitched" together using The Panorama Factory version 4.5 software, providing seamless high-resolution whole-core images. Core x-rays were acquired using an Ecotron EPX-2800 x-ray unit at 90 kilovolts for 20 milliampere-seconds from a height of 79 cm. The x-radiograph was captured on an 11 × 14-inch phosphor cassette, which was scanned on an iCRco, Inc., iCR3600+ scanner at 254 pixels per inch and exported as a 16-bit Tagged Image File Format (TIF) image. The raw x-radiographs show a slight anode heel effect, which is a variation in x-ray intensity along the anode-cathode axis that results in non-uniform pixel intensity across the image. This effect was corrected by subtracting a background pixel intensity template from each raw image. The images were cropped (to the same extent and to remove areas outside of the cassette), background image subtracted, and grayscale color inversion was applied using ImageJ version 1.53k. Because the sand augers did not fit onto the phosphor cassette, the core sections were x-rayed in "top" and "bottom" segments and then merged in Adobe Illustrator 2022 version 26. Textural descriptions for the core logs are based on macroscopic observations. Sediment color is based on the Munsell soil color system (https://munsell.com/color-products/color-communications-products/environmental-color-communication/munsell-soil-color-charts/). Descriptive core logs were compiled using Rockware LogPlot 8 2021.6.2 software. Samples consisted of 4- to 5-cm sections sampled at varying intervals down-core depending on the number and thickness of the observed sedimentologic units. Sediment for OSL dating was sectioned from the stainless core sleeves using a pipe cutter. Sampling was conducted in the dark with only a photographer's red lamp to not to expose the sediment to light. Samples collected for OSL dating were sealed in the sectioned core sleeves, labeled, and sent to the USGS Luminescence Dating Laboratory for analysis. Samples collected for radiocarbon dating were sealed, labeled, and stored in a refrigerator prior to shipping to Beta Analytic, Inc. for analysis. Person who carried out this activity:
    Julie C. Bernier
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Geologist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    jbernier@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_CorePhotos.zip
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreXRays.zip
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreLogs.zip
    Date: 2022 (process 5 of 10)
    Grain-size PSA analysis- At the SPCMSC sediment laboratory, grain-size analyses were performed using a Coulter LS13 320 (https://www.beckmancoulter.com/) PSA. The LS13 320 uses laser diffraction to measure the size distribution of sediments from 0.4 µm to 2 mm, encompassing clay to very coarse-grained sand. To prevent large shell fragments from damaging the instrument, particles greater than 1 mm in diameter (coarse sand) were separated from all samples prior to analysis using a number 18 (1 mm) U.S. standard sieve, which meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E11 standard specifications for determining particle size using woven-wire test sieves. Two subsamples from each sample were processed through the instrument a minimum of four runs each. Once introduced into the LS13 320, the sediment in the sample well was sonicated with a sonicator wand for 30 seconds to separate any aggregates before starting the first run for both subsamples. The LS13 320 measures the particle-size distribution of each sample by passing sediment suspended in solution between two narrow panes of glass in front of a laser. Light is scattered by the particles into characteristic refraction patterns measured by an array of photodetectors as intensity per unit area and recorded as relative volume for 92 size-related channels (bins). Person who carried out this activity:
    Cheyenne S. Everhart
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Physical Scientist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    ceverhart@usgs.gov
    Date: 2022 (process 6 of 10)
    Grain-size processing- The raw grain-size data was run through the free software GRADISTAT version 9, (Blott and Pye, 2001; kpal.co.uk/gradistat), which calculates the mean, sorting, skewness and kurtosis of each sample geometrically, in metric units, and logarithmically, in phi (Φ) units (Krumbein, 1934), using the Folk and Ward (1957) scale. The raw (run) LS13 320 output files for all samples were compiled by GRADISTAT during import; those raw data are included in this data release for advanced users in the file 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeData.zip. GRADISTAT also reports the descriptive sediment texture after Folk (1954) and calculates the fraction of sediment from each sample by size category (for example, clay, coarse silt, fine sand) based on a modified Wentworth (1922) size scale. A macro function in Microsoft Excel, developed by the USGS SPCMSC, was applied to the data to calculate average and standard deviation for each sample set (8 runs per sample), and highlight runs that varied from the set average by more than ±1.5 standard deviations. Excessive deviations from the mean are likely the result of equipment error or extraneous organic material in the sample and are not considered representative of the sample. The highlighted runs were removed from the results and the sample average was recalculated using the remaining runs. The averaged results for all samples for the number of averaged runs are included in an Excel workbook (XLSX) and a comma-separated values (CSV) data file (2021-312-FA_GrainSize_RunData). The results for the sum statistics are included in a CSV file, 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_SumStats.csv. The results for both the sum and sieve statistics are also included in an Excel workbook (2021-312-FA_GrainSizeStats.xlsx), separated by tabs. Person who carried out this activity:
    Cheyenne S. Everhart
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Physical Scientist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    ceverhart@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_RunData.xlsx
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_RunData.csv
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_SumStats.csv
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeStats.xlsx
    Date: 2022 (process 7 of 10)
    Grain-size sieve analysis- To evaluate the contribution of particles larger than 1 mm in diameter (coarse sand), a subsample of each sediment sample was also analyzed by sieving. The sediment was passed through a stack of sieves with progressively smaller openings using the assistance of a mechanical sieve shaker to determine grain-size distribution. U.S. standard sieves numbers 230 (63 µm), 120 (125 µm), 60 (250 µm), 35 (500 µm), 18 (1 mm), and 10 (2 mm) were used, which meet the ASTM E11 standard specifications for determining particle size using woven-wire test sieves. All dry sieve data was reported as a percent fraction of the total bulk dry weight of each sample subset. The results for all samples are included in a CSV data file (2021-312-FA_GrainSize_SieveStats.csv). The results for both the sum and sieve statistics are also included in an Excel workbook (2021-312-FA_GrainSizeStats.xlsx), separated by tabs. Person who carried out this activity:
    Cheyenne S. Everhart
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Physical Scientist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    ceverhart@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSize_SieveStats.csv
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeStats.xlsx
    Date: 2022 (process 8 of 10)
    Grain-size plots- The results of the sieve analyses (very coarse sand and gravel classes) were merged with the LS13 320 averaged results (coarse sand, medium sand, fine sand, very fine sand, and mud classes) for each sample in Microsoft Excel and re-normalized to 100%. The down-core grain-size distributions were plotted in Matlab version R2021A and exported as a JPG image. Person who carried out this activity:
    Julie C. Bernier
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Geologist
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL

    (727) 502-8000 (voice)
    jbernier@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeDistributions.jpg
    Date: 2022 (process 9 of 10)
    Radiocarbon dating- Both the organic sediment fraction and plant material from selected organic-rich or peat sediment samples were analyzed using accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon (14C) dating at Beta Analytic, Inc. (Miami, Florida). For each sample, the conventional 14C radiocarbon age as well as calibrated age ranges are reported. Calibrated ages are based on terrestrial calibration curves from INTCAL20 (Reimer and others, 2020) using the High Probability Density (HPD) Range Method (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). For additional information on understanding calibrated radiocarbon ages, refer to the Beta Analytic, Inc. (https://www.radiocarbon.com/calendar-calibration-carbon-dating.htm) or University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/calibration.html, https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/explanation.php) websites. Person who carried out this activity:
    Beta Analytic, Inc.
    Beta Analytic, Inc.
    4985 SW 74th Court
    Miami, FL

    (305) 667-5167 (voice)
    lab@radiocarbon.com
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_14C.xlsx
    • 2021-312-FA_14C.csv
    Date: 13-Oct-2022 (process 10 of 10)
    Populating image headers: Credit, contact information, copyright, usage terms, image descriptions, attribution url, metadata link, and georeferencing information were added to the exchangeable image file format (EXIF) header of each image using Phil Harvey’s ExifTool (version 12.44). The images were grouped by image type (core logs, photographs, and x-rays) into separate folders: 2021-312-FA_CoreLogs (16 images), 2021-312-FA_CorePhotos (13 images), 2021-312-FA_CoreXRays (9 images). All information in the scripts were the same among all images, aside from the EXIF:ImageDescription, EXIF:DateTimeOriginal, EXIF:GPSLatitude and EXIF:GPSLongtitude information, as that information varies for each core. A separate script containing that header information was run on each image individually to populate those headers (see the third script). The core logs and photographs are published as JPGs, whereas the core x-rays are published as TIFs. Therefore, all mentions of the file extension in the example scripts below used ".TIF" rather than ".JPG" for the x-ray images. Image header information was also populated for 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeDistributions.jpg in 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeData.zip. However, since this image details grain-size distributions for all collected cores, the third script was not used, along with removing EXIF:GPSMapDatum and EXIF:GPSAreaInformation in the second script.
    First, the following command was run on all images in a folder to preserve filenames: exiftool -P "-XMP:PreservedFileName<Filename" *.JPG.
    Second, the following command was run on all images in a folder to populate the first set of headers. exiftool -IPTC:Credit="U.S. Geological Survey" -IPTC:Contact="gs-g-spcmsc_data_inquiries@usgs.gov" -EXIF:Copyright="Public Domain" -XMP:UsageTerms="Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty." -XMP:AttributionURL="https://doi.org/10.5066/P91P1T88" -XMP:Event="2021-312-FA" -EXIF:GPSAreaInformation="Location of core collection site, GPS coordinates are in NAD83" -XMP:ExternalMetadataLink="https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS:60af5833-a8ba-4a94-a85f-3bca6b652834.xml" -EXIF:GPSMapDatum="NAD83" *.JPG
    Third, the following command was run on each image in the folder to populate the unique image headers for each core. This example is for the 2021-312-FA-C9_0-65 core photograph: exiftool -EXIF:ImageDescription="https://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov/fan_info.php?fan=2021-312-FA; Core photograph for 2021-312-FA-C9_0-65." -EXIF:GPSLatitude="40.69391" -EXIF:GPSLatitudeRef="N" -EXIF:GPSLongitude="72.97954" -EXIF:GPSLongitudeRef="W" -EXIF:DateTimeOriginal="2022:04:20 00:00:00" 2021-312-FA-C9_0-65.JPG
    Fourth, the following command run on all images in a folder to copy information into duplicate tags: exiftool -P "-XMP-photoshop:Credit<IPTC:Credit" "-XMP-iptcCore:CreatorWorkEmail<IPTC:Contact" "-XMP-dc:Rights<EXIF:Copyright" "-XMP-dc:Description<EXIF:ImageDescription" "-XMP-exif:all<GPS:all" "-XMP-photoshop:DateCreated<EXIF:DateTimeOriginal" "-EXIF:GPSDateStamp<EXIF:DateTimeOriginal" -overwrite_original *.JPG
    To extract the information from the image headers using ExifTool, run the following command after connecting to the unzipped folder containing the images: exiftool a.jpg, where 'a' is replaced with the filename. Example: 2021-312-FA-C1.jpg Person who carried out this activity:
    Heather A. Schreppel
    Southeast Region
    Geographer (Data Management Specialist)
    600 4th Street South
    St. Petersburg, FL
    United States

    727-502-8000 (voice)
    hschreppel@usgs.gov
    Data sources produced in this process:
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreXRays.zip
    • 2021-312-FA_CorePhotos.zip
    • 2021-312-FA_CoreLogs.zip
    • 2021-312-FA_GrainSizeDistributions.jpg
  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?
    Buster, Noreen A., Bernier, Julie C., Brenner, Owen T., Kelso, Kyle W., Tuten, Thomas M., and Miselis, Jennifer L., 2018, Sediment data from vibracores collected in 2016 from Fire Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1100, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

    Online Links:

    Forde, Arnell S., Bernier, Julie C., and Miselis, Jennifer L., 20180221, Ground penetrating radar and differential global positioning system data collected in April 2016 from Fire Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1078, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

    Online Links:

    Forde, Arnell S., Bernier, Julie C., and Ciarletta, Daniel J., 20230502, Ground penetrating radar and global positioning system data collected in 2021 from Fire Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey data release doi:10.5066/P97YW2UL, U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL.

    Online Links:

    Ciarletta, Daniel J., Miselis, Jennifer L., Bernier, Julie C., and Forde, Arnell S., 20240314, Implications for the Resilience of Modern Coastal Systems Derived from Mesoscale Barrier Dynamics at Fire Island, New York: Earth Surface Dynamics Volume 12, Issue 2, European Geosciences Union, Online.

    Online Links:

    Bernier, Julie C., Kelso, Kyle W., Tuten, Thomas M., Stalk, Chelsea A., and Flocks, James G., 2017, Sediment data collected in 2014 and 2015 from around Breton and Gosier Islands, Breton National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1037, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

    Online Links:

    Coulter, Beckman, 201110, LS 13 320 laser diffraction particle size analyzer.

    Online Links:

    Blott, Simon J., and Pye, Kenneth, 20010928, GRADISTAT: A grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms Volume 26, Issue 11.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 1237-1248
    Folk, Robert L., and Ward, William C., 19570301, Brazos River bar: A study in the significance of grain size parameters: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology Volume 27, No. 1.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 3-26
    Krumbein, William C., 19340801, Size frequency distributions of sediments: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology Volume 4, No. 2.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 65-77
    Wentworth, Chester K., 1922, A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments: Journal of Geology Volume 30, No. 5.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 377-392
    Folk, Robert L., 195407, The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary-rock nomenclature: Journal of Geology Volume 62, No. 4.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 344-359
    Ramsey, Christopher Bronk, 2009, Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates: Radiocarbon Volume 51, Issue 1.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 337-360
    Reimer, Paula J., and others, and, 20200812, The IntCal20 northern hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP): Radiocarbon Volume 62, Issue 4.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details: Pages 725-757

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

  1. How well have the observations been checked?
    Core locations were obtained by either (a) Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) Real Time Kinetic (RTK) corrections during data collection (core sites C1-C4) or (b) processing the raw position data during data collection (core sites C5-C9) through NGS OPUS software (https://geodesy.noaa.gov/OPUS/). Due to the assumption of grain sphericity of the Fraunhofer optical model used by the Coulter LS13 320 particle-size analyzer (PSA) for grain-size analysis, angular particles are measured by their longest axis (Beckman Coulter, 2011). When enough thin, angular material is present, the LS13 320 output files often report a percentage of the grain size distribution within the 1-2 millimeter (mm) fraction, despite all samples being sieved at 1 mm before analysis. The grain-size data represent the sample averages for a subset of the statistical parameters calculated by GRADISTAT (Blott and Pye, 2001). The number of runs included in the averaged results are reported, and the standard deviation of the averaged results are reported for most parameters. A secondary data review determined that all grain-size data reported met the laboratory’s quality control requirements. Beckman Coulter control standards G15 (15 microns [µm]) and GB500 (500 µm) were analyzed on the Coulter LS13 320 particle-size analyzer before all sediment samples were analyzed to validate instrument performance (Beckman Coulter, 2011). In addition to processing the samples submitted for radiocarbon dating, Beta Analytic, Inc. also analyzes known-value reference materials. All quality assurance measurements passed the internal acceptance tests.
  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
    Position and elevation associated with each core site was determined by either (a) DGPS RTK corrections during data collection (core sites C1-C4) or (b) processing the raw position data during data collection through OPUS (core sites C5-C9). For vibracore locations, the manufacturer's specified network RTK horizontal accuracy of the Trimble R10 is 0.008 meters (m) +/- 0.5 parts-per-million (ppm); for sand-auger locations, the OPUS-derived estimated horizontal accuracy (2-sigma) was 0.006 +/- 0.004 m.
  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
    Position and elevation associated with each core site was determined by either (a) DGPS RTK corrections during data collection (core sites C1-C4) or (b) processing the raw position data during data collection through OPUS (core sites C5-C9). For vibracore locations, the manufacturer's specified network RTK vertical accuracy of the Trimble R10 is 0.015 m +/- 0.5 ppm and the difference between published and RTK elevations measured at two local benchmarks was 0.047 and 0.053 m; for sand-auger locations, the OPUS-derive estimated vertical accuracy (2-sigma) was 0.027 +/- 0.009 m for sand-auger locations.
  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
    Dataset is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Data release doi:10.5066/P91P1T88 associated with this metadata record includes the geographic locations, site elevations, core descriptions, core photos, core x-rays, grain-size data (71 samples), and radiocarbon ages (7 samples) from 4 vibracores and 9 sand-auger sections collected from Fire Island, New York March 29-April 3, 2021 and April 19-22, 2022 (USGS FAN 2021-312-FA).
  5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?
    Position and elevation data at each core site were recorded with a Trimble R10 (core sites C1-C4) or Spectra Precision SP80 (core sites C5-C9) DGPS receiver and geodetic antenna. Grain-size sample runs in the GRADISTAT output files for which the mean Folk and Ward (1957) grain-size varied from the set average by more than 1.5 standard deviations were not included in final averaged results.

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 originators of the data in future products or derivative research. Users are advised to read the metadata record thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations.
  1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)
    U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center
    Attn: USGS SPCMSC Data Management
    600 4th Street South
    Saint Petersburg, FL
    United States

    727-502-8000 (voice)
    gs-g-spcmsc_data_inquiries@usgs.gov
  2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?
  3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?
    This publication was prepared by an agency of the United States Government. Although these data were processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system, nor shall the act of distribution imply any such warranty. The U.S. Geological Survey shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and (or) contained herein. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
  4. How can I download or order the data?
  5. What hardware or software do I need in order to use the data set?
    All spreadsheets were created in Microsoft Excel for Mac, version 16.65; these data are also provided as comma-separated values (.csv) text files. Core locations are also provided as GIS data files in Esri shapefile (.shp) and Keyhole Markup Language (KML) formats; these files can be opened using the free ArcGIS Explorer (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/explorer) or Google Earth (https://www.google.com/earth/) GIS viewers. Core logs, core photos, and grain-size distribution plots are provided in Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) format and core x-rays are provided in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) format. Image metadata (exif image headers) for the JPEG and TIFF images can be read using Phil Harvey’s ExifTool (https://exiftool.org/).

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:
Last modified: 08-Aug-2024
Metadata author:
U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center
Attn: USGS SPCMSC Data Management
600 4th Street South
Saint Petersburg, FL
United States

727-502-8000 (voice)
gs-g-spcmsc_data_inquiries@usgs.gov
Metadata standard:
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)
This page is <https://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov/catalog/spcmsc/2021-312-FA_Sediment_metadata.faq.html>
Generated by mp version 2.9.51 on Fri Aug 9 10:19:58 2024