These data were drawn and vetted for accuracy using the source input raster files and point sample data described in the processing steps and source contributions. Overlapping features and unintentional gaps within the survey area were identified using the topology checker in ArcMap (version 10.5) and corrected or removed. Not all digitized sea-floor features contained sample information, so often the sea-floor texture is characterized by the nearest similar feature that contains a sample. Conversely, sometimes a digitized feature contained multiple samples and not all of the samples within the feature were in agreement (of the same texture). In these cases all data (raster and sample) were considered, and the dominant sediment texture from sample analyses did not necessarily determine the primary texture assigned to a polygon. Samples from rocky areas often only consist of bottom photographs, because large particle size often prevents the recovery of a sediment sample. Bottom photo classification can be subjective, such that determining the sediment type that is greater than 50% of the view frame is estimated by the interpreter and may differ among interpreters. Bottom photo transects often reveal changes in the sea floor over distances of less than 100 m and these changes are often not resolved in acoustic data. Heterogeneous sea floor texture can change very quickly, and many small-scale changes will not be detectable or mappable at a scale of 1:25,000. The boundaries of polygons are often inferred on the basis of sediment samples, and even boundaries that are traced on the basis of amplitude changes in geophysical data are subject to migration. Polygon boundaries should be considered an approximation of the location of a change in texture.
These sediment cover data are defined for areas where source data exists. In general, gaps in the coverage coincide with gaps in the source data. However, some small data gaps were interpreted through extrapolation. Areas of lower data quality and incomplete coverage are noted in a data confidence attribute field. All of the interpretive layer bounds in this report are a little short of the data bounds in western Vineyard Sound, this is because this dataset abuts the interpretive layers of Baldwin and others (2016), and are not redundant with that interpretation.
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Denny, J.F.
Originator: Danforth, W.W.
Originator: Foster, D.S.
Originator: Sherwood, C.R.
Publication_Date: 2009
Title:
Geophysical data collected off the south shore of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Open-File Report
Issue_Identification: 2008-1288
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Reston, VA
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Online_Linkage: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1288/
Type_of_Source_Media: online
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20070809
Ending_Date: 20070813
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: Denny and others, 2009
Source_Contribution:
This report provided source geophysical data (sidescan-sonar, bathymetry, and seismic-reflection profiles) for the area south of Martha's Vineyard surrounding the Martha's Vineyard Coastal Observatory. The 2007 mapping was conducted aboard the M/V Megan T. Miller. High-resolution chirp seismic-reflection profiles were collected during U.S. Geological Survey field activity 2007-011-FA using an EdgeTech Geo-Star full spectrum sub-bottom (FSSB) system and SB-0512i towfish. Thorough descriptions of acquisition and processing parameters for the survey are provided by Denny and others (2009) in the report and seismic-reflection metadata. Shallow geologic framework and surficial geology were interpreted from post-processed chirp seismic-reflection profiles.
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Andrews, B.D.
Originator: Ackerman, S.D.
Originator: Baldwin, W.E.
Originator: Foster, D.S.
Originator: Schwab, W.C.
Publication_Date: 2014
Title:
High-Resolution Geophysical Data from the Inner Continental Shelf: Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts
Edition: 2.0
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Open-File Report
Issue_Identification: 2012-1006
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Reston, VA
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Online_Linkage: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1006/
Type_of_Source_Media: online
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20110507
Ending_Date: 20110517
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: Andrews and others, 2014
Source_Contribution:
This report provided source geophysical data (sidescan-sonar, bathymetry, and seismic-reflection profiles) for the study area on the western side of Martha's Vineyard. The 2011 mapping was conducted on the R/V Scarlett Isabella during U.S. Geological Survey field activity 2011-004-FA. Chirp seismic-reflection data were collected using an EdgeTech Geo-Star FSSB subbottom profiling system and an SB-0512i towfish. Thorough descriptions of acquisition and processing parameters for each survey are provided by Andrews and others (2014) in the methods section and seismic-reflection metadata. Shallow geologic framework was interpreted from post-processed chirp seismic-reflection profiles. Only the data collected along the western shore of Martha’s Vineyard was used for this dataset.
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Ackerman, S.D.
Originator: Brothers L.L.
Originator: Foster, D.S.
Originator: Andrews B.D.
Originator: Baldwin W.E.
Originator: Schwab W.C.
Publication_Date: 2016
Title:
High-Resolution Geophysical Data From the Inner Continental Shelf: South of Martha's Vineyard and North of Nantucket, Massachusetts
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Open-File Report
Issue_Identification: 2016-1168
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Reston, VA
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Online_Linkage: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2016/1168/
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161168
Type_of_Source_Media: online
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20130522
Ending_Date: 20130611
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: Ackerman and others, 2016
Source_Contribution:
This report provided source geophysical data (sidescan-sonar, bathymetry, and seismic-reflection profiles) for the majority of this study including offshore of southern Martha's Vineyard and north of Nantucket. These areas were surveyed with the R/V Scarlett Isabella 2013 during U.S. Geological Survey field activity 2013-003-FA. Seismic-reflection data were collected using an EdgeTech Geo-Star FSSB subbottom profiling system and an SB-0512i towfish. Thorough descriptions of acquisition and processing parameters for each survey are provided by Ackerman and others (2016) in the methods section and seismic-reflection metadata. Shallow geologic framework and surficial geology were interpreted from post-processed chirp seismic-reflection profiles.
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Brian Andrews
Originator: Wayne Baldwin
Originator: Daniel Sampson
Originator: William Schwab
Publication_Date: 2018
Title:
Continuous Bathymetry and Elevation Models of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone and Continental Shelf
Edition: 1.0
Series_Information:
Series_Name: data release
Issue_Identification: DOI:10.5066/F72806T7
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Reston, VA
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.5066/f72806t7
Type_of_Source_Media: online
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20110507
Ending_Date: 20130611
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: Andrews and others, 2018
Source_Contribution:
This report provided source bathymetry for the study area including offshore of southern Martha's Vineyard and north of Nantucket. Thorough descriptions of the merging and processing parameters are provided by Andrews and others (2018) in the metadata.
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Ford, K.H.
Originator: Huntley, E.C.
Originator: Sampson, D.W.
Originator: Voss, S.
Publication_Date: Unpublished Material
Title: Massachusetts Sediment Database
Other_Citation_Details:
This sample database has been compiled and vetted from existing samples and datasets by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. The data are currently unpublished, but may be acquired by contacting the CZM office:
251 Causeway St Boston, MA 02114
(617) 626-1000
czm@state.ma.us
Type_of_Source_Media: digital vector
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 19950101
Ending_Date: 20110101
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: CZM sample database
Source_Contribution:
Sediment sample databases of Ford and Voss (2010) and McMullen and others (2011) were combined then edited and supplemented with NOAA chart sampling data and bottom photos and descriptions by a group of GIS specialists at the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (Emily Huntley, personal communication). These data contained sediment laboratory statistics when available, visual descriptions if sediment analysis was not performed or if the site was a bottom photograph, and classification fields of Barnhardt and others (1998), Shepard (1954), and Wentworth (1922) as well as average sediment statistics and phi size, when laboratory analysis was conducted.
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Center of Expertise
Publication_Date: 2009
Title:
2005 - 2007 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Topo/Bathy Lidar: Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Charleston, SC
Publisher:
NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal Services Center (CSC)
Online_Linkage:
Online_Linkage:
Type_of_Source_Media: online
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20070527
Ending_Date: 20070527
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: USACE-JALBTCX, 2009
Source_Contribution:
The source lidar data for the very nearshore (less than -5 m) region along the western and southern shoreline of Martha's Vineyard. Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) data were acquired with a SHOALS-1000T (for hydrographic and topographic data) using the Joint Airborne Joint Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry Center of Expertise (JALBTCX) lidar plane. These data are now publically available in LAS lidar format via NOAA's Digital Coast website.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The texture and spatial distribution of sea-floor sediment were qualitatively analyzed in ArcGIS using several input data sources (listed in the source contribution), including acoustic backscatter, bathymetry, seismic-reflection profile interpretations, bottom photographs, and sediment samples. The interpretation was initiated by creating a new polygon feature class in an ArcMap 10.5 file geodatabase based on the extent of the regional bathymetric DEM (Andrews and others, 2018, and clipped to the extent of this study area). The polygon was then partitioned into multiple sediment texture polygons using 'cut polygon' and 'auto-complete polygon' in an edit session. In general, polygon editing was done at scales between 1:8,000 and 1:25,000, depending on the size of the traced feature and the resolution of the source data. Some areas interpreted as a single sediment textural unit may contain multiple polygons that indicate different interpretation confidence levels. The following numbered steps outline the workflow of the data interpretation.
1. Backscatter intensity data was the first input. Changes in backscatter were digitized to outline possible changes in sea-floor texture on the basis of acoustic return. Areas of high backscatter (light colors) have strong acoustic reflections and suggest boulders, gravels, and generally coarse sea-floor sediments. Low-backscatter areas (dark colors) have weak acoustic reflections and are generally characterized by finer grained material such as muds and fine sands.
2. The polygons were then refined and edited using gradient, rugosity, and hillshaded relief images derived from interferometric and multibeam swath bathymetry. Areas of rough topography and high rugosity are typically associated with rocky areas, while smooth, lower-relief regions tend to be blanketed by fine-grained sediment. These bathymetric derivatives helped to refine polygon boundaries where changes from primarily rock to primarily gravel may not have been apparent in backscatter data, but could easily be identified in hillshaded relief and slope changes.
3. The third data input (where available) was the stratigraphic interpretation of seismic-reflection profiles, which further constrained the extent and general shape of sea-floor sediment distributions and rocky outcrops, and also provided insight concerning the likely sediment texture of the feature on the basis of glacial or post-glacial origin. Seismic lines and the surficial geologic maps derived from them are used here as input data and were collected at typically 100-meter spacing, with tie-lines generally spaced 1-km apart.
4. After all the sea-floor features were traced from the geophysical data, a spatial join was conducted to provide grain size statistics based on sediment samples. The fields that contain sediment texture statistics or mean water depth information were created and populated using data joins or zonal statistics functions within ArcMap (version 10.5). The fields beginning with "Avg_" and the 'Count_' field were automatically generated by computing a data join where the CZM sample database (vector points) was edited to include only the samples with laboratory sediment analysis and joined to the qualitatively derived polygon file. The fields beginning with "Avg_" and ending in "_1" were automatically generated by computing a data join where the CZM sample database (vector points) included samples with laboratory and visual sediment analysis. Each polygon was given an average of the numeric attributes of the points (with laboratory grain size analysis or with and without laboratory analysis) that fall inside it, and the count field shows how many laboratory analyzed points fall inside each polygon. 153 samples were analyzed in the laboratory. Several fields that were not needed were deleted after the join. A mean water depth (NAVD 88) field was created using ArcMap (version 10.5): ArcToolbox - Spatial Analyst Tools > Zonal > Zonal Statistics as Table, where the mean water depth for each polygon (input zone data using the zone field sed_type) was derived from the regional bathymetric DEM (see Andrews and others, 2018). No data raster values were ignored in determining the output value for each polygon zone. The output was saved to a table, which was joined with the sediment type polygon shapefile. All of the joined fields except MEAN were turned off.
5. A new field was created in the shapefile called 'Barnhardt'. Seafloor composition observations from sediment samples and bottom photographs/video were used to define sediment texture for the polygons using Barnhardt and others (1998) classification. Samples with laboratory grain size analysis were preferred over visual descriptions when defining sediment texture throughout the study area; however within large polygons with a small number of samples (1 or 2), visual samples were considered and used to provide additional insight on the mean sediment texture. Bottom photo stations are typically around 2-km apart, but do not always provide a clear view of the sea floor, and the density of sediment samples varies throughout the study area. Some polygons contained more than one sample with grain-size statistics, while others contained none. For multiple samples within a polygon, the dominant sediment texture was used to classify sediment type (often aided by the 'data join' sediment statistics described in an earlier processing step). In rocky areas, bottom photos were used in the absence of sediment samples to qualitatively define sediment texture. Polygons that lacked sample information were texturally defined through extrapolation from adjacent or proximal polygons of similar acoustic character that did contain sediment samples.
Process_Date: 2017
Process_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person: Elizabeth Pendleton
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Geologist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 384 Woods Hole Rd.
City: Woods Hole
State_or_Province: MA
Postal_Code: 02543
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 508-548-8700 x2259
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 508-457-2310
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: ependleton@usgs.gov
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
After some additional qualitative polygon editing and reshaping was done in order to create a sediment map that was in the best agreement with all input data: lidar, bathymetry, backscatter, seismic interpretations, bottom photographs, and sediment samples, 4 more fields were added (ArcMap version 9.3.1). The first field, 'simple' is just 3 classes: sand, mud, or hardbottom. A field 'Confidence' was added as a data interpretation confidence, which describes how confident we are in the interpretation on the basis of the number and quality of the input data sources (see the entity and attribute sections for more information on these fields). The last 2 ('Carbonate' and 'Biogenic_C') fields were added and populated manually to incorporate percent carbonate information that accompanied sample analyses in Nantucket Sound. Finally, a second join was conducted similar to the previous processing steps, but allowing all samples with analysis (visual and laboratory) to be incorporated into the statistics.
The polygon feature class containing the sediment texture units was assigned topology rules, (i.e. no gaps and no overlaps). Topology errors were identified and remedied using the topology toolbar in ArcMap (10.5). Finally, the sediment texture was exported from the geodatabase as a shapefile.
Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: polygons containing sediment texture units
Process_Date: 2017
Process_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person: Elizabeth Pendleton
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Geologist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 384 Woods Hole Rd.
City: Woods Hole
State_or_Province: MA
Postal_Code: 02543
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 508-548-8700 x2259
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 508-457-2310
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: ependleton@usgs.gov
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Added keywords section with USGS persistent identifier as theme keyword.
Process_Date: 20200807
Process_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Person: VeeAnn A. Cross
Contact_Position: Marine Geologist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: Mailing and Physical
Address: 384 Woods Hole Road
City: Woods Hole
State_or_Province: MA
Postal_Code: 02543-1598
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 508-548-8700 x2251
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 508-457-2310
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: vatnipp@usgs.gov