The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency has conducted a study to evaluate potential changes to1-percent annual exceedance probability streamflows. The study was conducted using the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS). Climate inputs to the model of temperature and precipitation were scaled to anticipated changes that could occur in 2030, 2050, and 2100 based on global climate models. The output from the models were used to characterize the 1-percent AEP streamflows for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100 and compare the results to baseline conditions, 1950-2015. The data include the model input and output and spatial data for model referencing. Scripts for processing PRMS output to obtain final results are also provided.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for New York Avenue cross streets in Blackstone, MA.

Metrics from individual Marketplaces during the current reporting period. The report includes data for the states using State-based Marketplaces (SBMs) that use their own eligibility and enrollment platforms Source: State-based Marketplace (SBM) operational data submitted to CMS. Each monthly reporting period occurs during the first through last day of the reported month. SBMs report relevant Marketplace activity from April 2023 (when unwinding-related renewals were initiated in most SBMs) through the end of a state’s Medicaid unwinding renewal period and processing timeline, which will vary by SBM. Some SBMs did not receive unwinding-related applications during reporting period months in April or May 2023 due to renewal processing timelines. SBMs that are no longer reporting Marketplace activity due to the completion of a state’s Medicaid unwinding renewal period are marked as NA. Some SBMs may revise data from a prior month and thus this data may not align with that previously reported. For April, Idaho’s reporting period was from February 1, 2023 to April 30, 2023. Notes: This table represents consumers whose Medicaid/CHIP coverage was denied or terminated following renewal and 1) whose applications were processed by an SBM through an integrated Medicaid, CHIP, and Marketplace eligibility system or 2) whose applications/information was sent by a state Medicaid or CHIP agency to an SBM through an account transfer process. Consumers who submitted applications to an SBM that can be matched to a Medicaid/CHIP record are also included. See the "Data Sources and Metrics Definition Overview" at http://www.medicaid.gov for a full description of the differences between the SBM operating systems and resulting data metrics, measure definitions, and general data limitations. As of the September 2023 report, this table was updated to differentiate between SBMs with an integrated Medicaid, CHIP, and Marketplace eligibility system and those with an account transfer process to better represent the percentage of QHP selections in relation to applicable consumers received and processed by the relevant SBM. State-specific variations are: - Maine’s data and Nevada’s April and May 2023 data report all applications with Medicaid/CHIP denials or terminations, not only those part of the annual renewal process. - Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington also report applications with consumers determined ineligible for Medicaid/CHIP due to procedural reasons. - Minnesota and New York report on eligibility and enrollment for their Basic Health Programs (BHP). Effective April 1, 2024, New York transitioned its BHP to a program operated under a section 1332 waiver, which expands eligibility to individuals with incomes up to 250% of FPL. As of the March 2024 data, New York reports on consumers with expanded eligibility and enrollment under the section 1332 waiver program in the BHP data. - Idaho’s April data on consumers eligible for a QHP with financial assistance do not depict a direct correlation to consumers with a QHP selection. - Virginia transitioned from using the HealthCare.gov platform in Plan Year 2023 to an SBM using its own eligibility and enrollment platform in Plan Year 2024. Virginia's data are reported in the HealthCare.gov and HeathCare.gov Transitions Marketplace Medicaid Unwinding Reports through the end of 2024 and is available in SBM reports as of the April 2024 report. Virginia's SBM data report all applications with Medicaid/CHIP denials or terminations, not only those part of the annual renewal process, and as a result are not directly comparable to their data in the HealthCare.gov data reports. - Only SBMs with an automatic plan assignment process have and report automatic QHP selections. These SBMs make automatic plan assignments into a QHP for a subset of individuals and provide a notification of options regarding active selection of an alternative plan and/or, if appli

Graph and download economic data for Increases in Railroad Mileage for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania (A0283BUSA374NNBR) from 1836 to 1911 about RI, VT, ME, NH, CT, NJ, MA, PA, NY, and USA.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for New York Street cross streets in Lowell, MA.

Survey participants plotted activity points using an interactive mapping tool.The 2012 Northeast Recreational Boater Survey was conducted by SeaPlan, the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC), states’ coastal agencies, marine trade associations composed of many private industry representatives, and the First Coast Guard District. The methodology for the 2012 Northeast Recreational Boater Survey follows a protocol similar to the 2010 Massachusetts Survey with modifications based on the lessons learned and recommendations suggested in the Massachusetts Survey Final Report.The methodology consists of surveying a random sample of selected boat owners throughout the Northeast through a series of monthly online surveys. The surveying period lasted throughout the 2012 boating season (May 1 through October 31, 2012), which was identified by the advisory committee (consisting of NROC and representatives from the recreational boating industry).The project team decided to use a random sample survey approach because it successfully gathered statistically robust economic and spatial data on recreational boating activity by Massachusetts registered boaters during the 2010 boating season. This was also the only approach that would allow for the calculation of statistically robust economic impact estimates for both the states and the region, which was identified as a priority (along withspatial data) by both NROC and the boating industry.

This dataset can be used by coastal planners in ocean planning activities to develop a better understanding of how and where humans use the ocean in the Northeast to inform regional ocean planning and minimize ocean use conflicts. This effort also fulfilled a recommendation from the 2010 Massachusetts Survey to expand the survey’s geographic range to the Northeast Region, allowing for the capture of interstate traffic between states in the Northeast. Furthermore, this dataset can also be used by the boating industry to show the importance of recreational boating to the region and to inform business planning.

Supplemental Information; SURVEY SAMPLING METHODOLOGY - The sample for this survey came from seven databases, including the U.S. Coast Guard Documented Vessel Database and databases of state registered boaters from New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Recreational boaters who owned vessels that met the following criteria were eligible for the survey: * Registration: Currently registered with a state in the Northeast and/or registered as a documented vessel with the U.S. Coast Guard, with a hailing port in the Northeast * Primary Use: Recreational use designation * Length: At least 10 feet in length * Saltwater (if specified; only Maine and New Hampshire required this information) * Location: Located in a “coastal county”. The survey team defined “coastal counties” as those that border saltwater, or those that were highlighted by state coastal planners as likely containing large amount of saltwater boating activity. Based on the 2010 Massachusetts Survey and budgetary considerations, the project team determined an overall sample size that would provide sufficient spatial and economic data for both each state, as well as the whole Northeast. Because of the, at times, large discrepancies between the number of eligible boats in some states, the team decided that certain states with fewer eligible boats should also have a supplemental sample of boats in addition to the pure random sample. To ensure the sample represented the total population of registered boats in the Northeast, the sampling method included considerations of state, geography and size class. Of the 373,766 boats eligible for the survey, the base of randomly sampled boats included 50,000 boats from across all six states. In addition to this base, the survey team sampled 17,772 boats as a supplemental sample, including: 1,772 boats of 26 feet in length or more from across all six states to increase the number of large boats in the sample, and 16,000 additional boats to ensure each state had enough responses for the statistical analysis. These included 10,000 boats from Maine, 2,500 boats from Rhode Island, 2,000 boats from New Hampshire and 1,500 boats from Connecticut. This resulted in a total of 67,772 boaters invited to participate in the study. Boater Recruitment and Response: In the survey invitation package, the survey team also sent invited boaters a questionnaire to verify eligibility to participate in the survey. Eligibility requirements consist of: boat is used in saltwater; boat is used for recreational purposes; and boaters have access to the internet with a working email address. 12,218 boaters responded to the invitation; however only 7,800 of these respondents were found to meet all of the above criteria. From this sample, 4,297 individual boaters completed at least one monthly survey. Surveying Process: The study consisted of six monthly surveys and one end of season survey. The online monthly surveys gathered spatial and economic data on recreational boating activity that occurred during the previous month. The online survey had two parts: 1) a survey with questions about general boating activity during the previous month, and the boater’s last trip of the month (specifically focusing on spending), and 2) a mapping application developed by Ecotrust where boaters plotted their boating route and identified any areas where they participated in activities, such as fishing, diving, wildlife viewing, swimming and relaxing at anchor. The end of season survey gathered a variety of information that could not be gathered in the monthly surveys. The end of season survey contained questions about yearly boating-related expenditures (e.g., dockage, storage, taxes, yearly maintenance), feedback on the survey itself, and general boating-related questions (e.g. whether boaters have taken a boating safety course). Density Analysis: The density analysis described in the following paragraphs was vetted by a technical advisory team consisting of representatives from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MA CZM), NROC, Maine Coastal Program and Applied Science Associates (ASA) and was based on mapping and analysis protocols from the 2010 Massachusetts Survey. To develop the density layer, vessel routes were drawn in WGS 1984 in the Ecotrust mapping application and were imported into Excel, then ArcMap using a data frame in that coordinate system. Routes from the random sample were selected from that data layer, and the data layer was re-projected into two separate shapefiles, one in UTM 18 and one in UTM 19. A line density analysis using a 250 m square grid cell with a 675 m neighborhood was applied to each shapefile. The 675 m neighborhood was applied to account for inherent user error in the mapping tool. The line density analysis resulted in a raster grid for each UTM zone. Each raster was clipped by the boundaries of its UTM zone, re-projected into the North American Albers Equal Area Conic Projection, and the separate rasters were mosaicked together. At the boundary of the two raster grids there was a line of cells with no data value. This was a result of mosaicking rasters that originated in different coordinate systems. To approximate values in the blank cells, each blank cell was populated by a value from a focal statistics calculation. The focal statistics expression took the mean of all cells in a 4x4 neighborhood around each blank cell. The values were then converted to Z-scores using the raster calculator by taking the log of the density values, subtracting the mean value, and dividing the resulting value by the standard deviation of the value. This layer was clipped again using the NOAA medium resolution shoreline dataset. DATA PROCESSING Processing environment: ArcGIS 10.05, Windows 7 Ultimate SP5, Intel Xeon CPU Process Steps Description 1 Raw routes from mapping application imported into ArcMap 2 Routes from random sample selected using select by attributes query 3 Routes projected into two separate shapefiles (UTM Zones 18 & 19) 4 LINE DENSITY tool in spatial analyst applied to each shapefile using a 250 m square grid with a 675 m neighborhood 5 Resulting rasters clipped to their respective UTM Zones using the EXTRACT BY MASK tool 6 Rasters reprojected to North America Albers Equal Area Conic Projection, using PROJECT tool 7 MOSAIC tool used to merge rasters 8 Focal mean expression (4x4 neighborhood) used to approximate and fill cells with no data at the boundary between mosaicked rasters 9 Raster calculator used to calculated Z-scores ([(Ln(Value))-Mean]/Std. Deviation) 10 Raster clipped by NOAA Medium Resolution Shoreline data using EXTRACT BY POLYGON tool QUALITY PROCESS Attribute Accuracy: The lines used to generate the density grid were derived from a mapping tool used by boaters to reconstruct their boating routes. To ensure that boaters included their round-trip route the mapping applications would send the user an error message asking them to re-plot the route or the program would automatically return the route to the starting point. This application also restricted the scale at which users could draw their routes, reducing the amount of error that could occur from plotting routes at too small a scale. Clipping this layer with a regional ocean shapefile derived from the NOAA medium resolution shoreline dataset excluded route density resulting from routes drawn over land, in freshwater, or outside of northeastern waters. Logical Consistency: None Completeness: Only reported routes from the random sample were included. Routes from the supplemental sample were excluded from this analysis. Route density occurring over land, freshwater areas, or outside northeastern waters was excluded by the final geoprocessing step. Positional Accuracy: The positional accuracy of the routes is dependent on the individual reporting routes through the

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Middlesex County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025017) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Middlesex County, MA; Boston; subprime; MA; population; and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Dukes County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025007) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Dukes County, MA; subprime; MA; population; and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Essex County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025009) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Essex County, MA; subprime; Boston; MA; population; and USA.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for New York Avenue cross streets in Pittsfield, MA.

Project: NOAA Digital Orthophotography for the Coasts of Main/New Hampshire, Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut, and Hudson River/Long Island /NY/NJ Contract No. EA133C11CQ0010 Reference No. NCNP0000-14-00967 Woolpert Order No. 74571 CONTRACTOR: Woolpert, Inc. The project represents the collection of digital orthoimagery for the coasts of Maine and New Hampshire; Massachusetts and Rhode Island; Connecticut, the Hudson River, Long Island and the NY/NJ metro area. The work was requested by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration division. The imagery is being acquired for use in the development of the ESI (Environmental Sensitivity Index) data in this same region. The entire project area includes approximately 11,669 square miles. Original contact information: Contact Org: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Phone: 843-740-1200

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Bristol County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025005) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Bristol County, MA; Providence; subprime; MA; population; and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Barnstable County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025001) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Barnstable County, MA; Barnstable Town; subprime; MA; population; and USA.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Massachusetts Avenue cross streets in Massapequa, NY.

This data set represents the extent of the New York and New England carbonate-rock aquifers in the states of New York, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

This data set is part of a larger set of data called the Multibeam Bathymetry Database (MBBDB) where other similar data can be found

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Worcester County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025027) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Worcester County, MA; Worcester; subprime; MA; population; and USA.

This data set is part of a larger set of data called the Multibeam Bathymetry Database (MBBDB) where other similar data can be found

Graph and download economic data for Equifax Subprime Credit Population for Franklin County, MA (EQFXSUBPRIME025011) from Q2 2014 to Q1 2025 about Franklin County, MA; subprime; Springfield; MA; population; and USA.