March 2024
The MassDEP Regions layer represents boundaries used by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for planning and administrative purposes.See full metadataMap service also available.
This data set contains the sea floor topographic contours, sun-illuminated topographic imagery, and backscatter intensity generated from a multibeam sonar survey of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary region off Boston, Massachusetts, an area of approximately 1100 square nautical miles. The Stellwagen Bank NMS Mapping Project is designed to provide detailed maps of the Stellwagen Bank region's environments and habitats and the first complete multibeam topographic and sea floor characterization maps of a significant region of the shallow EEZ. Data were collected on four cruises over a two year period from the fall of 1994 to the fall of 1996. The surveys were conducted aboard the Candian Hydrographic Service vessel Frederick G. Creed, a SWATH (Small Waterplane Twin Hull) ship that surveys at speeds of 16 knots. The multibeam data were collected utilizing a Simrad Subsea EM 1000 Multibeam Echo Sounder (95 kHz) that is permanently installed in the hull of the Creed.
April 2022
Boundaries used by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) for planning and administrative purposes. The regions are based on groupings of municipalities. This map service contains the linear feature class.
This map service contains boundaries for the following types of public school districts:Local School - administered by a city or town school committee.Regional Academic - administered by a regional school committee.Regional Vocational Technical - administered by a regional vocational school committee.Independent Vocational and County Agricultural - administered by a board of trustees.Independent Public, including Commonwealth Charter Schools and Horace Mann Charter SchoolsDistrict information as of December 2, 2014, was obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE).For full metadata see https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgis-data-public-school-districtsMap service also available.
https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0
A regression model that estimates monthly temperature and precipitation as a function of latitude, longitude, and elevation for the New England area was used to estimate annual growing degree days and precipitation for the state of Massachusetts. For details of the regression model please see the published paper (Ollinger, S.V., Aber, J.D., Federer, C.A., Lovett, G.M., Ellis, J.M., 1995. Modeling Physical and Chemical Climate of the Northeastern United States for a Geographic Information System. US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, PA, USA).
The 2015 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.
https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0
Background and Data Limitations The Massachusetts 1830 map series represents a unique data source that depicts land cover and cultural features during the historical period of widespread land clearing for agricultural. To our knowledge, Massachusetts is the only state in the US where detailed land cover information was comprehensively mapped at such an early date. As a result, these maps provide unusual insight into land cover and cultural patterns in 19th century New England. However, as with any historical data, the limitations and appropriate uses of these data must be recognized: (1) These maps were originally developed by many different surveyors across the state, with varying levels of effort and accuracy. (2) It is apparent that original mapping did not follow consistent surveying or drafting protocols; for instance, no consistent minimum mapping unit was identified or used by different surveyors; as a result, whereas some maps depict only large forest blocks, others also depict small wooded areas, suggesting that numerous smaller woodlands may have gone unmapped in many towns. Surveyors also were apparently not consistent in what they mapped as ‘woodlands’: comparison with independently collected tax valuation data from the same time period indicates substantial lack of consistency among towns in the relative amounts of ‘woodlands’, ‘unimproved’ lands, and ‘unimproveable’ lands that were mapped as ‘woodlands’ on the 1830 maps. In some instances, the lack of consistent mapping protocols resulted in substantially different patterns of forest cover being depicted on maps from adjoining towns that may in fact have had relatively similar forest patterns or in woodlands that ‘end’ at a town boundary. (3) The degree to which these maps represent approximations of ‘primary’ woodlands (i.e., areas that were never cleared for agriculture during the historical period, but were generally logged for wood products) varies considerably from town to town, depending on whether agricultural land clearing peaked prior to, during, or substantially after 1830. (4) Despite our efforts to accurately geo-reference and digitize these maps, a variety of additional sources of error were introduced in converting the mapped information to electronic data files (see detailed methods below). Thus, we urge considerable caution in interpreting these maps. Despite these limitations, the 1830 maps present an incredible wealth of information about land cover patterns and cultural features during the early 19th century, a period that continues to exert strong influence on the natural and cultural landscapes of the region.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this project was provided by the BioMap Project of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the National Science Foundation, and the Andrew Mellon Foundation. This project is a contribution of the Harvard Forest Long Term Ecological Research Program.
No Description Was Provided. Link Function: 375-- download.
Ecoregions by state were extracted from the seamless national shapefile. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 105 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Literature cited: Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152p. Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Level III and IV ecoregions of the continental United States. U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, Map scale 1:3,000,000. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. Comments and questions regarding Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, USGS, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov
I. SNEP HRU Project Background The Southeast New England Program (SNEP) region consists of watersheds in Massachusetts and Rhode Island that primarily drain into Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, or Nantucket Sound. It encompasses all or portions of 134 municipalities many of which are highly developed. The region faces multiple water quality issues with stormwater being previously identified a major contributor. These maps have been generated for all 134 Municipalities including 81 subwatersheds in the SNEP region to provide organizations and municipalities a way to understand where significant stormwater pollution may be originating. For organizations or municipalities with GIS capabilities the data that created these maps is available as well. II. What are HRUs? Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) describe a landscape through unique combinations of land use and land cover (residential, commercial, forest, etc.), soil types (A, B, C, D), and additional characteristics such as slope, and impervious cover. These landscape characteristics, or HRUs, provide the building block to quantify stormwater pollutant loads (nitrogen, phosphorus, and total suspended solids (TSS)) originating from a given land area. The HRUs and nutrient pollutant loads in stormwater provides a baseline from which reduction targets can be created. III. How can HRUs be used? These maps and their underlying data can provide critical information to municipalities, watershed organizations, EPA, and others to assess stormwater pollutant loads in SNEP watersheds. EPA expects that this information will facilitate further understanding of the distribution of stormwater pollutant load source areas throughout the watersheds. This information serves to advance a broader understanding of stormwater impacts and potential management options by the public and direct stakeholders. Consistent HRUs may help municipalities implement MS4 permitting requirements and facilitate stormwater management strategies, such as land use conversion, stormwater Control Measure (SCM) siting, and targeting areas for conservation. HRU mapping can identify best locations for SCMs and can be utilized with additional stormwater planning tools (such as EPA’s Opti-Tool) to develop a cost-effective stormwater management plan. By providing a consistent HRU map for the SNEP region, practitioners can focus their efforts on implementation of SCM strategies rather than mapping their landscape. Hotspot mapping is a tool that integrates the HRU analysis and stormwater runoff pollutant load outputs to indicate areas where pollutant loads are highest and areas that stormwater controls may be best implemented. The HRUs and pollutant loads can be overlayed with parcel analysis to determine which parcels have high loads/areas of large impervious cover. The parcel data can help towns prioritize their efforts by determining the properties with highest potential to reduce pollutant loads through stormwater controls. Similarly, it can help determine which properties have large stormwater pollutant loads. IV. Other Resources HRUs That have been completed by EPA - Taunton River Watershed FDC Project and Tisbury, MA IC Disconnection Project The Cape Cod Commission developed HRUs for Barnstable County (CCC: Barnstable County HRUs). The UNH Stormwater Center developed parcel level hotspot mapping in New Hampshire for municipalities to prioritize where new BMPs should be placed (UNHSC: NH Hotspot Mapping).
CSO attributes and location information are from a variety of datasets for each state: Connecticut: Beginning with GIS data compiled by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“CT DEEP”) and displayed on their CSO Right-to-Know site (https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Municipal-Wastewater/Combined-Sewer-Overflows-Right-to-Know), EPA filtered the data for the purposes of this map and made corrections based upon updated information available in EPA’s files. EPA’s map only displays municipalities with CSO outfalls, whereas CT DEEP’s map includes municipalities with CSO-related bypasses at their Wastewater Treatment Facilities (but no Combined Sewer Collection System CSO outfalls). EPA’s map only displays CSO outfalls – the point at which CSOs are discharged to the receiving water - whereas CT DEEP’s map includes CSO regulators (the structure through which wastewater and stormwater exits the conveyance pipe towards the Wastewater Treatment Facility). Maine: Service containing both facility and outfall locations permitted under the Maine Pollution Elimination System (MEPDES) and administered by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). The data has been collected using multiple methods over 2 decades under the direction of the Maine DEP GIS Unit. All location data was quality checked by MEDEP MEPDES Inspectors and GIS Unit staff in 2018. Massachusetts: Attribute and location information from a combination of MassDEP CSOs(https://mass-eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=08c0019270254f0095a0806b155abcde) (metadata - https://mass-eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0262b339c2c74213bdaaa15adccc0e96) and NPDES permits(https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/massachusetts-final-individual-npdes-permits). New Hampshire: Active CSO outfalls collected from NH NPDES permits(https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/new-hampshire-final-individual-npdes-permits). EPA made corrections based upon updated information available in EPA’s files. Rhode Island: RI CSO Outfall Point Features. The outfalls managed by the Narragansett Bay Commission are downloadable from a GIS file through RIGIS (Rhode Island Geographic Information System https://www.rigis.org/datasets/nbc-sewer-overflows/explore?location=41.841121%2C-71.414224%2C13.57&showTable=true). Data was intended for use in utility facility engineering structure inventory. Last updated: 2019. Downloaded: 11/19/2021. Metadata (https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/2108bab269df47f988e59c18a556f37d/info/metadata/metadata.xml?format=default&output=html) Vermont: Attribute and location information from Vermont Open Geodata Poral (https://geodata.vermont.gov/datasets/VTANR::stormwater-infrastructure-point-features/explore?location=43.912839%2C-72.414150%2C9.29). Point, line, and polygon data was collected and compiled through field observations, municipal member knowledge, ortho-photo interpretation, digitization of georeferenced town plans and record drawings, and state stormwater permit plans. Accuracy of all data is for planning purposes and field verification is at the user’s discretion. VT Layer: Stormwater Infrastructure (Point Features) Metadata (https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/5c9875ee609c4586bd569dbacb2d92f1/info/metadata/metadata.xml?format=default&output=html).
This resources is metadata for Aeroradioactivity and Generalized Geologic Maps of Parts of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, USGS GP-359, 1:250000 scale. Airborne near surface gross gamma mapping, includes geologic discussion and explanatory text. Documents are US Geological Survey maps. The data are available in the following formats: web map service, ESRI service and a zipped folder with TIFF and TFW files of the maps.The data was provided by the Connecticut Geological Survey, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and made available for distribution through the National Geothermal Data System.
Terms of UseData Limitations and DisclaimerThe user’s use of and/or reliance on the information contained in the Document shall be at the user’s own risk and expense. MassDEP disclaims any responsibility for any loss or harm that may result to the user of this data or to any other person due to the user’s use of the Document.This is an ongoing data development project. Attempts have been made to contact all PWS systems, but not all have responded with information on their service area. MassDEP will continue to collect and verify this information. Some PWS service areas included in this datalayer have not been verified by the PWS or the municipality involved, but since many of those areas are based on information published online by the municipality, the PWS, or in a publicly available report, they are included in the estimated PWS service area datalayer.Please note: All PWS service area delineations are estimates for broad planning purposes and should only be used as a guide. The data is not appropriate for site-specific or parcel-specific analysis. Not all properties within a PWS service area are necessarily served by the system, and some properties outside the mapped service areas could be served by the PWS – please contact the relevant PWS. Not all service areas have been confirmed by the systems.Please use the following citation to reference these data:MassDEP, Water Utility Resilience Program. 2025. Community and Non-Transient Non-Community Public Water System Service Area (PubV2025_3).IMPORTANT NOTICE: This MassDEP Estimated Water Service datalayer may not be complete, may contain errors, omissions, and other inaccuracies and the data are subject to change. This version is published through MassGIS. We want to learn about the data uses. If you use this dataset, please notify staff in the Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP@mass.gov).This GIS datalayer represents approximate service areas for Public Water Systems (PWS) in Massachusetts. In 2017, as part of its “Enhancing Resilience and Emergency Preparedness of Water Utilities through Improved Mapping” (Critical Infrastructure Mapping Project ), the MassDEP Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP) began to uniformly map drinking water service areas throughout Massachusetts using information collected from various sources. Along with confirming existing public water system (PWS) service area information, the project collected and verified estimated service area delineations for PWSs not previously delineated and will continue to update the information contained in the datalayers. As of the date of publication, WURP has delineated Community (COM) and Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) service areas. Transient non-community (TNCs) are not part of this mapping project.Layers and Tables:The MassDEP Estimated Public Water System Service Area data comprises two polygon feature classes and a supporting table. Some data fields are populated from the MassDEP Drinking Water Program’s Water Quality Testing System (WQTS) and Annual Statistical Reports (ASR).The Community Water Service Areas feature class (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_COMM_POLY) includes polygon features that represent the approximate service areas for PWS classified as Community systems.The NTNC Water Service Areas feature class (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_NTNC_POLY) includes polygon features that represent the approximate service areas for PWS classified as Non-Transient Non-Community systems.The Unlocated Sites List table (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_USL) contains a list of known, unmapped active Community and NTNC PWS services areas at the time of publication.ProductionData UniversePublic Water Systems in Massachusetts are permitted and regulated through the MassDEP Drinking Water Program. The WURP has mapped service areas for all active and inactive municipal and non-municipal Community PWSs in MassDEP’s Water Quality Testing Database (WQTS). Community PWS refers to a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.All active and inactive NTNC PWS were also mapped using information contained in WQTS. An NTNC or Non-transient Non-community Water System refers to a public water system that is not a community water system and that has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons or more approximately four or more hours per day, four or more days per week, more than six months or 180 days per year, such as a workplace providing water to its employees.These data may include declassified PWSs. Staff will work to rectify the status/water services to properties previously served by declassified PWSs and remove or incorporate these service areas as needed.Maps of service areas for these systems were collected from various online and MassDEP sources to create service areas digitally in GIS. Every PWS is assigned a unique PWSID by MassDEP that incorporates the municipal ID of the municipality it serves (or the largest municipality it serves if it serves multiple municipalities). Some municipalities contain more than one PWS, but each PWS has a unique PWSID. The Estimated PWS Service Area datalayer, therefore, contains polygons with a unique PWSID for each PWS service area.A service area for a community PWS may serve all of one municipality (e.g. Watertown Water Department), multiple municipalities (e.g. Abington-Rockland Joint Water Works), all or portions of two or more municipalities (e.g. Provincetown Water Dept which serves all of Provincetown and a portion of Truro), or a portion of a municipality (e.g. Hyannis Water System, which is one of four PWSs in the town of Barnstable).Some service areas have not been mapped but their general location is represented by a small circle which serves as a placeholder. The location of these circles are estimates based on the general location of the source wells or the general estimated location of the service area - these do not represent the actual service area.Service areas were mapped initially from 2017 to 2022 and reflect varying years for which service is implemented for that service area boundary. WURP maintains the dataset quarterly with annual data updates; however, the dataset may not include all current active PWSs. A list of unmapped PWS systems is included in the USL table PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_USL available for download with the dataset. Some PWSs that are not mapped may have come online after this iteration of the mapping project; these will be reconciled and mapped during the next phase of the WURP project. PWS IDs that represent regional or joint boards with (e.g. Tri Town Water Board, Randolph/Holbrook Water Board, Upper Cape Regional Water Cooperative) will not be mapped because their individual municipal service areas are included in this datalayer.PWSs that do not have corresponding sources, may be part of consecutive systems, may have been incorporated into another PWSs, reclassified as a different type of PWS, or otherwise taken offline. PWSs that have been incorporated, reclassified, or taken offline will be reconciled during the next data update.Methodologies and Data SourcesSeveral methodologies were used to create service area boundaries using various sources, including data received from the systems in response to requests for information from the MassDEP WURP project, information on file at MassDEP, and service area maps found online at municipal and PWS websites. When provided with water line data rather than generalized areas, 300-foot buffers were created around the water lines to denote service areas and then edited to incorporate generalizations. Some municipalities submitted parcel data or address information to be used in delineating service areas.Verification ProcessSmall-scale PDF file maps with roads and other infrastructure were sent to every PWS for corrections or verifications. For small systems, such as a condominium complex or residential school, the relevant parcels were often used as the basis for the delineated service area. In towns where 97% or more of their population is served by the PWS and no other service area delineation was available, the town boundary was used as the service area boundary. Some towns responded to the request for information or verification of service areas by stating that the town boundary should be used since all or nearly all of the municipality is served by the PWS.Sources of information for estimated drinking water service areasThe following information was used to develop estimated drinking water service areas:EOEEA Water Assets Project (2005) water lines (these were buffered to create service areas)Horsely Witten Report 2008Municipal Master Plans, Open Space Plans, Facilities Plans, Water Supply System Webpages, reports and online interactive mapsGIS data received from PWSDetailed infrastructure mapping completed through the MassDEP WURP Critical Infrastructure InitiativeIn the absence of other service area information, for municipalities served by a town-wide water system serving at least 97% of the population, the municipality’s boundary was used. Determinations of which municipalities are 97% or more served by the PWS were made based on the Percent Water Service Map created in 2018 by MassDEP based on various sources of information including but not limited to:The Winter population served submitted by the PWS in the ASR submittalThe number of services from WQTS as a percent of developed parcelsTaken directly from a Master Plan, Water Department Website, Open Space Plan, etc. found onlineCalculated using information from the town on the population servedMassDEP staff estimateHorsely Witten Report 2008Calculation based on Water System Areas Mapped through MassDEP WURP Critical Infrastructure Initiative, 2017-2022Information found in publicly available PWS planning documents submitted to MassDEP or as part of infrastructure planningMaintenanceThe
Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Sanctuary Program, has conducted seabed mapping and related research in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary region since 1993. The area is approximately 3,700 square kilometers (km2) and is subdivided into 18 quadrangles. Seven maps, at a scale of 1:25,000, of quadrangle 6 (211 km2) depict seabed topography, backscatter, ruggedness, geology, substrate mobility, mud content, and areas dominated by fine-grained or coarse-grained sand. Interpretations of bathymetric and seabed backscatter imagery, photographs, video, and grain-size analyses were used to create the geology-based maps. In all, data from 420 stations were analyzed, including sediment samples from 325 locations. The seabed geology map shows the distribution of 10 substrate types ranging from boulder ridges to immobile, muddy sand to mobile, rippled sand. Substrate types are defined on the basis of sediment grain-size composition, surficial morphology, sediment layering, and the mobility or immobility of substrate surfaces. This map series is intended to portray the major geological elements (substrates, features, processes) of environments within quadrangle 6. Additionally, these maps will be the basis for the study of the ecological requirements of invertebrate and vertebrate species that utilize these substrates and guide seabed management in the region.
no abstract provided
This map service contains boundaries for the following types of public school districts:Local School - administered by a city or town school committee.Regional Academic - administered by a regional school committee.Regional Vocational Technical - administered by a regional vocational school committee.Independent Vocational and County Agricultural - administered by a board of trustees.Independent Public, including Commonwealth Charter Schools and Horace Mann Charter Schools District information as of December 2, 2014, was obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE).For full metadata see https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgis-data-public-school-districtsFeature service also available.
This datalayer represents the boundaries of the 13 regional planning agencies (RPAs) in Massachusetts. Each RPA serves as a forum for state and local officials to address issues of regional importance, including the development of comprehensive plans and recommendations in areas of population and employment, transportation, economic development, regional growth and the environment.More details...Map service also available.
March 2024