no abstract provided

This tile service is derived from a digital raster graphic of the historical 15-minute USGS topographic quadrangle maps of coastal towns in Massachusetts. These quadrangles were mosaicked together to create a single data layer of the coast of Massachusetts and a large portion of the southeastern area of the state.The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) obtained the map images from the Harvard Map Collection. The maps were produced in the late 1890s and early 20th century at a scale of 1:62,500 or 1:63,360 and are commonly known as 15-minute quadrangle maps because each map covers a four-sided area of 15 minutes of latitude and 15 minutes of longitude.

Geologic, sediment texture, and physiographic zone maps characterize the sea floor south and west of Martha's Vineyard and north of Nantucket, Massachusetts. These maps were derived from interpretations of seismic-reflection profiles, high-resolution bathymetry, acoustic-backscatter intensity, bottom photographs, and surficial sediment samples. The interpretation of the seismic stratigraphy and mapping of glacial and Holocene marine units provided a foundation on which the surficial maps were created. This mapping is a result of a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management to characterize the surface and subsurface geologic framework offshore of Massachusetts.

This ArcGIS Map Package contains information on brook trout occupancy in the southern portion of the brook trout range (PA and south). Fish sample data from a number of state and federal agencies/organizations were used to define patches for brook trout as groups of occupied contiguous catchment polygons from the National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 1 (NHDPlusV1) catchment GIS layer. After defining patches, NHDPlusV1 catchments were assigned occupancy codes. Then state and federal agencies reviewed patches and codes to verify data accuracy. A similar effort is currently being conducted by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture to develop occupancy data for the remainder of the brook trout range including states of New York, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Ohio. This ArcGIS Map Package contains data for the entire southern portion of the brook trout range with preset symbology that displays brook trout occupancy. The Map Package also includes the same information clipped into seperate layers for each state. State information is provided for the convenience of users that are interested in data for only a particular state. Additional layers displaying state boundaries, quadrangle maps, and the brook trout range are also included as spatial references.

This data contains leaf mass per area (LMA) map of southeast Asia. For the details of data provision and term of use, please contact us by e-mail.

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

This data release presents geologic map data for the surficial geology of the Aztec 1-degree by 2-degree quadrangle. The map area lies within two physiographic provinces of Fenneman (1928): the Southern Rocky Mountains province, and the Colorado Plateau province, Navajo section. Geologic mapping is mostly compiled from published geologic map data sources ranging from 1:24,000 to 1:250,000 scale, with limited new interpretive contributions. Gaps in map compilation are related to a lack of published geologic mapping at the time of compilation, and not necessarily a lack of surficial deposits. Much of the geology incorporated from published geologic maps is adjusted based on digital elevation model and natural-color image data sources to improve spatial resolution of the data. Spatial adjustments and new interpretations also eliminate mismatches at source map boundaries. This data set represents only the surficial geology, defined as generally unconsolidated to moderately consolidated sedimentary deposits that are Quaternary or partly Quaternary in age, and faults that have documented Quaternary offset. Bedrock and sedimentary material directly deposited as a result of volcanic activity are not included in this database, nor are faults that are not known to have moved during the Quaternary. Map units in the Aztec quadrangle include alluvium, glacial, eolian, mass-wasting, colluvium, and alluvium/colluvium deposit types. Alluvium map units, present throughout the map area, range in age from Quaternary-Tertiary to Holocene and form stream-channel, floodplain, terrace, alluvial-fan, and pediment deposits. Along glaciated drainages terraces are commonly made up of glacial outwash. Glacial map units are concentrated in the northeast corner of the map area and are mostly undifferentiated till deposited in mountain valleys during Pleistocene glaciations. Eolian map units are mostly middle Pleistocene to Holocene eolian sand deposits forming sand sheets and dunes. Mass-wasting map units are concentrated in the eastern part of the map area, and include deposits formed primarily by slide, slump, earthflow, and rock-fall processes. Colluvium and alluvium/colluvium map units form hillslope and undifferentiated valley floor/hillslope deposits, respectively. The detail of geologic mapping varies from about 1:50,000- to 1:250,000-scale depending on the scale of published geologic maps available at the time of compilation, and for new mapping, the resolution of geologic features on available basemap data. Map units are organized within geologic provinces as described by the Seamless Integrated Geologic Mapping (SIGMa) (Turner and others, 2022) extension to the Geologic Map Schema (GeMS) (USGS, 2020). For this data release, first order geologic provinces are the physiographic provinces of Fenneman (1928), which reflect the major geomorphological setting affecting depositional processes. Second order provinces are physiographic sections of Fenneman (1928) if present. Third and fourth order provinces are defined by deposit type. Attributes derived from published source maps are recorded in the map unit polygons to preserve detail and allow database users the flexibility to create derivative map units. Map units constructed by the authors are based on geologic province, general deposit type and generalized groupings of minimum and maximum age to create a number of units typical for geologic maps of this scale. Polygons representing map units were assigned a host of attributes to make that geology easily searchable. Each polygon contains a general depositional process (‘DepositGeneral’) as well as three fields that describe more detailed depositional processes responsible for some deposition in that polygon (‘LocalGeneticType1’ – ‘LocalGeneticType3’). Three fields describe the materials that make up the deposit (‘LocalMaterial1’ – ‘LocalMaterial3’) and the minimum and maximum chronostratigraphic age of a deposit is stored in the ‘LocalAgeMin’ and ‘LocalAgeMax’ fields, respectively. Where a polygon is associated with a prominent landform or a formal stratigraphic name the ‘LocalLandform’ and ‘LocalStratName’ fields are populated. The field ‘LocalThickness’ provides a textual summary of how thick a source publication described a deposit to be. Where three fields are used to describe the contents of a deposit, we attempt to place descriptors in a relative ordering such that the first field is most prominent, however for remotely interpreted deposits and some sources that provide generalized descriptions this was not possible. Values within these searchable fields are generally taken directly from source maps, however we do perform some conservative adjustments of values based on observations from the landscape and/or adjacent source maps. Where new features were interpreted from remote observations, we derive polygon attributes based on a conservative correlation to neighboring maps. Detail provided at the polygon level is simplified into a map unit by matching its values to the DescriptionOfMapUnits_Surficial table. Specifically, we construct map units within each province based on values of ‘DepositGeneral’ and a set of chronostratigraphic age bins that attempt to capture important aspects of Quaternary landscape evolution. Polygons are assigned to the mapunit with a corresponding ‘DepositGeneral’ and the narrowest chronostratigraphic age bin that entirely contains the ‘LocalAgeMin’ and ‘LocalAgeMax’ values of that polygon. Therefore, users may notice some mismatch between the age range of a polygon and the age range of the assigned map unit, where ‘LocalAgeMin’ and ‘LocalAgeMax’ (e.g., Holocene – Holocene) may define a shorter temporal range than suggested by the map unit (e.g., Holocene – late Pleistocene). This apparent discrepancy allows for detailed information to be preserved in the polygons, while also allowing for an integrated suite of map units that facilitate visualization over a large region.

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

Geologic, sediment texture, and physiographic zone maps characterize the sea floor south and west of Martha's Vineyard and north of Nantucket, Massachusetts. These maps were derived from interpretations of seismic-reflection profiles, high-resolution bathymetry, acoustic-backscatter intensity, bottom photographs, and surficial sediment samples. The interpretation of the seismic stratigraphy and mapping of glacial and Holocene marine units provided a foundation on which the surficial maps were created. This mapping is a result of a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management to characterize the surface and subsurface geologic framework offshore of Massachusetts.

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).

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

Mineral resource occurrence data covering the world, most thoroughly within the U.S. This database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. The MRDS is a large and complex relational database developed over several decades by hundreds of researchers and reporters. While database records describe mineral resources worldwide, the compilation of information was intended to cover the United States completely, and its coverage of resources in other countries is incomplete. The content of MRDS records was drawn from reports previously published or made available to USGS researchers. Some of those original source materials are no longer available. The information contained in MRDS was intended to reflect the reports used as sources and is current only as of the date of those source reports. Consequently MRDS does not reflect up-to-date changes to the operating status of mines, ownership, land status, production figures and estimates of reserves and resources, or the nature, size, and extent of workings. Information on the geological characteristics of the mineral resource are likely to remain correct, but aspects involving human activity are likely to be out of date.