September 2007

Initializing forest landscape models (FLMs) to simulate changes in tree species composition requires accurate fine-scale forest attribute information mapped contiguously over large areas. Nearest-neighbor imputation maps have high potential for use as the initial condition within FLMs, but the tendency for field plots to be imputed over large geographical distances results in species frequently mapped outside of their home ranges, which is problematic. We developed an approach for evaluating and selecting field plots for imputation based on their similarity in feature-space, their species composition, and their geographical distance between source and imputation to produce a map that is appropriate for initializing an FLM. We applied this approach to map 13m ha of forest throughout the six New England states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine). The map itself is a .img raster file of FIA plot CN numbers. To access FIA data from this map, one has to link the mapcodes in this map to FIA data supplied by USDA FIA database (https://apps.fs.usda.gov/fia/datamart/datamart.html). Due to plot confidentiality and integrity concerns, pixels containing FIA plots were always assigned to some other plot than the actual one found there.

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.

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 contains the 1995-era or early-date classifications of US coastal zone 65 and can be used to analyze change. This imagery was collected as part of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics program in a multi-agency effort to provide baseline multi-scale environmental characteristics and to monitor environmental change. This data set utilized 10 full or partial Landsat scenes which were analyzed according to the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) protocol to determine land cover. Note: These data were reprojected from their native projection into North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) / Massachusetts State Plane coordinate system, Mainland Zone (Fipszone 2001) meters by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management on Oct. 12, 2006.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This Classification and change analysis is based on Landsat TM scenes: p11r30 (08/14/1995), p11r31 (09/12/1994), p12r30 (07/04/1995), p12r31 (08/21/1995), p12r32 (06/15/1994), p13r30 (07/29/1996), p13r31 (08/09/1994), p13r32 (08/09/1994), p14r29 (05/31/1995)

Living England is a multi-year project which delivers a broad habitat map for the whole of England, created using satellite imagery, field data records and other geospatial data in a machine learning framework. The Living England habitat map shows the extent and distribution of broad habitats across England aligned to the UKBAP classification, providing a valuable insight into our natural capital assets and helping to inform land management decisions. Living England is a project within Natural England, funded by and supports the Defra Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment (NCEA) Programme and Environmental Land Management (ELM) Schemes to provide an openly available national map of broad habitats across England.This dataset includes very complex geometry with a large number of features so it has a default viewing distance set to 1:80,000 (City in the map viewer).Process Description:A number of data layers are used to develop a ground dataset of habitat reference data, which are then used to inform a machine-learning model and spatial analyses to generate a map of the likely locations and distributions of habitats across England. The main source data layers underpinning the spatial framework and models are Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 satellite data from the ESA Copernicus programme, Lidar from the EA's national Lidar Programme and collected data through the project's national survey programme. Additional datasets informing the approach as detailed below and outlined in the accompanying technical user guide.Datasets used:OS MasterMap® Topography Layer; Geology aka BGS Bedrock Mapping 1:50k; Long Term Monitoring Network; Uplands Inventory; Coastal Dune Geomatics Mapping Ground Truthing; Crop Map of England (RPA) CROME; Lowland Heathland Survey; National Grassland Survey; National Plant Monitoring Scheme; NE field Unit Surveys; Northumberland Border Mires Survey; Sentinel-2 multispectral imagery; Sentinel-1 backscatter imagery; Sentinel-1 single look complex (SLC) imagery; National forest inventory (NFI); Cranfield NATMAP; Agri-Environment HLS Monitoring; Living England desktop validation; Priority Habitat Inventory; Space2 Eye Lens: Ainsdale NNR, State of the Bog Bowland Survey, State of the Bog Dark Peak Condition Survey, State of the Bog Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) Mountain Hare Habitat Survey Dark Peak, State of the Bog; Moors for the Future Dark Peak Survey; West Pennines Designation NVC Survey; Wetland Annex 1 inventory; Soils-BGS Soil Parent Material; Met Office HadUK gridded climate product; Saltmarsh Extent and Zonation; EA LiDAR DSM & DTM; New Forest Mires Wetland Survey; New Forest Mires Wetland Survey; West Cumbria Mires Survey; England Peat Map Vegetation Surveys; NE protected sites monitoring; ERA5; OS Open Built-up Areas; OS Boundaries dataset; EA IHM (Integrated height model) DTM; OS VectorMap District; EA Coastal Flood Boundary: Extreme Sea Levels; AIMS Spatial Sea Defences; LIDAR Sand Dunes 2022; EA Coastal saltmarsh species surveys; Aerial Photography GB (APGB); NASA SRT (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) M30; Provisional Agricultural Land Classification; Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD); Open Street Map 2024.Attribute descriptions: Column Heading Full Name Format Description

SegID SegID Character (100) Unique Living England segment identifier. Format is LEZZZZ_BGZXX_YYYYYYY where Z = release year (2223 for this version), X = BGZ and Y = Unique 7-digit number

Prmry_H Primary_Habitat Date Primary Living England Habitat

Relblty Reliability
Character (12) Reliability Metric Score

Mdl_Hbs Model_Habs Interger List of likely habitats output by the Random Forest model.

Mdl_Prb Model_Probs Double (6,2) List of probabilities for habitats listed in ‘Model_Habs’, calculated by the Random Forest model.

Mixd_Sg Mixed_Segment Character (50) Indication of the likelihood a segment contains a mixture of dominant habitats. Either Unlikely or Probable.

Source Source

Description of how the habitat classification was derived. Options are: Random Forest; Vector OSMM Urban; Vector Classified OS Water; Vector EA saltmarsh; LE saltmarsh & QA; Vector RPA Crome, ALC grades 1-4; Vector LE Bare Ground Analysis; LE QA Adjusted

SorcRsn Source_Reason

Reasoning for habitat class adjustment if ‘Source’ equals ‘LE QA Adjusted’

Shap_Ar Shape_Area

Segment area (m2) Full metadata can be viewed on data.gov.uk.

This web map is built for the purpose of viewing data and information collected and processed by the U.S. Geological survey (USGS) for the January 4 and March 2-4, 2018 nor'easter winter storm flooding event in coastal New England. Under an interagency agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the USGS New England Water Science Center collected high-water marks and continuous water-level sensor data using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). More information about these data and the nor'easter storm events are in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5048 and the USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5109. This map is used in the January and March 2018 Nor’easters in Coastal New England Dashboard. A counterpart Geo-narrative web application has been published with this dashboard and can been viewed at the following link The January and March 2018 Nor'easters Geonarrative.

Modeled distribution is taken from Tree species distribution in the United States Part 1 in the Journal of Maps by Rachel Riemann, Barry T. Wilson, Andrew J. Lister, Oren Cook & Sierra Crane-Murdoch.Rachel Riemann, Barry T. Wilson, Andrew J. Lister, Oren Cook & Sierra Crane-Murdoch (2018) Tree species distribution in the United States Part 1, Journal of Maps, 14:2, 561-566, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2018.1513383

The Living England project, led by Natural England, is a multi-year programme delivering a satellite-derived national habitat layer in support of the Environmental Land Management (ELM) System and the Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment (NCEA) Pilot. The project uses a machine learning approach to image classification, developed under the Defra Living Maps project (SD1705 – Kilcoyne et al., 2017). The method first clusters homogeneous areas of habitat into segments, then assigns each segment to a defined list of habitat classes using Random Forest (a machine learning algorithm). The habitat probability map displays modelled likely broad habitat classifications, trained on field surveys and earth observation data from 2021 as well as historic data layers. This map is an output from Phase IV of the Living England project, with future work in Phase V (2022-23) intending to standardise the methodology and Phase VI (2023-24) to implement the agreed standardised methods.

The Living England habitat probability map will provide high-accuracy, spatially consistent data for a range of Defra policy delivery needs (e.g. 25YEP indicators and Environment Bill target reporting Natural capital accounting, Nature Strategy, ELM) as well as external users. As a probability map, it allows the extrapolation of data to areas that we do not have data. These data will also support better local and national decision making, policy development and evaluation, especially in areas where other forms of evidence are unavailable.

Process Description: A number of data layers are used to inform the model to provide a habitat probability map of England. The main sources layers are Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 satellite data from the ESA Copericus programme. Additional datasets were incorporated into the model (as detailed below) to aid the segmentation and classification of specific habitat classes.

Datasets used: Agri-Environment Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) Monitoring, British Geological Survey Bedrock Mapping 1:50k, Coastal Dune Geomatics Mapping Ground Truthing, Crop Map of England (RPA), Dark Peak Bog State Survey, Desktop Validation and Manual Points, EA Integrated Height Model 10m, EA Saltmarsh Zonation and Extent, Field Unit NEFU, Living England Collector App NEFU/EES, Long Term Monitoring Network (LTMN), Lowland Heathland Survey, National Forest Inventory (NFI), National Grassland Survey, National Plant Monitoring Scheme, NEFU Surveys, Northumberland Border Mires, OS Vector Map District , Priority Habitats Inventory (PHI) B Button, European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 , Space2 Eye Lens: Ainsdale NNR, Space2 Eye Lens: State of the Bog Bowland Survey, Space2 Eye Lens: State of the Bog Dark Peak Condition Survey, Space2 Eye Lens: State of the Bog (MMU) Mountain Hare Habitat Survey Dark Peak, Uplands Inventory, West Pennines Designation NVC Survey, Wetland Inventories, WorldClim - Global Climate Data

This geographic information system (GIS) data layer shows the dominant lithology and geochemical, termed lithogeochemical, character of near-surface bedrock in the New England region covering the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bedrock units in the map are generalized into groups based on their lithological composition and, for granites, geochemistry. Geologic provinces are defined as time-stratigraphic groups that share common features of age of formation, geologic setting, tectonic history, and lithology. This data set incorporates data from digital maps of two NAWQA study areas, the New England Coastal Basin (NECB) and the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins (CONN) areas and extends data to cover the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The result is a regional dataset for the lithogeochemical characterization of New England (the layer named NE_LITH). Polygons in the final coverage are attributed according to state, drainage area, geologic province, general rock type, lithogeochemical characteristics, and specific bedrock map unit.

PLEASE NOTE: This data product is not available in Shapefile format or KML at https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/Defra::living-england-habitat-map-phase-4/about, as the data exceeds the limits of these formats. Please select an alternative download format.This data product is also available for download in multiple formats via the Defra Data Services Platform at https://environment.data.gov.uk/explore/4aa716ce-f6af-454c-8ba2-833ebc1bde96?download=true.The Living England project, led by Natural England, is a multi-year programme delivering a satellite-derived national habitat layer in support of the Environmental Land Management (ELM) System and the Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment (NCEA) Pilot. The project uses a machine learning approach to image classification, developed under the Defra Living Maps project (SD1705 – Kilcoyne et al., 2017). The method first clusters homogeneous areas of habitat into segments, then assigns each segment to a defined list of habitat classes using Random Forest (a machine learning algorithm). The habitat probability map displays modelled likely broad habitat classifications, trained on field surveys and earth observation data from 2021 as well as historic data layers. This map is an output from Phase IV of the Living England project, with future work in Phase V (2022-23) intending to standardise the methodology and Phase VI (2023-24) to implement the agreed standardised methods.The Living England habitat probability map will provide high-accuracy, spatially consistent data for a range of Defra policy delivery needs (e.g. 25YEP indicators and Environment Bill target reporting Natural capital accounting, Nature Strategy, ELM) as well as external users. As a probability map, it allows the extrapolation of data to areas that we do not have data. These data will also support better local and national decision making, policy development and evaluation, especially in areas where other forms of evidence are unavailable. Process Description: A number of data layers are used to inform the model to provide a habitat probability map of England. The main sources layers are Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 satellite data from the ESA Copericus programme. Additional datasets were incorporated into the model (as detailed below) to aid the segmentation and classification of specific habitat classes. Datasets used:Agri-Environment Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) Monitoring, British Geological Survey Bedrock Mapping 1:50k, Coastal Dune Geomatics Mapping Ground Truthing, Crop Map of England (RPA), Dark Peak Bog State Survey, Desktop Validation and Manual Points, EA Integrated Height Model 10m, EA Saltmarsh Zonation and Extent, Field Unit NEFU, Living England Collector App NEFU/EES, Long Term Monitoring Network (LTMN), Lowland Heathland Survey, National Forest Inventory (NFI), National Grassland Survey, National Plant Monitoring Scheme, NEFU Surveys, Northumberland Border Mires, OS Vector Map District , Priority Habitats Inventory (PHI) B Button, European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 , Space2 Eye Lens: Ainsdale NNR, Space2 Eye Lens: State of the Bog Bowland Survey, Space2 Eye Lens: State of the Bog Dark Peak Condition Survey, Space2 Eye Lens: State of the Bog (MMU) Mountain Hare Habitat Survey Dark Peak, Uplands Inventory, West Pennines Designation NVC Survey, Wetland Inventories, WorldClim - Global Climate DataFull metadata can be viewed on data.gov.uk.

Landscape connectivity is integral to the persistence of metapopulations of wide ranging carnivores and other terrestrial species. The objectives of this research were to investigate the landscape characteristics essential to use of areas by lynx and bobcats in northern New England, map a habitat availability model for each species, and explore connectivity across areas of the region likely to experience future development pressure. A Mahalanobis distance analysis was conducted on location data collected between 2005 and 2010 from 16 bobcats in western Vermont and 31 lynx in northern Maine to determine which variables were most consistent across all locations for each species using three scales based on average 1) local (15 minute) movement, 2) linear distance between daily locations, and 3) female home range size. The bobcat model providing the widest separation between used locations and random study area locations suggests that they cue into landscape features such as edge, availability of cover, and development density at different scales. The lynx model with the widest separation between random and used locations contained five variables including natural habitat, cover, and elevation—all at different scales. Shrub scrub habitat—where lynx’s preferred prey is most abundant—was represented at the daily distance moved scale. Cross validation indicated that outliers had little effect on models for either species. A habitat suitability value was calculated for each 30 m2 pixel across Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine for each species and used to map connectivity between conserved lands within selected areas across the region. Projections of future landscape change illustrated potential impacts of anthropogenic development on areas lynx and bobcat may use, and indicated where connectivity for bobcats and lynx may be lost. These projections provided a guide for conservation of landscape permeability for lynx, bobcat, and species relying on similar habitats in the region.

This data set contains the nearshore boundary line, in ESRI shape file format, for the Ocean Management Planning Area pursuant to "An Act Relative to Oceans" for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Nearshore Ocean Management Planning Area Boundary (NOMPAB) line defines the landward limit of the Ocean Management Planning Area and represents the merger of a line projected 0.3 nautical miles (nm) from an approximate mean high water (MHW) shoreline data set and closing lines digitized manually to ensure that most developed coastal embayments, ports, harbors, etc. are located landward of the nearshore boundary. GIS files for this boundary are available for download. Since GIS projection and topology functions can alter or generalize coordinates, however, calculated coordinate values (also available for download) and not GIS files are the official record for the exact NOMPAB.

Eelgrass Beds 2009 Set:

This data layer was created by the Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech University for the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Region 5. The project area encompasses the eastern end of Long Island Sound, including Fishers Island and the North Fork of Long Island. It includes all coastal embayments and nearshore waters (i.e., to a depth of -15 feet at mean low water) bordering the Sound from Clinton Harbor in the west to the Rhode Island border in the east and including Fishers Island and the North Shore of Long Island from Southold to Orient Point and Plum Island. The study area includes the tidal zone of 18 sub-basins in Connecticut: Little Narragansett Bay, Stonington Harbor, Quiambog Cove, Mystic Harbor, Palmer-West Cove, Mumford Cove, Paquonock River, New London Harbor, Goshen Cove, Jordan Cove, Niantic Bay, Rocky Neck State Park, Old Lyme Shores, Connecticut River, Willard Bay, Westbrook Harbor, Duck Island Roads, and Clinton Harbor, and two areas in New York: Fishers Island and a portion of the North Shore of Long Island. Delineations of 2009 eelgrass beds were completed using 1:20,000 true color aerial photography flown at low tide on 7/14/2009 and 7/15/2009. Extensive field work was conducted by the USFWS Region 5 Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal Program Office in October, November, and December 2009 with 193 field sites checked. The 2009 photography was scanned and geo-rectified using 2006 NAIP 1 meter true color imagery. Data have been summarized in a technical report: Tiner, R., K. McGuckin, M. Fields, N. Fuhrman, T. Halavik, and A. MacLachlan. 2010. 2009 Eelgrass Survey for Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. National Wetlands Inventory report. 16 pp. plus Appendix.

This data layer was created by the Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech University for the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Region 5. The project area encompasses the eastern end of Long Island Sound, including Fishers Island and the North Fork of Long Island. It includes all coastal embayments and nearshore waters (i.e., to a depth of -15 feet at mean low water) bordering the Sound from Clinton Harbor in the west to the Rhode Island border in the east and including Fishers Island and the North Shore of Long Island from Southold to Orient Point and Plum Island. The study area includes the tidal zone of 18 sub-basins in Connecticut: Little Narragansett Bay, Stonington Harbor, Quiambog Cove, Mystic Harbor, Palmer-West Cove, Mumford Cove, Paquonock River, New London Harbor, Goshen Cove, Jordan Cove, Niantic Bay, Rocky Neck State Park, Old Lyme Shores, Connecticut River, Willard Bay, Westbrook Harbor, Duck Island Roads, and Clinton Harbor, and two areas in New York: Fishers Island and a portion of the North Shore of Long Island. Delineations of 2009 eelgrass beds were completed using 1:20,000 true color aerial photography flown at low tide on 7/14/2009 and 7/15/2009. Extensive field work was conducted by the USFWS Region 5 Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal Program Office in October, November, and December 2009 with 193 field sites checked. The 2009 photography was scanned and geo-rectified using 2006 NAIP 1 meter true color imagery.

Revised Limited English Proficiency dataAs Of: 6/27/2019There are two data sources for the LEP map. LEP County layer represents OFM 2016 “estimate of population with limited English proficiency for the state and counties.” LEP County Subdivision and Census tract layers represent 2015 Census “Language spoken at home by ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over.” The both data sets were trimmed to display LEP speakers of at least 1,000 or 5% of the population.Point Of Contact:Lewis LujánLimited English Proficiency CoordinatorMitigation & Recovery SectionWashington Emergency Management DivisionOffice: (253) 512-7138 | Mobile: (253) 651-6185lewis.lujan@mil.wa.gov | www.mil.wa.govOffice Hours: Tues-Fri 7:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.Links:OFM :https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/pop/subject/ofm_pop_limited_english_proficiency_estimates_2016.xlsxCensus:https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_B16001&prodType=table

This data release provides a generalized lithology look-up table for the lithogeochemical classification of Vermont's bedrock geologic map units. The table is defined from the mapped bedrock geologic units published by Ratcliffe and others (2011) and the generalized lithology of rock group A and rock group B for lithogeochemical classification as defined by Robinson and Kapo (2003). The 2003 classification was created fro all six New England states and Vermont's geologic units were based on an older, less detailed, bedrock map of Vermont by Doll and others (1961). The new data table in this data release is designed to be joined with the published attribute table from the 2011 map database, as part of the bedrock geologic map unit polygons. The join attribute is the item called "Lith" in the 2011 map database. The data table is non-interpretive and the 2011 map data were not modified. The data release contains two files, including one metadata file and one comma-delimited (CSV) file: VTcontax_attrib_lithology.csv. References: Doll, C.G., Cady, W.M., Thompson, J.B., and Billings, M.P., 1961, Centennial geologic map of Vermont: Vermont Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map MISCMAP-01, scale 1:250,000. Ratcliffe, N.M., Stanley, R.S., Gale, M.H., Thompson, P.J., and Walsh, G.J., 2011, Bedrock geologic map of Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3184, 3 sheets, scale 1:100,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3184/ Robinson, G.R., Jr., and Kapo, K.E., 2003, Generalized lithology and lithogeochemical character of near-surface bedrock in the New England region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-225, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-225/

CREATOR: Moxon, Joseph, 1627-1691IMPRINT: [London] DATE CREATED: [1711] TYPE OF RESOURCE: Cartographic GENRE: Map Digital maps Early maps Separate map EXTENT: 21.9 x 43.4 cm, 32.3 x 46.1 cm including border. MAP DATA: [ca. 1: 60,000,000] ; (W 180° --E 180°/N 85° --S 85°) STATE 1: As above, without Pennsylvania noted. STATE 2: With Pennsylvania marked and labeled as 57. New Spain is noted on the mainland as 61. List of numbered locations includes: Europa, 1-25 and xxx; Asia, 26-44 and xx; Africa, 45-55 and x; and America, 56-78. Issued in: The Book of common prayer / Printed by Charles Bill, and the Executrix of Thomas Newcombe. -- London, 1711. REFERENCES: Shirley 457 (Plate 339); Clancy BXIII, 106. STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: By J. Moxon, Hydrographer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. PUBLICATIONS: Issued in: Sacred Geographie, or, Scriptural Mapps... . London, 1671. NOTE: California with a flat northern coast and with a large area jutting off the top left-hand side of the island. The island is named but has no place names. Dedication: To the most Reverend Father in God Gilbert Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury. His Grace Primate of all England and Metropolitan This Map is humbly Dedicated by Joseph Moxon. (Note: Gilbert Sheldon was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1663 to 1677.) Map surrounded by scenes from the Bible. Eden is prominently note on the Euphrates. Noah’s son Japhet is named on the North American continent, that part of the earth having been given to him. Includes a key to the numbered locations. Printed for binding into Bibles along with five other maps of Biblical interest. COLLECTION: The Glen McLaughlin Map Collection of California as an Island SUBJECT: World > Maps California as an island > Maps POST PUBLICATION MAP NUMBER: 1032 POST PUBLICATION MAP NUMBER WITH LATEST STATE INFORMATION: 1032-02https://exhibits.stanford.edu/california-as-an-island/catalog/ws505mf2722

The following permits are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). A Section 10 permit is required for all work, including structures, seaward of the mean high water line in navigable waters of the United States, defined as waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, as well as a few of the major rivers used to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A Section 404 permit is required for activities which involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including not only navigable waters, but also coastal waters, inland rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. A Section 103 permit is required to transport dredged material for the purpose of disposal in the ocean. Please note: These permits are considered together as they are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under a single permit application. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District has issued a Programmatic General Permit (PGP) for work in Massachusetts. The PGP provides for three levels of regulatory review: * Category I: Activities of minimal environmental impact that do not require Corps regulatory review and are classified as non-reporting. While no written notification to the Corps is required for these "minor" projects, they must comply with the conditions contained in the PGP. * Category II: Activities likely to be of minimal environmental impact but that have the potential to have adverse effects. A project-specific review and authorization from the Corps in writing are required. Copies of the Massachusetts Chapter 91 application and plans, or the Water Quality Certification application and plans, are usually sufficient for Category II review. * Category III: Activities that have potential to cause adverse environmental impacts. These projects must get an Individual Corps license, and therefore require project-specific review, are available for public review and comment, and may require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Review Process: PGP, applications for projects meeting the PGP criteria must include a brief project description, vicinity map, site plan, and a plan view of the proposed structure. Federal and state resource agencies meet every three weeks to review PGP applications. A PGP is usually issued, with or without special conditions, ten days after the review closes. Individual Permits: Applications for Individual Permits must include site location, a description of the project and its purpose, and related maps and plans. Within 15 days of receiving the required application material, the Corps issues a Public Notice seeking comments from abutters, regulatory agencies and the public. Comments are accepted for up to 30 days. The Corps evaluates comments received, compliance with section 404(b)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act, public interest criteria and issues a permit. If denied, the applicant is informed of the reason(s). Neither a PGP nor an Individual Permit is valid until the applicant has obtained a 401 Water Quality Certification from DEP. Individual permits are not valid until CZM concurs that the project is consistent with state coastal policies. Applicability to Aquaculture: Shellfish culture projects smaller than one acre are generally found to be eligible for a PGP. Larger projects, such as hatcheries, may exceed the thresholds of PGP eligibility, and therefore may be required to obtain an Individual Permit. Any project in or affecting the waters of the United States must comply with the conditions of the PGP or, in the case of larger projects, the conditions of an Individual Permit. Forms: PGP - None; Individual - ENG Form 4345: www.nae.usace.army.mil/ Fees PGP - None; Individual - Commercial Activity $100.00 Contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Regulatory Branch, (978) 318-8338 and (800) 362-4367.

This dataset provides the spatial distribution of vegetation types, soil carbon, and physiographic features in the Imnavait Creek area, Alaska. Specific attributes include vegetation, percent water, glacial geology, soil carbon, a digital elevation model (DEM), surficial geology and surficial geomorphology. Data are also provided on the research grids for georeferencing. The map data are from a variety of sources and encompass the period 1970-06-01 to 2015-08-31.

Surficial Aquifer Texture Map was prepared from the Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut (Stone, J.R., Schafer, J.P., London, E.H. and Thompson, W.B., 1992, U.S. Geological Survey special map, 2 sheets, scale 1:125,000) to describe unconsolidated areas of the subsurface with similar properties relative to ground water flow. Surficial aquifers are unconsolidated geologic deposits capable of yielding a sufficient quantity of groundwater to wells. Surficial aquifer textures were identified from original surficial materials mapping for use in ground water applications. These are qualitative interpretations of material properties relative to ground water flow. Surficial aquifer texture groups were identified to represent aquifer textures with similar hydraulic conductivities. Some interpretations were made beneath postglacial alluvium and swamp deposits. Alluvium without a subsurface interpretation was classified as having similar hydrologic properties as till. Alluvium areas with subsurface interpretations of fines or coarse grained deposits were classified as having the hydrologic characteristics of the underlying deposits. The aquifer textures include areas of till, fine grained, fine overlying coarse grained, coarse grained, coarse overlying fine grained deposits, artificial fill, beach, salt marsh, swamp, and water. Aquifer texture groups include areas of fine grained , fine overlying coarse grained, coarse grained, and coarse overlying fine grained deposits. Surficial materials not included in the surficial aquifer texture groups include till, artificial fill, beach, salt marsh, swamp, and water. All textural terms follow the grain size classification of Stone et al 1992, modified from Wentworth, 1922. The surficial aquifer texture classifications are suitable for use at 1:24,000 scale. Original mapping of the Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut is preserved as polygon attribute values in this data layer, and is herein described. The Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut portrays the glacial and postglacial deposits of Connecticut in terms of their aerial extent and subsurface textural relationships. Glacial Ice-Laid Deposits (thin till, thick till, end moraine deposits) and Postglacial Deposits (alluvium, swamp deposits, marsh deposits, beach deposits, talus, and artificial fill) are differentiated from Glacial Meltwater Deposits. The meltwater deposits are further characterized using four texturally-based map units (g = gravel, sg = sand and gravel, s = sand, and f = fines). In many places a single map unit (e.g. sand) is sufficient to describe the entire meltwater section. Where more complex stratigraphic relationships exist, "stacked" map units are used to characterize the subsurface (e.g. sg/s/f - sand and gravel overlying sand overlying fines). Where postglacial deposits overlie meltwater deposits, this relationship is also described (e.g. alluvium overlying sand). Map unit definitions (Surficial Materials Polygon Code definitions, found in the metadata) provide a short description of the inferred depositional environment for each of the glacial meltwater map units. This map was compiled at 1:24,000 scale, and published at 1:125,000 scale. Connecticut Surficial Materials is a 1:24,000-scale, polygon and line feature-based layer describing the unconsolidated glacial and postglacial deposits of Connecticut in terms of their grain-size distribution (texture) as compiled at 1:24,000 scale for the Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut. Glacial meltwater deposits (stratified deposits) are particularly emphasized because these sediments are the major groundwater aquifers in the State and are also the major source of construction aggregate. These deposits are described in terms of their subsurface distribution of textures as well as their extent. The texture of meltwater deposits through their total vertical thickness in the subsurface is shown to the extent that it is known or can be inferred. In some places only one textural unit (such as SG - Sand and Gravel) describes the whole vertical extent of the meltwater deposits; in other places 'stacked units' (such as SG/S/F - Sand and Gravel overlying Sand overlying Fines) indicate changes of textural units in the subsurface. Polygon features represent individual textural (surficial material) units with attributes that describe textural unit type and size. Examples of polygon features that are postglacial deposits include floodplain alluvium, swamp deposits, salt-marsh and estuarine deposits, talus, coastal beach and dune deposits, and artificial fill. Examples of glacial ice-laid deposits include till, thin till, thick till and end moraine deposits. Examples of glacial melt-water deposits include gravel, sand and gravel, sand, and very fine sand, silt and clay. Additional polygon features are incorporated to define surface water areas for streams, lakes, ponds, bays, and estuaries greater than 5 acres in size. Line features describe the type of boundary between individual textural units such as a geologic contact line between two different textural units or a linear shoreline feature between a textural unit and an adjacent waterbody. Data is compiled at 1:24,000 scale and is not updated.

GEOLOGIC DISCUSSION - The following text is excerpted from the text on sheet 1 of the Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut, Stone and others, 1992. It has been modified as necessary for use with the 1:24,000 scale digital data, and is not considered a valid substitute for the information found on the published map. For a more complete understanding of the geologic principles behind the Surficial Materials data it is advisable to consult the published map, which contains cross sections, diagrams and text not available in digital form. DISCUSSION OF SURFICIAL MATERIALS - The unconsolidated deposits overlying bedrock in Connecticut range from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness. These earth materials significantly affect human development of the land. Most of the unconsolidated materials are deposits of continental glaciers that covered all of New England at least twice during the Pleistocene ice age. These glacial deposits are divided into two broad categories, glacial till and glacial stratified deposits. Till, the most widespread glacial deposit, was laid down directly by glacier ice and is characterized by a nonsorted matrix of sand, silt, and clay with variable amounts of stones and large boulders. Glacial meltwater deposits are concentrated in both small and large valleys and were laid down by glacial meltwater in streams and lakes in front of the retreating ice margin during deglaciation. These deposits are characterized by layers of well-sorted to poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Postglacial sediments, primarily floodplain alluvium and swamp deposits, make up a lesser proportion of the unconsolidated materials of Connecticut. Alluvium is largely reworked from glacial materials and has similar physical characteristics. The distribution of surficial (unconsolidated) materials that lie between the land surface (below the pedogenic soil) and the bedrock surface is shown on this map to the extent that it is known or can be inferred. The cross sections and the block diagram shown on the published map (Stone and others, 1992) illustrate the characteristic vertical distribution of glacial till, glacial meltwater deposits, and postglacial deposits encountered in Connecticut. The areal distribution of till and stratified deposits is related to the physiographic regions of the State: the eastern and western highlands and the central lowland. In highland areas, till is the major unconsolidated material, present as a discontinuous mantle of variable thickness over the bedrock surface. Till is thickest in drumlins and on the northwest slopes of hills. Glacial meltwater deposits that average 10-40 feet in thickness overlie the till in small upland valleys and commonly in north-sloping pockets between bedrock hills. In the central lowland, especially in the north half, glacial stratified deposits are the predominant surficial materials. These deposits generally overlie till; however, well logs indicate that in some places till is not present and the stratified deposits lie directly on bedrock. The extensive stratified deposits of the central lowland average 50-100 feet in thickness, and in the northern part they almost completely mask the till-draped bedrock surface. Postglacial materials locally overlie the glacial deposits throughout the State. Alluvium occurs on the floodplains of most streams and rivers. Swamp deposits occur in poorly drained areas. Talus occurs along the bases of steep bedrock cliffs, principally along the traprock ridges within the central lowland. Salt-marsh and estuarine deposits occur mainly along the tidal portions of streams and rivers entering Long Island Sound. Beach deposits occur along the shoreline of Long Island Sound. The units on this map delineate textural changes in the subsurface as well as areally at the surface. An earlier map at 1:125,000 scale of central Connecticut (Stone and others, 1979) shows only surface textural units; a separate map in the same series (Langer, 1979) shows subsurface deposits of fine-grained materials. Several previous 1:24,000-scale quadrangle maps in Connecticut show three-dimensional textural units and refer to them as 'superposed deposits' (see Stone, 1976 and Radway and Schnabel, 1976, as examples). On this map, the term 'stack unit' (Kempton, 1981) is used in place of superposed deposits. DISTRIBUTION OF TEXTURES IN GLACIAL MELTWATER DEPOSITS - The distribution of textural units is extrapolated from both point data (well and test-hole logs, gravel pits, and shovel holes) and from interpretation of landforms based on the principles of morphosequence deposition and systematic northward ice retreat (Koteff, 1974; Koteff and Pessl, 1981). These concepts provide a model by which grain-size