Northeastern United States Town Boundary data are intended for geographic display of state, county and town (municipal) boundaries at statewide and regional levels. Use it to map and label towns on a map. These data are derived from Northeastern United States Political Boundary Master layer. This information should be displayed and analyzed at scales appropriate for 1:24,000-scale data. The State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) assembled this regional data layer using data from other states in order to create a single, seamless representation of political boundaries within the vicinity of Connecticut that could be easily incorporated into mapping applications as background information. More accurate and up-to-date information may be available from individual State government Geographic Information System (GIS) offices. Not intended for maps printed at map scales greater or more detailed than 1:24,000 scale (1 inch = 2,000 feet.)

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.

Northeastern United States County Boundary data are intended for geographic display of state and county boundaries at statewide and regional levels. Use it to map and label counties on a map. These data are derived from Northeastern United States Political Boundary Master layer. This information should be displayed and analyzed at scales appropriate for 1:24,000-scale data. The State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) assembled this regional data layer using data from other states in order to create a single, seamless representation of political boundaries within the vicinity of Connecticut that could be easily incorporated into mapping applications as background information. More accurate and up-to-date information may be available from individual State government Geographic Information System (GIS) offices. Not intended for maps printed at map scales greater or more detailed than 1:24,000 scale (1 inch = 2,000 feet.)

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.

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.

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.

These data represent a digital form of the geologic map of Cape Cod and the islands.

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)

This Feature Class was created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program.The development of the parcel layer was started in 1998-1999 by East Coast Mapping of New Hampshire. East Coast created CAD Drawings for the Town of Wallingford generated through the digitization of Town of Wallingford’s Tax Maps. By use of stereoscopic techniques East Coast created a seamless parcel base from a 2000 aerial flight’s orthophoto’s (1x600ft scale). The CAD files and base were then given to the Wallingford’s Town Engineer who maintained the base. New England Geosystems of Middletown, CT received the CAD files from Wallingford in 2014 and converted the files to GIS format to create the parcel layer. Last Updated: April 2019

This map shows the location of wetland areas inside of the Ipswich Study Area This map can be used to show where wetlands are located within the Ipswich Study Area.

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/

Data layers in this child item include high-water mark and storm-sensor data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) New England Water Science Center following the January 4, 2018, and March 2-4, 2018, winter-storm events in New England. High-water marks and continuous water-level sensor data range from Portland, Maine, to Provincetown, Massachusetts, and reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). For more information about these storm events and the data collection, please see Bent, G.C., and Taylor, N.J., 2020, Total water level data from the January and March 2018 nor’easters for coastal areas of New England: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5048, 47 p., accessed June 3, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205048 Flood-inundation map layers and interim products used to create them also are included in this child item. The USGS polygon of the stillwater-inundation map reflects a statistical storm with a 1-percent annual exceedance probability from Portland, Maine, to Provincetown, Massachusetts, based on coastal tide-gage data. The January and March 2018 inundation maps are polygon shapefiles of estimated flood extent derived from the high-water mark and storm-sensor data following the storm events. The flood extents and water-surface elevations were derived from simplified estimations of high-water mark and storm-sensor data and delineated using 2-meter-resolution lidar digital-elevation models. Interim data layers that were used to create the flood-inundation polygons include a coastal flood-profile line and coastal watershed boundaries. The compressed zip files contain ESRI shapefiles that include xml metadata files. Detailed processing steps are documented in the metadata for each layer. See the Scientific Investigation Report associated with this data release for more information.

These data were collected for use in of the RI Coastal Resource Management Council's Ocean Special Area Management Plan planning process and were also intended as an update and refinement to a similar set of maps created in 2004 by New England regional Sea Grant. This data layer was developed from September 2008 - January 2009, published in February 2009 and reviewed by fishermen and updated a final time in September - October 2009. Data were collected through interviews and mapping exercises conducted in person, both one-on-one and in small groups, with representatives of the RI Fishermen's Alliance, independent fishermen, and unaffiliated fishermen. Other RI fishermen's associations participated in the Ocean SAMP stakeholder process but, to date, have not yet participated in the data collection effort.

In each interview, fishermen were first given a brief introduction to the RI Ocean SAMP planning process and shown NOAA nautical charts of the SAMP area. Researchers then asked the fishermen to describe where they fish, and to draw polygons encompassing these areas on the nautical charts. Fishermen were then asked follow-up questions about these areas, including (1) During which seasons do you fish in each area?; (2) With what gear?; and in some cases (3) What are your target species in each area? Following these meetings, data were aggregated onto one set of charts, which were then compared with the 2004 maps to corroborate the current information. Charts were then scanned and georeferenced and polygons were digitized in order to create Geographic Information Systems (GIS) shapefiles. Attribute fields were created for the data layers to record available information about seasonality and gear type. It should be noted that this dataset has some limitations and data may be incomplete. In addition, these data do not include out-of-state fisheries which may be conducted within the SAMP area, such as the herring mid-water trawling fishery based out of other New England ports.

The 2022 cartographic boundary shapefiles 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. Divisions are groupings of states within a census geographic region, established by the Census Bureau for the presentation of census data. The current nine divisions (East North Central, East South Central, Middle Atlantic, Mountain, New England, Pacific, South Atlantic, West North Central, and West South Central) are intended to represent relatively homogeneous areas that are subdivisions of the four census geographic regions.

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).

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).

The 2023 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. Divisions are groupings of states within a census geographic region, established by the Census Bureau for the presentation of census data. The current nine divisions (East North Central, East South Central, Middle Atlantic, Mountain, New England, Pacific, South Atlantic, West North Central, and West South Central) are intended to represent relatively homogeneous areas that are subdivisions of the four census geographic regions.

Census Current (2022) Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2022 vintage.

Incorporated Places are those reported to the Census Bureau as legally in existence as of the latest Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS), under the laws of their respective states. An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division, which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always are within a single state or equivalent entity, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough but can have other legal descriptions. For Census Bureau data tabulation and presentation purposes, incorporated places exclude:

1) The boroughs in Alaska (treated as statistical equivalents of counties).

2) Towns in the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin (treated as MCDs).

3) The boroughs in New York (treated as MCDs).

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.

Map layers.