EPA REGION 1: New England Environmental Finance Center

Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine

 

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A GIS INVENTORY OF

NEW ENGLAND CONSERVATION LANDS

 

Project Support Page

Applied Geographics, Inc.

For questions or support, contact rs@appgeo.com

 

Update: September, 2005

 

Geographic Markup Tool:

Maine Version

 

Reports:

Phase 1: Feasibility Study for GIS Inventory of New England Conservation Lands

 

Presentations:

NEARC Presentation | Portland, ME | September, 2005    (PDF)

 

EPA Presentation: Feburary 13, 2003: AGI: Sutton    Powerpoint presentation.

EPA Presentation: Feburary 13, 2003: EFC: Merrill   Powerpoint presentation.

 

New England Conservation Lands Mapping and Demonstration Sites:

MassGIS Web Mapping Services Documentation

New Hampshire Conservation Lands Viewer (NGI)

Vermont Center for Geographic Information Map Center

 

Appalachian Mountain Club: Interactive Mapping

New England Forestry Foundation Forests Map

Northern Forest Alliance

The Nature Conservancy – Map to Place Viewer

 

Applied Geograpics Demonstration Markup Tool (Massachusetts)

 

Project Maps and Graphics

As a component of the project, AGI assembled current conservation GIS data from all respective state managing agencies.  This database was augmented with public domain 1:24000 Census basemap information as well as municipal boundaries, roads and railroads from state agencies and various sources.  The result is a working, consolidated database containing a snapshot of state conservation lands that is viewable through ESRI ArcMap.

 

The maps below were generated out of ArcMap, and vary in scale but contain standard symbology.  Some of these maps require Adobe Acrobat PDF viewer.   Download Adobe Acrobat here .  Some of these maps will not scale or output properly on certain printers. 

 

 

BORDER Areas

Comparison of the data of the respective states at the borders provides an interesting illustration of their varying quality and quantity.  It also provides some sense of how land acquisition and protection strategies vary from state to state.

 

Maine – New Hampshire (1:120,000 scale): Shows discrepancy between data quality and quantity between the states.  Maine has markedly fewer polygons – is there really NO protected open space in Eliot?

New Hampshire – Massachusetts (1:48,000 scale): Shows comparative data between the states. 

Connecticut – Rhode Island – Massachusetts (1:48,000 scale): Data comparison of the three states’ data at their borders.

Massachusetts – Vermont – New Hampshire (1:72,000 scale)  : Data comparison of the three states’ data at their borders.   Note how more extensive the holdings of Massachusetts are.

 

 

MAINE

Augusta, Maine: Conservation Lands (1:64,000 scale): Depicts City of Augusta and immediately surrounding area with conservation lands in green.  These are plotted verbatim from the Maine Office of GIS (MeGIS) downloadable data.  

Portland, Maine: Conservation Lands (1:64,000 scale): Depicts City of Portland and immediately surrounding area with conservation lands in green.  These are plotted verbatim from the Maine Office of GIS (MeGIS) downloadable data.  

Mount Desert Island (1:120,000 scale): Acadia National Park and environs.

Belgrade Lakes (1:120,000 scale): Chain of lakes in Belgrade and surrounding towns.  Paltry land conservation in a rural region.

 

 

CONNECTICUT

New Haven  (1:64,000 scale): Massive constellation of conservation property in and around New Haven.  Light green are Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and (a few) federal properties.  Dark green are municipal.  

Hartford  (1:64,000 scale): Connecticut capital.  Note large number of CT Dept of Environmental Protection properties (light green) and very meager number of municipal properties (dark green).   

 

MASSACHUSETTS

Amherst, Massachusetts: Conservation Lands (1:58,000 scale) Town of Amherst shown with MassGIS conservation lands as well as Town of Amherst parcels data.    This map provides an example of data density and consistency between data developed and maintained by numerous sources including the municipality (Amherst), the State of Massachusetts, and the US Census.  Conservation lands polygons contain all categories of protection, including easements and Chapter 61 lands, commonly considered to be highly vulnerable to loss of protection.

Amherst, Massachusetts: Detail (Southeast corner of town) including parcels (1:24,000 scale): Shows match of parcel level data and state-maintained conservation data, including gaps, slivers and gores.  Conservation lands polygons contain all categories of protection, including easements and Chapter 61 lands, commonly considered to be highly vulnerable to loss of protection.

Cape Ann,  Massachusetts: Conservation Lands (1:100,000 scale) City of Gloucester and towns of Manchester, Essex and others.  Conservation lands polygons contain all categories of protection, including easements and Chapter 61 lands, commonly considered to be highly vulnerable to loss of protection.

Orange, Massachusetts (1:64,000 scale).

 

 

 

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NH GRANIT Conservation Lands Viewer Effective, attractive and popular solution to accessing NH conservation lands data over the web.  The Conservation Lands Viewer was developed by the GRANIT staff at UNH and Northern Geomantics in Hallowell, Maine, with funding from the Samuel P. Pardoe Foundation.

 

Nashua, New Hampshire: Conservation Lands (1:64,000 scale):

Manchester, New Hampshire (1:64,000 scale)

 

RHODE ISLAND

Newport, Rhode Island: Conservation Lands (1:64,000 scale) Newport and environs.    

Providence, Rhode Island: Conservation Lands (1:64,000 scale) Rhode Island capital and environs.  Less than ideal open space in a highly urbanized area. 

 

 

VERMONT

Burlington, Vermont: Conservation Lands (1:64,000 scale) Depicts City of Burlington and immediately surrounding area with conservation lands in green.  These are plotted verbatim from the Vermont Office of GIS.

Montpelier – Barre - Berlin Vermont: Conservation Lands (1:90,000 scale) Capital city and surrounding areas.