The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

Geospatial data about Butte County, California Addresses. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USFWS, Description: These data identify, in general, the areas where final critical habitat for Butte County meadowfoam (vernal pool plant) occur. The purpose is to provide the user with a general idea of areas where final critical habitat for Butte County meadowfoam (vernal pool plant) occur.

Geospatial data about Butte County, California Zoning. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This shapefile contains tax rate area (TRA) boundaries in Butte County for the specified assessment roll year. Boundary alignment is based on the 2016 county parcel map. A tax rate area (TRA) is a geographic area within the jurisdiction of a unique combination of cities, schools, and revenue districts that utilize the regular city or county assessment roll, per Government Code 54900. Each TRA is assigned a six-digit numeric identifier, referred to as a TRA number. TRA = tax rate area number

The data release for the geologic map of the Butte 1 degree x 2 degrees quadrangle, Montana, is a Geologic Map Schema (GeMS)-compliant version that updates the GIS files for the geologic map published in Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 363 (Lewis, 1998). The updated digital data present the attribute tables and geospatial features (points, lines and polygons) in the format that meets GeMS requirements. This data release presents the geologic map as shown on the plates and captured in geospatial data for the published map. Minor errors, such as mistakes in line decoration or differences between the digital data and the map image, are corrected in this version. The database represents the geology for the 4.4 million acre, geologically complex Butte 1 x 2 degrees quadrangle, at a publication scale of 1:250,000. The map covers parts of Deer Lodge, Granite, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli, and Silver Bow Counties. These GIS data supersede ...

Geospatial data about Butte County, California Streams. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Use the app to find the downloadable area within Jackson County - 2 Foot Contour MapThe 2-foot Contour Map shows contours that were derived from several different LiDAR projects in the Rogue Valley over the last 10 years. The map can be used to both download and view the contour data. To use the map, search or zoom in to an address. When zoomed in to a specific scale, the map will change from the downloadable areas layer to 2-foot interval contour lines. The LiDAR Project Dates layer can be used to identify the date when the elevation was collected in an area. Please note that data is available only for the valley floor areas at this time.The 2ft contours were created from 1-meter pixel DEM and then cleaned to remove very small elevation changes and to create a smooth contour line. This information should not be used to create topographic surveys or other applications where the precise elevation of a location is required. For additional information on LiDAR in Oregon or to download the source data, please visit the DOGAMI Lidar Viewer.The downloadable data is a zipped ESRI Shapefile and is projected to Oregon State Plane South (Intl Feet) with NAD 1983 datum.

Analysis of ‘Butte County Land Use Survey 2004’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/e3e4d389-a9ca-470a-9040-a13d22e59d3e on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Geospatial data about Butte County, California Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Butte County, California Bridges. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This shapefile contains tax rate area (TRA) boundaries in Butte County for the specified assessment roll year. Boundary alignment is based on the 2016 county parcel map. A tax rate area (TRA) is a geographic area within the jurisdiction of a unique combination of cities, schools, and revenue districts that utilize the regular city or county assessment roll, per Government Code 54900. Each TRA is assigned a six-digit numeric identifier, referred to as a TRA number. TRA = tax rate area number

Geospatial data about Butte County, California Contours. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legend specific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2004 Butte County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits. The land use boundaries and attributes were digitized and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District (ND). Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and ND, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Scientist. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Butte County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2004. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary data was developed using: 1. The aerial photography used for this survey was taken in June of 2004. 9”x9” color photographs were generated from an altitude of about 6,000 feet above ground to produce a 1:24,000 scale photo. 2. The 9”x9” photos were taken to the field and virtually all the areas were visited to positively identify the land use. Site visits occurred July through September 2004. Land use codes were hand written on the photos. 3. Using AUTOCAD, the land use boundaries were digitized from USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) and attributes were entered from the field photos (using a standardized digitizing process). 4. After quality control/assurance procedures were completed on each file (DWG), the data was finalized. 5. The linework and attributes from each DWG quad file were brought into ARCINFO and both quad and survey wide coverages were created, and underwent quality checks. The survey wide coverage was then converted to a shapefile using ARCVIEW. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

The 1994 Butte County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through it’s Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Northern District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 3. Irrigation type information was not collected for this survey. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2005 Yuba County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits. The land use boundaries and attributes were digitized and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District (ND). Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and ND, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Scientist. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Butte County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2004. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary date was developed using: 1. The aerial photography used for this survey was taken in June of 2005. 9”x9” color photographs were generated from an altitude of about 6,000 feet above ground to produce a 1:24,000 scale photo. 2. The 9”x9” photos were taken to the field and virtually all the areas were visited to positively identify the land use. Site visits occurred July through September 2005. Land use codes were hand written on the photos. 3. Using AUTOCAD, the land use boundaries were digitized from USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) and attributes were entered from the field photos (using a standardized digitizing process). 4. After quality control/assurance procedures were completed on each file (DWG), the data was finalized. 5. The linework and attributes from each DWG quad file were brought into ARCINFO and both quad and survey wide coverages were created, and underwent quality checks. The survey wide coverage was then converted to a shapefile using ARCVIEW. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

This map is designated as Final.Land-Use Data Quality ControlEvery published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2005 Yuba County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits. The land use boundaries and attributes were digitized and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District (ND). Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and ND, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Scientist. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Butte County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2004. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary date was developed using: 1. The aerial photography used for this survey was taken in June of 2005. 9”x9” color photographs were generated from an altitude of about 6,000 feet above ground to produce a 1:24,000 scale photo. 2. The 9”x9” photos were taken to the field and virtually all the areas were visited to positively identify the land use. Site visits occurred July through September 2005. Land use codes were hand written on the photos. 3. Using AUTOCAD, the land use boundaries were digitized from USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) and attributes were entered from the field photos (using a standardized digitizing process). 4. After quality control/assurance procedures were completed on each file (DWG), the data was finalized. 5. The linework and attributes from each DWG quad file were brought into ARCINFO and both quad and survey wide coverages were created, and underwent quality checks. The survey wide coverage was then converted to a shapefile using ARCVIEW. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

12/06/2024 - Updates to Ellendale, Fargo, Kindred, Lincoln, Mandan, Rugby and Tappen.12/06/2024 - Update to Lincoln and Bismarck Corporate Boundaries based on requests from Lincoln.6/27/2024 - Update to the Valley City and Dickinson Corporate Boundary based on requests from their GIS personal.4/8/2024 - Update to the Valley City Corporate Boundary12/04/2023 - Update to Fargo City Boundary7/23/2023 - Removed Church’s Ferry due to proclamation and notice of dissolution.7/01/2023 - Changes to Binford - Ordinance 51; Lidgerwood - Ordinance 2022-1; Killdeer Golf Course annexation; Bismarck based on current City of Bismarck GIS boundary9/26/2022 - Changes to Steele boundary per Kidder County 911 coordinator.9/23/2022 - Updates to Grand Forks, Mandan and Fargo7/01/2022 - Updates to Killdeer, Mandan and Williston per State Tax Dept changes. 2/14/2022- Updates to Minot -13th ST SE/31st AVE SE, Updates to Elgin, Horace and St. John.11/16/2021 -Updates to Bismarck, Fargo and Killdeer based on city ordinances.7/2/21 – Changes were made to the City of Bismarck, Fargo and Hillsboro to include local taxing jurisdiction boundary changes from the State Tax Commissioner.5/4/21 - Updates were made to the City of Wahpeton due to an annexation.4/29/21 - Updated Minot and Makoti3/5/21 - Updated an annexation to Arnegard that was submitted to the DOT by Mackenzie's County Public Works GIS Coordinator.1/21/21 - Update to Sentinel Butte per Golden Valley 911 Coordinator7/17/20 - Updates to Bismarck, Linton and Stanley6/1/20 - Updates to Killdeer, New Town and Surrey1/17/2020 - Boundary changes have been updated for Bismarck, Bowman Fargo, Garrison, Linton, and New Salem.3/5/19 - The corporate boundary of Surrey has been updated.12/26/18 - The following corporate boundaries have been updated: Bismarck, Lincoln, Grand Forks, Horace, Casselton, Fargo, Oxbow, Tioga and Stanley.6/19/18 - City of Maza is not incorporated based on the 2011-2013 North Dakota Blue book. Removed Maza.5/14/18 - Updated Dickinson, Watford City, Berthold, Minnewauken, and Cavalier.1/31/18 - Updated Dickinson, Mandan, Minot, Tioga, Devils Lake, Belfield, Washburn, Mohall, Minnewauken, Lincoln, Bismarck and Casselton. 10/24/17 - Updated Watford City and Makoti10/16/17 - The following cities have been updated: Jamestown, Milnor, Bismarck, Carrington, Casselton, Mandan, Minot, Stanley, Larimore, Crosby, and Watford City.1/10/17 - The following cities have been updated: Lehr, Grand Forks, Langdon, Drayton, Flasher, Glen Ullin, Watford City, Zap, Lignite, Hankinson, Beach, Underwood, South Heart, Devils Lake, all cities in Ward County, Cavalier, Bismarck, Lincoln, Fargo, West Fargo, Ayr, Briarwood, Casselton, Davenport, Enderlin, Grandin, Horace, and North River.9/19/16 - Updated the following cities: Watford City, Steele, Richardton, Berthold, Carpio, Burlington, Des Lacs, Donnybrook, Douglas, Kenmare, Makoti, Ryder, Sawyer, and Surrey.6/23/16 - Updated cities are as follows: All cities in Pembina, Morton, Richland, and Williams Counties. The cities of Bismarck, West Fargo, Harwood, Oxbow, Beach, Minot, Stanley, Jamestown, Fargo, Dickinson and New Town.9/28/15 - The following cites have had annexation: Stanley, Bottineau, Minot, Casselton, Belfield and Watford City.7/24/15 - Updated Grafton, Stanley, Bismarck, Williston, Horace, Fargo, Grand Forks, Watford City, Turtle Lake, Leeds, Maxbass and Medora1/16/15 - Updated Grafton, Stanley and Bismarck.11/3/2014 - Updated Bismarck, Mandan, Minot, Stanley, and Watford City7/16/14 - Corporate limits updated include: Mandan, Towner, Fargo, West Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Bowman, Watford City, Stanley, Tioga, Kenmare, Casselton, Minot, Carrington, Kindred, and Killdeer. The corporate limit updates consisted of receiving from the cities, shape files, CADD files, scanned images of annexations or by converting pdf files into images, rectifying them within ArcGIS, then heads-up digitizing. 7/29/13 - updated Stanley, Williston, Minot, and Bismarck.4/30/13 - updated Williston, Hazen, Minot, Dickinson, Valley City, Velva, Rugby, Bismarck, and Lincoln1/28/13 - updated Valley City, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Williston, Jamestown, Harvey, Mohall, Park River, Ray, Rugby, Stanley, Tioga, Mayville and Glenfield10/9/12 - updated Williston and Dickinson6/20/12 - updated Williston via shapefile from city.3/20/12 - updated Bismarck and Minot10/3/2011 - Edited corporate limits for Bottineau, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Grafton, Fargo, West Fargo, Horace, Dickinson, Williston, Valley City and Devils Lake.2/4/11 - Removed urban areas so only corporate boundaries remain. Removed boolean field named URBAN_AREA. Updated corporate limist in Dickinson and cities with Cass county. 6/24/10 - Stanley, Lincoln, Oakes, Hankinson, Enderlin, Ellendale, Linton, Carrington, Minot, and Kulm corportate limits were changed 6/18/09 - Stanley, Wahpeton, Center, Watford City, Williston, Grand Forks, Killdeer, Beulah, Beach, Hazen, Garrison, Washburn, Bismarck and Lincoln corporate limits were changed 3/24/08 - Added Milton, Drayton, and Cavalier Boudaries updated: Park River 1/16/08 - Boundaries updated: Devils Lake, Glen Ullin, Langdon, Minnewaukan, Northwood, Thompson 2/13/07 - Boundaries updated: Amenia, Arthur, Bismarck, Bottineau, Buffalo, Casstleton, Davenport, Dickinson, Enderlin, Gardner, Grand Forks, Grandin, Harvey, Harvey, Hillsboro, Horace, Hunter, Jamestown, Kindred, Mapleton, Mayville, New Rockford, Oxbox, Page, Prairie Rose, Relies Acres, Tappen, Towner City 1/10/06 - Boundaries updated: Wishek, Fargo, Lincoln, Bottineau, Williston, Grand Forks, Granville, Velva, Stanley, urban areas in Fargo, West Fargo, Bismarck and Mandan. Deleted Larson This data came from the NDDOT's Mapping Section. The original data was digitized from hand scribed maps and registered to the 1:24000 USGS PLSS data. It was converted from a projection (NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N) to a Geographic coordinate system.