FEMA flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.

A new groundwater flow model for western Chippewa County, Wisconsin has been developed by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). An analytic element GFLOW model was constructed and calibrated to generate hydraulic boundary conditions for the perimeter of the more detailed three-dimensional MODFLOW-NWT model. This three-dimensional model uses the USGS MODFLOW-NWT finite difference code, a standalone version of MODFLOW-2005 that incorporates the Newton (NWT) solver. The model conceptualizes the hydrogeology of western Chippewa County as a six-layer system which includes several hydrostratigraphic units. The model explicitly simulates groundwater-surface-water interaction with streamflow routing. Model input included recent estimates of aquifer hydraulic conductivities and a spatial groundwater recharge distribution developed using a GIS-based soil-water-balance model for the study area. Groundwater withdrawals from pumping were simulated for 269 high-capacity wells across the entire model domain, which includes western Chippewa County and portions of eastern Dunn County and southeastern Barron County. Model calibration used the parameter estimation code PEST, and calibration targets included heads and stream flows. Calibration f focused on the period from during 2011 to 2013 when the largest amount of calibration data were available. Following calibration, the model was applied to two distinct scenarios; one evaluating hydraulic impacts of more intensive industrial sand mining and the second evaluating the hydraulicimpacts of more intensive agricultural irrigation practices. Each scenario was developed with input by Chippewa County and a stakeholder group established for this study, and designed to represent reasonable future build-out conditions for both mining and irrigatedagriculture. The mining scenario underscores the potential hydraulic impacts related to changing land-use practices (i.e., hilltops and farm land becoming sand mines), while the irrigated agriculture scenario illustrates the potential hydraulic impacts of intensifying existing land-use practices (i.e., installing new wells to irrigate farm fields).

This dataset is a compilation of county parcel data from Minnesota counties that have opted-in for their parcel data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 59 counties that have opted-in as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Becker County, Benton County, Big Stone County, Carlton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Clearwater County, Cook County, Crow Wing County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Jackson County, Koochiching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Lake of the Woods County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Mille Lacs County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Norman County, Olmsted County, Otter Tail County, Pennington County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Red Lake County, Renville County, Rice County, Scott County, Sherburne County, St. Louis County, Stearns County, Steele County, Stevens County, Traverse County, Wabasha County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wilkin County, Winona County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

If you represent a county not included in this dataset and would like to opt-in, please contact Heather Albrecht (Heather.Albrecht@hennepin.us), co-chair of the Minnesota Geospatial Advisory Council (GAC)’s Parcels and Land Records Committee's Open Data Subcommittee. County parcel data does not need to be in the GAC parcel data standard to be included. MnGeo will map the county fields to the GAC standard.

County parcel data records have been assembled into a single dataset with a common coordinate system (UTM Zone 15) and common attribute schema. The county parcel data attributes have been mapped to the GAC parcel data standard for Minnesota: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

This compiled parcel dataset was created using Python code developed by Minnesota state agency GIS professionals, and represents a best effort to map individual county source file attributes into the common attribute schema of the GAC parcel data standard. The attributes from counties are mapped to the most appropriate destination column. In some cases, the county source files included attributes that were not mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, some county attribute fields were parsed and mapped to multiple GAC standard fields, such as a single line address. Each quarter, MnGeo provides a text file to counties that shows how county fields are mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, this text file shows the fields that are not mapped to the standard and those that are parsed. If a county shares changes to how their data should be mapped, MnGeo updates the compilation. If you represent a county and would like to update how MnGeo is mapping your county attribute fields to this compiled dataset, please contact us.

This dataset is a snapshot of parcel data, and the source date of the county data may vary. Users should consult County websites to see the most up-to-date and complete parcel data.

There have been recent changes in date/time fields, and their processing, introduced by our software vendor. In some cases, this has resulted in date fields being empty. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct it for future parcel data releases.

The State of Minnesota makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use or reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. THE DATA IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, CURRENCY, SUITABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MECHANTABILITY, RELIABILITY OR FITINESS OF THIS DATA FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This dataset is NOT suitable for accurate boundary determination. Contact a licensed land surveyor if you have questions about boundary determinations.

DOWNLOAD NOTES: This dataset is only provided in Esri File Geodatabase and OGC GeoPackage formats. A shapefile is not available because the size of the dataset exceeds the limit for that format. The distribution version of the fgdb is compressed to help reduce the data footprint. QGIS users should consider using the Geopackage format for better results.

The published representation of real property areas, combined with assessing and tax information from CAMA and Tax systems, and organized for consumption in desktop and web applications.

FEMA flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.

This dataset is a compilation of road centerline data from Minnesota suppliers that have opted-in for their road centerline data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 45 suppliers that have opted-in to share their data openly as of the publication date of this dataset: Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (10 counties), Aitkin County, Becker County, Benton County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Clay County, Cook County, Crow Wing County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Houston County, Itasca County, Koochiching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Otter Tail County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Renville County, Rock County, Saint Louis County, Stearns County, Stevens County, Waseca County, Winona County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

The two sources of road centerline data are the Minnesota Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) Program, in collaboration with local data suppliers, and the MetroGIS Road Centerlines (Geospatial Advisory Council Schema) which is on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons:

The Minnesota NG9-1-1 Program enterprise database provides the data outside of the Metro Region which is provide by the suppliers. The data have been aggregated into a single dataset which implements the MN NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (https://ng911gis-minnesota.hub.arcgis.com/documents/79beb1f9bde84e84a0fa9b74950f7589/about ).

Only data which have meet the requirements for supporting NG9-1-1 are in the statewide aggregate GIS data. MnGeo extracts the available data, applies domain translations, and transforms it to UTM Zone 15 to comply with the GAC road centerline attribute schema: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/roadcenterline/index.html.

The MetroGIS Road Centerlines data was created by a joint collaborative project involving the technical and managerial GIS staff from the the Metropolitan Counties (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, and Washington), the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, MetroGIS and the Metropolitan Council. The data are pulled from the Minnesota Geospatial Commons: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-trans-road-centerlines-gac

‘Supplier’ is a term used throughout this document. A supplier will typically be a county, but it could also be a public safety answering point (PSAP), region, or tribal nation. The supplier is the agency which provides the individual datasets for the aggregated dataset. The trans_road_centerlines_open_metadata feature layer will contain the geometry/shape of the supplier boundaries, supplier name, supplier type, and feature count.

Aggregation Process:
1. Extract NG9-1-1 data from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Enterprise database.
2. Download the latest MetroGIS data from the Geospatial Commons.
3. Extract, Translate, and Load (ETL) the DPS data to the GAC schema.
4. Combine NG9-1-1 data with MetroGIS data.
5. Filter the data for the Opt-In Open data counties