Douglas County Zoning layer includes zoning code and description. Is regularly updated by Douglas County GIS. You can also check out our zoning lookup map: https://dogis.org/zoning Questions? Contact Us

Property subdivision data sourced from Assessor records. This data is updated regularly.

Black & white imagery of Douglas County NE. Mix of 1/4 meter and 1/2 meter panchromatic orthophotography flown in April 1993. This hosted tile service was created from a mosaic dataset in an ArcGIS Pro map, both projected to NE State Plane NAD83 Feet. The tile package was created using the ESRI tiling scheme down to the 1:564 scale with a Mixed tiling format and a 75 compression ratio.

Heavy rainfall during mid-November 1996 induced debris flows throughout the southern Oregon Coast Range, including more than 150 in the immediate vicinity of north Charlotte Creek (Coe and others, 2011). Data in this project pertain to a 2.4-km2 area centered at N 43.65° and W 123.94° which an area where high concentrations of debris flows occurred. These data include a subset of a map of landslide and debris flow polygons (Coe and others, 2011) and raster grids derived from a lidar dataset acquired in 2008 – 2009 (https://gis.dogami.oregon.gov/maps/lidarviewer/). The project area covers a tributary basin west of Charlotte Creek, southwest of the Umpqua River, and is in the southern part of the Deer Head Point 7.5-minute quadrangle. These data were used to test an implementation of the Transient Rainfall Infiltration and Grid-Based Regional Slope-Stability Model (TRIGRS, see Baum and others, 2011) for the timing and distribution of rainfall-induced shallow landslides, a simplified three-dimensional slope stability analysis method (Baum and others, 2012), and for testing soil depth models (Baum, 2017).

This is a public-facing map service of Douglas County NE Parcels. Data maintained by DC Assessor. Data published by DC GIS

This Zoning feature class is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework statewide, Zoning spatial data. This version is authorized for public use. Attributes include zoning districts that have been generalized to state classes. As of June 30, 2023, this feature class contains zoning data from 229 local jurisdictions. DLCD plans to continue adding to and updating this statewide zoning dataset as they receive zoning information from the local jurisdictions. Jurisdictions included in the latest version of the statewide zoning geodatabase: Cities: Adams, Adrian, Albany, Amity, Antelope, Ashland, Astoria, Athena, Aurora, Banks, Barlow, Bay City, Beaverton, Bend, Boardman, Bonanza, Brookings, Brownsville, Burns, Butte Falls, Canby, Cannon Beach, Carlton, Cascade Locks, Cave Junction, Central Point, Chiloquin, Coburg, Columbia City, Coos Bay, Cornelius, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Culver, Dayton, Detroit, Donald, Drain, Dufur, Dundee, Dunes City, Durham, Eagle Point, Echo, Enterprise, Estacada, Eugene, Fairview, Falls City, Florence, Forest Grove, Fossil, Garibaldi, Gaston, Gates, Gearhart, Gervais, Gladstone, Gold Beach, Gold Hill, Grants Pass, Grass Valley, Gresham, Halsey, Happy Valley, Harrisburg, Helix, Hermiston, Hillsboro, Hines, Hood River, Hubbard, Idanha, Independence, Jacksonville, Jefferson, Johnson City, Jordan Valley, Junction City, Keizer, King City, Klamath Falls, La Grande, La Pine, Lafayette, Lake Oswego, Lebanon, Lincoln City, Lowell, Lyons, Madras, Malin, Manzanita, Maupin, Maywood Park, McMinnville, Medford, Merrill, Metolius, Mill City, Millersburg, Milton-Freewater, Milwaukie, Mitchell, Molalla, Monmouth, Moro, Mosier, Mount Angel, Myrtle Creek, Myrtle Point, Nehalem, Newberg, Newport, North Bend, North Plains, Nyssa, Oakridge, Ontario, Oregon City, Pendleton, Philomath, Phoenix, Pilot Rock, Port Orford, Portland, Prescott, Prineville, Rainier, Redmond, Reedsport, Rivergrove, Rockaway Beach, Rogue River, Roseburg, Rufus, Saint Helens, Salem, Sandy, Scappoose, Scio, Scotts Mills, Seaside, Shady Cove, Shaniko, Sheridan, Sherwood, Silverton, Sisters, Sodaville, Spray, Springfield, Stanfield, Stayton, Sublimity, Sutherlin, Sweet Home, Talent, Tangent, The Dalles, Tigard, Tillamook, Toledo, Troutdale, Tualatin, Turner, Ukiah, Umatilla, Vale, Veneta, Vernonia, Warrenton, Wasco, Waterloo, West Linn, Westfir, Weston, Wheeler, Willamina, Wilsonville, Winston, Wood Village, Woodburn, Yamhill. Counties: Baker County, Benton County, Clackamas County, Clatsop County, Columbia County, Coos County, Crook County, Curry County, Deschutes County, Douglas County, Harney County, Hood River County, Jackson County, Jefferson County, Josephine County, Klamath County, Lane County, Lincoln County, Linn County, Malheur County, Marion County, Multnomah County, Polk County, Sherman County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County, Union County, Wasco County, Washington County, Wheeler County, Yamhill County. R emaining jurisdictions either chose not to share data to incorporate into the public, statewide dataset or did not respond to DLCD’s request for data. These jurisdictions’ attributes are designated “not shared” in the orZDesc field and “NS” in the orZCode field.

This point layer includes public buildings within Douglas County, NE. This layer was created and maintained by Douglas County GIS.

DOUGLAS COUNTY SURVEY/GISGIS PARCEL MAPPING GUIDELINES FOR PARCEL DISCREPANCIESIt is the intent of the Douglas County GIS Parcel Mapping to accurately identify the areas of land parcels to be valued and taxed 1. Discrepancies in areas• The Auditor/Assessor (tax) acreage areas started with the original US General Land Office (GLO) township plat maps created from the Public Land Survey (PLS) that was done between 1858 and 1871. The recovery of the PLS corners and the accurate location of these corners with GPS obtained coordinates has allowed for accurate section subdivisions, which results in accurate areas for parcels based on legal descriptions, which may be significantly different than the original areas. (See Example 2)• Any parcel bordering a meandered lake and/or a water boundary will likely have a disparity of area between the Auditor/Assessor acreages and the GIS acreages because of the inaccuracy of the original GLO meander lines from which the original areas were determined. Water lines are not able to be drafted to the same accuracy as the normal parcel lines. The water lines are usually just sketched on a survey and their dimensions are not generally given on a land record. The water boundaries of our GIS parcels are located from aerial photography. This is a subjective determination based on the interpretation by the Survey/GIS technician of what is water. Some lakes fluctuate significantly and the areas of all parcels bordering water are subject to constant change. In these cases the ordinary high water line (OHW) is attempted to be identified. Use of 2-foot contours will be made, if available. (See Example 1)• Some land records do not accurately report the area described in the land description and the description area is ignored. (See Example 3)• The parcel mapping has made every attempt to map the parcels based on available survey information as surveyed and located on the ground. This may conflict with some record legal descriptions.Solutions• If an actual survey by a licensed Land Surveyor is available, it will be utilized for the tax acreage.• If the Auditor/Assessor finds a discrepancy between the tax and GIS areas, they will request a review by the County Survey/GIS department.• As a starting guideline, the County Survey/GIS department will identify all parcels that differ in tax area versus GIS parcel area of 10 % or more and a difference of at least 5 acres. (This could be expanded later after the initial review.)• Each of these identified parcels will be reviewed individually by the County Survey/GIS department to determine the reason for the discrepancy and a recommendation will be made by the County Survey/GIS department to the Auditor/Assessor if the change should be made or not.• If a change is to be made to the tax area, a letter will be sent to the taxpayer informing them that their area will be changed during the next tax cycle, which could affect their property valuation. This letter will originate from the Auditor/Assessor with explanation from the County Survey/GIS department. 2. Gaps and Overlaps• Land descriptions for adjoining parcels sometimes overlap or leave a gap between them.o In these instances the Survey/GIS technician has to make a decision where to place this boundary. A number of circumstances are reviewed to facilitate this decision as these dilemmas are usually decided on a case by case basis. All effort will be made to not leave a gap, but sometimes this is not possible and the gap will be shown with “unknown” ownership. (Note: The County does not have the authority to change boundaries!)o Some of the circumstances reviewed are: Which parcel had the initial legal description? Does the physical occupation of the parcel line as shown on the air photo more closely fit one of the described parcels? Interpretation of the intent of the legal description. Is the legal description surveyable?Note: These overlaps will be shown on the GIS map with a dashed “survey line” and accompanying text for the line not used for the parcel boundary. 3. Parcel lines that do not match location of buildings Structures on parcels do not always lie within the boundaries of the parcel. This may be a circumstance of building without the benefit of a survey or of misinterpreting these boundaries. The parcel lines should be shown accurately as surveyed and/or described regardless of the location of structures on the ground. NOTE: The GIS mapping is not a survey, but is an interpretation of parcel boundaries predicated upon resources available to the County Survey/GIS department.Gary Stevenson Page 1 7/21/2017Example 1Example 2A Example 2B Example 3

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.

Displays the current balances for all tax accounts as of the date of the update.

Platted subdivisions are tracts of land that have been legally divided into smaller lots, blocks, and streets, with a recorded map (plat) showing these divisions, for the purpose of building developments or sale. Data maintained by DC Assessor staff

Maintained by: DC GISOwner: DouglasCountyCO_GISServicesSource: NoneEdit Frequency: NoneSummary: Data Including Feature Layer: Tax Authorities, within Douglas County Colorado.

Eastern Nebraska LiDAR Download Site hosted by Douglas County GIS. This site allows users to download LiDAR and other LiDAR related deliverables of Lancaster County, Nebraska captured in 2022 and 2016. DEM, Classified Point Cloud, Bare Earth Point Cloud, Contours, and Breaklines are available from the most recent capture flight.

Owner, account and tax information for the accounts in the required newspaper advertisement in preparation for the annual tax lien sale.

Municipal boundaries within Douglas County, NE. Updated as annexations occur. Layer maintained by DCGIS. This is a view layer

This publication consists of the online version of a CD-ROM publication, U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-43. The data for this publication total 175 MB on the CD-ROM and 167 MB for this online version. This online version does not include the Acrobat Search index files. It also has a link rather than files for the Adobe Acrobat Reader installer mentioned below.

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project was requested by Congress in the Conference Report for Interior and Related Agencies 1993 Appropriation Act (H.R. 5503), which authorized funds for a "scientific review of the remaining old growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada in California, and for a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists, with expertise in diverse areas related to this issue."

This publication is a digital version of the set of reports titled Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress published in paper form by the Centers for Water and Wildland Resources of the University of California, Davis. The reports consist of Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39 (Summary), No. 36 (Vol. I - Assessment summaries and management strategies), No. 37 (Vol. II - Assessments and scientific basis for management options), No. 38 (Vol. III - Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information), and No. 40 (Addendum). Vol. IV is a computer-based catalogue of all public databases, maps, and other digitally stored information used in the project. Vol. IV materials are listed under the SNEP name and available on the Internet from the Alexandria Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the California Environmental Resource Evaluation System (CERES) project of the Resources Agency of the state of California (see links below).

[Summary provided by the USGS.]

Full legal address description of parcels within Douglas County. This data is updated regularly.

This GIS layer represents the researcher's interpretation of the regional distribution of sea-floor sedimentary environments in Long Island Sound.

Long Island Sound is one of the largest estuaries along the Atlantic coast of the United States. It is a glacially produced, semi-enclosed, northeast-southwest-trending embayment, which is 150 km long and 30 km across at its widest point. Its mean water depth is approximately 24 m. The eastern end of the Sound opens to the Atlantic Ocean through several large passages between islands, whereas the western end is connected to New York Harbor through a narrow tidal strait. Long Island Sound abuts the New York-Connecticut metropolitan area and contains more than 8 million people within its watershed. A study of the modern sedimentary environments on the sea floor within the Long Island Sound estuarine system was undertaken as part of a larger research program by the U.S. Geological Survey (Coastal and Marine Geology Program) conducted in cooperation with the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Knowledge of the bottom sedimentary environments was needed to discern the long-term fate of wastes and contaminants that have been, or potentially will be, introduced into the system and to help understand the distribution of benthic biologic habitats.

The original interpretation was hand-drawn on mylar based on sidescan-sonar data, seismic-reflection profiles, and sediment sample data collected in the study area. The extent of this orginal work only extended shoreward to the 10m contour interval. This interpretation was then digitized on a digitizing table. This line information was then transferred to Arc/Info where significant cleaning of the data was done. These arcs were then converted to polygons and the attribute information attached. Subsequently, data from the 10 m contour shoreward was incorporated into the original mylar interpretive map. These changes were then digitized and incorporated into the existing Arc/Info coverage. Again, significant cleaning of the arcs as well as assigning the attribute information was done in Arc/Info. The original projection of this work was UTM zone 18, NAD27. For this publication, these data were reprojected into UTM zone 18 NAD 83. This Arc coverage was exported in the e00 format and imported into ArcView. The new theme was then saved in the shapefile format.

Maintained by: DC GISOwner: DouglasCountyCO_GISServicesSource: NoneEdit Frequency: NoneSummary: Data Including Feature Layer: Tax Authorities, within Douglas County Colorado.

zoning BASED ON PARCEL MAPS