This metadata compilation lists some of the online documents, maps, and figures related to Michigan Geology that are available from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Publication Center (http://www.deq.state.mi.us/pubcenter/). The metadata compilation was provided by the Michigan Geological Survey, Western Michigan University and made available for distribution through the National Geothermal Data System. Listed are PDF documents including Michigan Stratigraphic Chart and Lexicon, regional subsurface stratigraphy, subsurface fluid movement, selected sediments, carboniferous rocks, and potash deposits of the Michigan Basin. The Department of Environmental Quality has numerous publications available free to the public. Many are accessible electronically. Most electronic documents are in Portable Document Format (pdf) for which you need reader software such as Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print.

Files from my presentation at the 2025 ESRI User ConferenceAdvocacy is crucial for food banks to raise awareness about food insecurity and their role in combating it. Often working behind the scenes, food banks must share their impact with the public and policymakers. Data can provide measurable evidence of the scope and disparities of food insecurity. The Food Bank Council of Michigan's interactive map, featuring built-in infographics, summarizes food insecurity and socioeconomic data for Michigan's 87 counties, serving as a powerful advocacy and educational tool, highlighting the collective efforts to alleviate food insecurity statewide.Files from my presentation at the 2025 ESRI User ConferenceAdvocacy is crucial for food banks to raise awareness about food insecurity and their role in combating it. Often working behind the scenes, food banks must share their impact with the public and policymakers. Data can provide measurable evidence of the scope and disparities of food insecurity. The Food Bank Council of Michigan's interactive map, featuring built-in infographics, summarizes food insecurity and socioeconomic data for Michigan's 87 counties, serving as a powerful advocacy and educational tool, highlighting the collective efforts to alleviate food insecurity statewide.Link to the StoryMapContains 3 Files:The Infographic template from ESRI's Business Analyst (.brpt)The Excel File with Metadata Tab (data sources and notes on calculations specific to the infographic) (.xlxs)Enriched Shapefile used to create the Infographic (.zip)

description: These data were created as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management's efforts to create an online mapping viewer called the NOAA Lake Level Viewer. It depicts potential lake level rise and fall and its associated impacts on the nation's coastal areas. The purpose of the mapping viewer is to provide coastal managers and scientists with a preliminary look at lake level change, coastal flooding impacts, and exposed lakeshore. The viewer is a screening-level tool that uses nationally consistent data sets and analyses. Data and maps provided can be used at several scales to help gauge trends and prioritize actions for different scenarios. The NOAA Lake Level Viewer may be accessed at: https://coast.noaa.gov/llv. This metadata record describes the Lake Michigan digital elevation model (DEM), which is a part of a series of DEMs produced for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management's Lake Level Viewer described above. This DEM includes the best available lidar, US Army Corps of Engineer dredge surveys, and National Park Service multibeam data known to exist at the time of DEM creation that met project specifications. This DEM includes data for Allegan, Antrim, Benzie, Berrien, Charlevoix, Delta, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Mackinac, Manistee, Mason, Menominee, Muskegon, Oceana, Ottawa, Schoolcraft, and Van Buren counties in Michigan; Lake, La Porte, and Porter Counties in Indiana, Cook and Lake Counties in Illinois, and Brown, Door, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Marinette, Milwaukee, Oconto, Ozaukee, Racine, and Sheboygan Counties in Wisconsin. The DEM was produced from the following lidar data sets: 1. 2016 NOAA Topobathy Lidar: Upper Lake Michigan Islands 2. 2015 FEMA Marinette County 3. 2013 Indiana Statewide Lidar Collection: Lake, La Porte, Tippecanoe, Newton, Jasper and Porter County Buy-Up 4. 2013 Muskegon County, Michigan Lidar Co-Op 5. 2013 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan North (MI) 6. 2012 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (MI,WI) 7. 2012 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IL,IN,MI,WI) 8. 2010 Brown County Lidar 9. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IN) 10. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (WI) 11. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IL) 12. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (MI) 13. 2007 USACE NCMP Topobathy BE Lidar: Lake Michigan (MI) and Lake Erie (PA) 14. 2007 ARRA Lidar: Lake County (IL) 15. 2006 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IN), Lake Erie (OH,PA), Lake Huron (MI) The DEM was produced from the following sonar data sets: 16. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Port Washington Harbor, WI 17. 2015 USACE Detroit District, South Haven Harbor, MI 18. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Washington Island (Detroit Harbor), WI 19. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Washington Island (Jackson Harbor), WI 20. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Grand Haven Harbor, MI 21. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Pentwater Harbor, MI 22. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Pensaukee Harbor, WI 23. 2015 USACE Detroit District, St. Joseph Harbor, MI 24. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Manistee Harbor, MI 25. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Green Bay Harbor, WI 26. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Saugatuck Harbor, MI 27. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Oconto Harbor, WI 28. 2015 USACE Detroit District, White Lake Harbor, MI 29. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Manistique Harbor, MI 30. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Milwaukee Harbor, WI 31. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Frankfort Harbor, MI 32. 2014 USACE Detroit District, St. Joseph Harbor, MI 33. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Holland Harbor, MI 34. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 35. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Burns Small Boat Harbor, IN 36. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Michigan City, IN 37. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Waukegan Harbor, IL 38. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Calumet River, IL 39. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Menominee Harbor, MI/WI The DEM was produced from the following NPS multibeam sonar data sets: 40. 2011, National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Multibeam Sonar 41. 2012, National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Multibeam Sonar The DEM is referenced vertically to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) with vertical units of meters and horizontally to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The resolution of the DEM is approximately 3 meters.; abstract: These data were created as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management's efforts to create an online mapping viewer called the NOAA Lake Level Viewer. It depicts potential lake level rise and fall and its associated impacts on the nation's coastal areas. The purpose of the mapping viewer is to provide coastal managers and scientists with a preliminary look at lake level change, coastal flooding impacts, and exposed lakeshore. The viewer is a screening-level tool that uses nationally consistent data sets and analyses. Data and maps provided can be used at several scales to help gauge trends and prioritize actions for different scenarios. The NOAA Lake Level Viewer may be accessed at: https://coast.noaa.gov/llv. This metadata record describes the Lake Michigan digital elevation model (DEM), which is a part of a series of DEMs produced for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management's Lake Level Viewer described above. This DEM includes the best available lidar, US Army Corps of Engineer dredge surveys, and National Park Service multibeam data known to exist at the time of DEM creation that met project specifications. This DEM includes data for Allegan, Antrim, Benzie, Berrien, Charlevoix, Delta, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Mackinac, Manistee, Mason, Menominee, Muskegon, Oceana, Ottawa, Schoolcraft, and Van Buren counties in Michigan; Lake, La Porte, and Porter Counties in Indiana, Cook and Lake Counties in Illinois, and Brown, Door, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Marinette, Milwaukee, Oconto, Ozaukee, Racine, and Sheboygan Counties in Wisconsin. The DEM was produced from the following lidar data sets: 1. 2016 NOAA Topobathy Lidar: Upper Lake Michigan Islands 2. 2015 FEMA Marinette County 3. 2013 Indiana Statewide Lidar Collection: Lake, La Porte, Tippecanoe, Newton, Jasper and Porter County Buy-Up 4. 2013 Muskegon County, Michigan Lidar Co-Op 5. 2013 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan North (MI) 6. 2012 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (MI,WI) 7. 2012 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IL,IN,MI,WI) 8. 2010 Brown County Lidar 9. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IN) 10. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (WI) 11. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IL) 12. 2008 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (MI) 13. 2007 USACE NCMP Topobathy BE Lidar: Lake Michigan (MI) and Lake Erie (PA) 14. 2007 ARRA Lidar: Lake County (IL) 15. 2006 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar: Lake Michigan (IN), Lake Erie (OH,PA), Lake Huron (MI) The DEM was produced from the following sonar data sets: 16. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Port Washington Harbor, WI 17. 2015 USACE Detroit District, South Haven Harbor, MI 18. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Washington Island (Detroit Harbor), WI 19. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Washington Island (Jackson Harbor), WI 20. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Grand Haven Harbor, MI 21. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Pentwater Harbor, MI 22. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Pensaukee Harbor, WI 23. 2015 USACE Detroit District, St. Joseph Harbor, MI 24. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Manistee Harbor, MI 25. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Green Bay Harbor, WI 26. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Saugatuck Harbor, MI 27. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Oconto Harbor, WI 28. 2015 USACE Detroit District, White Lake Harbor, MI 29. 2015 USACE Detroit District, Manistique Harbor, MI 30. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Milwaukee Harbor, WI 31. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Frankfort Harbor, MI 32. 2014 USACE Detroit District, St. Joseph Harbor, MI 33. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Holland Harbor, MI 34. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 35. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Burns Small Boat Harbor, IN 36. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Michigan City, IN 37. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Waukegan Harbor, IL 38. 2014 USACE Chicago District, Calumet River, IL 39. 2014 USACE Detroit District, Menominee Harbor, MI/WI The DEM was produced from the following NPS multibeam sonar data sets: 40. 2011, National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Multibeam Sonar 41. 2012, National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Multibeam Sonar The DEM is referenced vertically to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) with vertical units of meters and horizontally to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The resolution of the DEM is approximately 3 meters.

County boundaries from the Michigan Geographic Framework (MGF) base map.

The MiSTEM Career Exploration StoryMap is a spatial tool that combines interactive maps, text, and other multimedia content for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) career awareness, exploration, and development for students, parents, adult job seekers, and the community. The StoryMap will function as a statewide database and tool to visualize and access workforce data in a unique and useful way. Designed to communicate the physical location of business partners and industry clusters in Michigan, users will have the tools to identify trends, patterns, and opportunities to make better career decisions as students and adults prepare for higher education, credentialing, and the workforce. The map will highlight:

The NationalWetlandsInventory digital data files are records of wetlands location and classification as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This polygon feature class was adjusted from a shapefile downloaded in 2001 from the State of Michigan's Online Geographic Data Library (http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mgdl/). The feature class was reprojected from its original projection, and some of the atttributes were removed. The original data was published from 1979-1994, and was collected at the same scale as the USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps. The key attributes include: ACRES, NWICODE, SYSTEM, CLASS, WATER, and SUBCLASS.

This layer is sourced from gisservices.oakgov.com.

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Isle Royale National Park and Vicinity, Michigan is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (isro_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (isro_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (isro_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) A GIS readme file (isro_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (isro_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (isro_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the isro_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (isro_geology_metadata.txt or isro_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:62,500 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 31.8 meters or 104.2 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

This is part of the Michigan Shipwrecks Location web map. To view the story map, click here.For more information about Michigan shipwrecks, visit the Michigan History Center's website by clicking here.

Ecoregions by state were extracted from the seamless national shapefile. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 105 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Literature cited: Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152p. Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Level III and IV ecoregions of the continental United States. U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, Map scale 1:3,000,000. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. Comments and questions regarding Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, USGS, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov

Great Lakes bathymetry has been compiled as a component of a NOAA project to synthesize Great Lakes lake floor geological and geophysical data and make it more accessible to the public. The project is a cooperative effort between investigators at the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center's Marine Geology, Geophysics Division (NGDC/MGG) and the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) with data development utilizing the entire historic sounding data base. The entire historic hydrographic sounding data base from the U.S. and Canada, originally collected for nautical charting purposes, was used to create a complete and accurate representation of Lake Ontario bathymetry. The U.S. data primarily came from the NOS Hydrographic Survey Data. These and other bathymetric sounding data collected by the U.S. National Ocean Service's (NOS) Coast Survey and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was employed to construct bathymetric contours at 1 meter intervals from 1-10 meters depth and 2 meter intervals at depths greater than 10 meters. Compilation map scales ranged from 1:10,000 to 1:50,000. Bathymetric sounding data collected by the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) were employed to construct bathymetric contours at 1 meter intervals and compilation map scales ranging from 1:1,000 to 1:30,000. Digitization of the bathymetric contours and merging of the bathymetric contour data sets was accomplished at the NGDC. Multibeam bathymetric data collected by the University of New Brunswick's Ocean Mapping Group (UNB-OMG), with support of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and the CHS, were kindly made available in gridded form. In the two areas where multibeam bathymetric data were available, no other bathymetric data were used in the compilations. In some areas all available Canadian and U. S. bathymetric sounding data, collected at different times on different survey expeditions, were used to derive the contours. The U.S. coastline used was primarily derived from the GLERL Medium Resolution Vector Shoreline dataset (Lee, 1998). Where move coverage was needed, the NOS Medium Resolution Vector Shoreline for the Conterminous U.S. (1994) dataset was used. Coastlines from the CHS bathymetric sounding data field sheets were used to complete the Canadian coastline. Images were constructed using the publicly-available software Generic Mapping Tools (GMT).

Ecoregions by state were extracted from the seamless national shapefile. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 105 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Literature cited: Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152p. Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Level III and IV ecoregions of the continental United States. U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, Map scale 1:3,000,000. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. Comments and questions regarding Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, USGS, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov

The Kresge early childhood interactive map contains data relating to early childhood and education. It is meant to help stakeholders better understand the early childhood landscape better.

Property Gateway is a leading-edge Internet tool built to provide free and fee-based online access to Oakland County's land and property information including tax parcel reports and maps. Reports and maps can be purchased via a credit card transaction; recurring users request a business account. Visit Property Gateway, HERE.

Feature service of DNR managed GIS data to be published on the MI DNR Open Data site.

SEMCOG"s Demographic Emphasis Areas tool is great for dynamically visualizing demographic indicators in Southeast Michigan. The map allows the user to look at combinations of indicators and visualize the data on the fly. Use this dataset to extend the capabilities of the online map.This tool has over 20 indicators across 2 geography types (Community and Census Tracts).IndicatorsMinorityNon-Hispanic BlackHispanicNon-Hispanic AsianOther Non-White Non-Hispanic RacesYouthPopulation Age 5 to 17Disengaged YouthOlder AdultsDisabilityPersons in PovertyForeign BornHouseholds in PovertyLimited English ProficiencyTransit Dependent HouseholdsNo Car HouseholdsFemale Headed HouseholdsHousing Cost BurdenMedian Household IncomeUnemployment RateMedian Income

The USGS compiles online access to water-resources data collected at approximately 1.5 million sites in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public open space and voluntarily provided, private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastral Theme (http://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html). PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural, recreational or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase maps and describes public open space and other protected areas. Most areas are public lands owned in fee; however, long-term easements, leases, and agreements or administrative designations documented in agency management plans may be included. The PAD-US database strives to be a complete “best available” inventory of protected areas (lands and waters) including data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The dataset is built in collaboration with several partners and data providers (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/stewards/). See Supplemental Information Section of this metadata record for more information on partnerships and links to major partner organizations. As this dataset is a compilation of many data sets; data completeness, accuracy, and scale may vary. Federal and state data are generally complete, while local government and private protected area coverage is about 50% complete, and depends on data management capacity in the state. For completeness estimates by state: http://www.protectedlands.net/partners. As the federal and state data are reasonably complete; focus is shifting to completing the inventory of local gov and voluntarily provided, private protected areas. The PAD-US geodatabase contains over twenty-five attributes and four feature classes to support data management, queries, web mapping services and analyses: Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Fee, Easements and Combined. The data contained in the MPA Feature class are provided directly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov ) tracking the National Marine Protected Areas System. The Easements feature class contains data provided directly from the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, http://conservationeasement.us ) The MPA and Easement feature classes contain some attributes unique to the sole source databases tracking them (e.g. Easement Holder Name from NCED, Protection Level from NOAA MPA Inventory). The "Combined" feature class integrates all fee, easement and MPA features as the best available national inventory of protected areas in the standard PAD-US framework. In addition to geographic boundaries, PAD-US describes the protection mechanism category (e.g. fee, easement, designation, other), owner and managing agency, designation type, unit name, area, public access and state name in a suite of standardized fields. An informative set of references (i.e. Aggregator Source, GIS Source, GIS Source Date) and "local" or source data fields provide a transparent link between standardized PAD-US fields and information from authoritative data sources. The areas in PAD-US are also assigned conservation measures that assess management intent to permanently protect biological diversity: the nationally relevant "GAP Status Code" and global "IUCN Category" standard. A wealth of attributes facilitates a wide variety of data analyses and creates a context for data to be used at local, regional, state, national and international scales. More information about specific updates and changes to this PAD-US version can be found in the Data Quality Information section of this metadata record as well as on the PAD-US website, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/history/.) Due to the completeness and complexity of these data, it is highly recommended to review the Supplemental Information Section of the metadata record as well as the Data Use Constraints, to better understand data partnerships as well as see tips and ideas of appropriate uses of the data and how to parse out the data that you are looking for. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/. To find more data resources as well as view example analysis performed using PAD-US data visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/resources/. The PAD-US dataset and data standard are compiled and maintained by the USGS Gap Analysis Program, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ . For more information about data standards and how the data are aggregated please review the “Standards and Methods Manual for PAD-US,” http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/standards/ .

This is a tiled collection of the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) and is one meter resolution. The 3DEP data holdings serve as the elevation layer of The National Map, and provide foundational elevation information for earth science studies and mapping applications in the United States. Scientists and resource managers use 3DEP data for hydrologic modeling, resource monitoring, mapping and visualization, and many other applications. The elevations in this DEM represent the topographic bare-earth surface. USGS standard one-meter DEMs are produced exclusively from high resolution light detection and ranging (lidar) source data of one-meter or higher resolution. One-meter DEM surfaces are seamless within collection projects, but, not necessarily seamless across projects. The spatial reference used for tiles of the one-meter DEM within the conterminous United States (CONUS) is Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) in units of meters, and in conformance with the North American Datum of 1983 ...

This layer shows the existing water mains prior to installation of new municipal water mains for the North Kent Study Area. This data is used in the North Kent Disposal Area PFAS web map.The fields found in this dataset are:Field NameDescriptionLocationLocations of water main: City of Rockford or Plainfield TownshipYou can find more information about the North Kent Study Area by visiting the House Street Disposal Area webpage or the Rockford Tannery webpage on the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART) website. For questions about this content, reach out to Leah Gies, GiesL1@Michigan.gov.This data was provided to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) by the consulting firm AECOM.

Dams in Michigan are regulated by Part 307, Inland Lake Levels, and Part 315, Dam Safety, of The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. There are 2,500+ dams in the state, most of which are regulated by Part 315. Dams are regulated by Part 315 when they are over 6 feet in height and over 5 acres are impounded during the design flood. Dams are regulated by Part 307 when a circuit court issues an order establishing the level at which the lake is to be maintained. There are also 99 hydroelectric dams in Michigan that are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act. The Dam Safety Program is responsible for ensuring the safety of Michigan's state regulated dams. These dams, owned by both public and private entities, are located throughout the state. The program focuses on ensuring that dams are properly constructed, inspected and maintained, and that the owners have adequately prepared for potential emergencies. Learn more at www.mi.gov/damsafety.This data is updated automatically by the Dam Safety Program as information changes.