No matter where you are in Michigan, you can find public hunting land. This interactive map application that now works on mobile devices, contains the most up-to-date information to help you plan your next hunting trip, and includes both public hunting land, as well as private land open to the public for hunting.

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.

Location of different zoning codes in the city of Detroit, Michigan. Parcels sharing the same zoning code have been dissolved together, but remain separated by street boundaries. A comprehensive list of zoning code descriptions is contained in the attribute table. Data are from 2010 and may not reflect changes in the zoning code of parcels.Click here for metadata.

Explore active listings and real-time home values for houses, condominiums, and townhomes in Grayling MI See prices, sizes, and property types on an interactive map.

Allegan County, MI has a B wealth grade. Median household income: $80,733. Unemployment rate: 3.0%. Income grows 5.4% yearly.

Grand Traverse County, MI has a B wealth grade. Median household income: $79,939. Unemployment rate: 3.6%. Income grows 5.1% yearly.

Presque Isle County, MI has a C wealth grade. Median household income: $57,144. Unemployment rate: 6.3%. Income grows 4.5% yearly.

Kent County, MI has a B wealth grade. Median household income: $80,993. Unemployment rate: 4.2%. Income grows 5.7% yearly.

Online mapping application showing parcels in Eaton County, Michigan, USA. Parcels are not currently survey-grade and are useful only as a general reference. For important decisions regarding property lines, a land surveyor should be consulted.

Michigan State Senate Districts from the Michigan Geographic Framework (MGF) base map. 2011 Apportionment Plan as enacted by PA 129 of 2011. More Metadata

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.

Explore active listings and real-time home values for houses, condominiums, and townhomes in Bessemer MI See prices, sizes, and property types on an interactive map.

Gratiot County, MI has a D wealth grade. Median household income: $61,211. Unemployment rate: 4.7%. Income grows 5.3% yearly.

Explore active listings and real-time home values for houses, condominiums, and townhomes in Wolverine Lake MI See prices, sizes, and property types on an interactive map.

Oakland County's public-facing parcel viewer. Oakland County staff and CVTs can request free accounts by contacting the Oakland County Service Center (servicecenter@oakgov.com, 248-858-8812). More information about the products available in Property Gateway can be found here: https://www.oakgov.com/propertygateway/Pages/default.aspx.

Livingston County, MI has a B wealth grade. Median household income: $101,419. Unemployment rate: 3.7%. Income grows 4.0% yearly.

An 1866 John Farmer map hand colored by counties with extensive annotations including township boundaries, cities and towns, rail routes and other topographic features. Includes railroad tables and notes on the shipping lines in the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, including routes. This map is a gift of Dr. Carl Liedholm.General Disclaimer: This map was scanned as a 600 dpi TIFF and georeferenced manually using ArcGIS Pro desktop software. Georeferencing was done using 49 GCPs and spline transformation.Historic maps are of varying accuracy and meant to be used for general historical comparison only. They may not be perfectly geographically accurate but are a perspective of the map authors about the subject contained within. Georeferencing accuracy reflects these considerations.Citation:Farmer, John. “Farmer’s Rail Road & Township Map of Michigan, and Chart of the Lakes : From U.S. Surveys & Other Authentic Sources / Drawn and Engraved by John Farmer.” 1:140,480. Detroit, MI: Silas Farmer & Co., 1866. https://catalog.lib.msu.edu/Record/folio.in00004241456.

Explore active listings and real-time home values for houses, condominiums, and townhomes in Gaylord MI See prices, sizes, and property types on an interactive map.

Iron County, MI has a D wealth grade. Median household income: $54,090. Unemployment rate: 4.7%. Income grows 7.2% yearly.

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/ .