This geospatial dataset depicts ownership patterns of forest land across Michigan, circa 2019. The data sources are listed below. The first seven sources of data supersede the final data source. The final data source is modeled from Forest Inventory and Analysis points from 2012-2017 and the most up-to-date publicly available boundaries of federal, state, and tribal lands.1.MI_State_Boundary_Census_Gov_2019.shp (State of MI boundary) clipped from cb_2019_us_state_500k from https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/cartographic-boundary.html2.NPS_Land_Resources_Division_MI.shp clipped from NPS_-_Land_Resources_Division_Boundary_and_Tract_Data_Service-shp taken from https://public-nps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/nps-land-resources-division-boundary-and-tract-data-service/data?layer=1Published December 12, 2019This service depicts National Park Service tract and boundary data that was created by the Land Resources Division. NPS Director's Order #25 states: "Land status maps will be prepared to identify the ownership of the lands within the authorized boundaries of the park unit. These maps, showing ownership and acreage, are the 'official record' of the acreage of Federal and non-federal lands within the park boundaries. While these maps are the official record of the lands and acreage within the unit's authorized boundaries, they are not of survey quality and not intended to be used for survey purposes." As such this data is intended for use as a tool for GIS analysis. It is in no way intended for engineering or legal purposes. The data accuracy is checked against best available sources which may be dated and vary by location. NPS assumes no liability for use of this data. The boundary polygons represent the current legislated boundary of a given NPS unit. NPS does not necessarily have full fee ownership or hold another interest (easement, right of way, etc...) in all parcels contained within this boundary. Equivalently NPS may own or have an interest in parcels outside the legislated boundary of a given unit. In order to obtain complete information about current NPS interests both inside and outside a unit’s legislated boundary tract level polygons are also created by NPS Land Resources Division and should be used in conjunction with this boundary data. To download this data directly from the NPS go to https://irma.nps.gov/App/Portal/Home Property ownership data is compiled from deeds, plats, surveys, and other source data. These are not engineering quality drawings and should be used for administrative purposes only. The National Park Service (NPS) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. These data and related graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. The data are not better than the original sources from which they were derived. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data appropriately and consistent within the limitations of geospatial data in general and these data in particular. The related graphics are intended to aid the data user in acquiring relevant data; it is not appropriate to use the related graphics as data. The National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from an NPS server and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the National Park Service, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the utility of the data on another system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. Terms of UseProperty ownership data is compiled from deeds, plats, surveys, and other source data. These are not engineering quality drawings and should be used for administrative purposes only. The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. These data and related graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. The data are not better than the original sources from which they were derived. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data appropriately and consistent within the limitations of geospatial data in general and these data in particular. The related graphics are intended to aid the data user in acquiring relevant data; it is not appropriate to use the related graphics as data. The National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from an NPS server and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the National Park Service, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the utility of the data on another system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data.3.Isle Royale.shp only Isle Royale clipped from MI_State_Boundary_Census_Gov_2019.shp4.FWSInterest_MI.shp (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) clipped from FWSInterest from FWSInterest_Apr2020.zipfrom https://www.fws.gov/gis/data/CadastralDB/index_cadastral.html (being moved on 6/26/2020)Use inttype1 = OThis data layer depicts lands and waters administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in North America, U.S. Trust Territories and Possessions. It may also include inholdings that are not administered by USFWS. The primary source for this information is the USFWS Realty program.5.surfaceownership_MI.shp (U.S. National Forest Service) clipped from S_USA.SurfaceOwnership.gdb and downloaded fromhttps://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.phphttps://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?xmlKeyword=surfaceownershiprefreshed May 26, 2020Used NFSLandU_4 field and surfaceO_3 and surfaceO_3 to identify NFS parcelsAn area depicting ownership parcels of the surface estate. Each surface ownership parcel is tied to a particular legal transaction. The same individual or organization may currently own many parcels that may or may not have been acquired through the same legal transaction. Therefore, they are captured as separate entities rather than merged together. This is in contrast to Basic Ownership, in which the surface ownership parcels having the same owner are merged together. Basic Ownership provides the general user with the Forest Service versus non-Forest Service view of land ownership within National Forest boundaries. Surface Ownership provides the land status user with a current snapshot of ownership within National Forest boundaries.6.MichiganDNR_02062020.shp (State of Michigan) from the State of MI delivered @ email on 5/14/2020Has State forests, State Wildlife areas, and State parks.7.The previous public ownership layers supersede this Sass et al. (2020) layer.In Sass et al. (2020), the nonforest areas are masked out.Identification_Information:Citation:Citation_Information:Originator: Sass, Emma M.Originator: Butler, Brett J.Originator: Markowski-Lindsay, Marla Publication_Date: 2020Title:Estimated distribution of forest ownership across the conterminous United States – geospatial datasetGeospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital dataPublication_Information:Publication_Place: Fort Collins, COPublisher: Forest Service Research Data ArchiveEight values of ownership type:1 = Family (Private): Owned by families, individuals, trusts, estates, family partnerships, and other unincorporated groups of individuals that own forest land. FIACode 45.2 = Corporate (Private): Owned by corporations. FIA Code 41.3 = TIMO/REIT (Private): Owned by Timber Investment Management Organizations or Real Estate Investment Trusts. Included in FIA Code 414 = Other Private (Private): Owned by conservation and natural resource organizations, unincorporated partnerships and associations. FIA Codes 42-43.5 = Federal (Public): Owned by the federal government. FIA Codes 11-13, 21-25.6 = State (Public): Owned by a state government. FIA Code 31.7 = Local (Public): Owned by a local government. FIA Code 32.8 = Tribal: Owned by Native American tribes. FIA Code 44.8.FIA inventory units developed by FIA, 2020

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/ .

The first basin-wide map of large stands of invasive Phragmites australis (common reed) in the coastal zone was created through a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey and Michigan Tech Research Institute (Bourgeau-Chavez et al 2013). This data set represents a revised version of that map and was created using multi-temporal PALSAR data and Landsat images from 2016-2017. In addition to Phragmites distribution, the data sets shows several land cover types including urban, agriculture, forest, shrub, emergent wetland, forested wetland, and some based on the dominant plant species (e.g., Schoenoplectus, Typha). The classified map was validated using over 400 field visits.This map covers the coastal regions of Michgan along the southern portion Lake Huron including Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and northeastern Ohio.

Campgrounds on State Forest Land are public campgrounds located in the Michigan State Forest System. This layer shows the point locations of state forest campgrounds located throughout Michigan's Upper and northern Lower Peninsulas. This layer contains the location, name, and phone number for each campground.

This map depicts lands owned and/or administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge.

This Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Wetland Inventory Map is intended to be used as one tool to assist in identifying wetlands and provides only potential and approximate location of wetlands and wetland conditions. EGLE produced this map from the following data obtained from other agencies or organizations.The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) conducted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service through interpretation of aerial photos and topographic data. Land Cover as mapped by the Michigan Resource Inventory System (MIRIS), Michigan Department of Natural Resources, through interpretation of aerial photographs.Hydric Soils as mapped by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).This layer is not intended to be used to determine the specific locations and jurisdictional boundaries of wetland areas subject to regulation under Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended.Only an on-site evaluation performed by EGLE in accordance with Part 303 shall be used for jurisdictional determinations. A permit is required from EGLE to conduct certain activities in wetlands regulated under Part 303.More information regarding this layer, including how to obtain a copy can be accessed atwww.michigan.gov/wetlands.

This map depicts lands owned and/or administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge.

This data is intended as a reference material of street and alley vacations, but not designed for survey, accurate positioning, or legal documents. It is created as polygon feature class, vacation information based on field measurements, types of Right of Way, and citations of Journal of the Common Council (J.C.C.) and the plat Liber and Page is listed under the column titled 'Sub_Plat'. The paper maps of the Street and Alley Vacation, the raster layer version of those maps (Linen Map Markup Mosaic), and the Detroit parcel layer are used as base maps to create this data.

The street and alley vacations were recorded from 1831 to 2022 throughout the whole city, and it will be updated weekly. The existed and/or active street and alley vacations are ready to view, the authors are working on pending and historical records.

Spatial Reference: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

This data set is a change analysis of 1996-era C-CAP land cover and 2001-era C-CAP land cover for the State of Michigan, in the Great Lakes Region of the U.S. This product contains the land cover information for both dates and can be recoded to show changed areas, unchanged areas, areas of gain for a particular land cover class, and areas of loss.

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 data set provides a land use/land cover map of the Ji-Parana River Basin in the state of Rondonia, Brazil produced from the digital classification of eight Landsat 7-ETM+ scenes from 1999 acquired from the Tropical Rain Forest Information Center (TRFIC) at Michigan State University. Nine land cover classes covering the Ji-Parana Basin were identified. There is one GeoTiff file with this data set.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. This is a subset of the OC Parks layer. The Park feature class is a point subset of the RecreationLand feature class to represent only those lands considered park land. The polygon RecreationLand feature class is a single county wide coverage containing recreation land and educational institution information compiled from several sources including: the State of Michigan, Oakland County Parks & Recreation, Oakland County cities, villages, and townships (CVTs), school districts, and the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (HCMA). Key attributes include: Name, Agency, Acres, and various activities associated with the feature.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. The DevelopmentAuthority polygon feature class identifies certain types of entities that encourage development/redevelopment in designated areas. This feature class currently represents Downtown Development Authorities (DDA), Tax Increment Finance Authorities (TIFA), and Local Development Finance Authorities (LDFA); however, it will also depict Corridor Improvement Authorities (CIA) and Brownfield Redevelopment Authorities (BRA) in the future. These five types of authorities have the ability to capture tax increment financing (TIF). The features were digitized using legal descriptions, parcel lists, and maps that were provided to the State of Michigan Office of the Great Seal and/or Oakland County Equalization by the authority. The key attributes are Name (official name of the authority), Type (the type of development authority), and DevelopmentPlan (yes/no indicating if the feature represents an area that is part of a development plan and can caputre tax increment financing).Tax Increment Financing is a tool used to promote redevelopment and community improvement projects by channeling funding toward projects in targeted areas. TIF is captured from the increase of property values from a base year. Millage rates from taxing jurisdictions are applied to the increased value. The resulting tax revenue is directed to the authority, rather than the appropriate jurisdiction. Beginning in 1994, taxing jurisdictions have the option to "opt out" of having its taxes captured by the authority. Also since 1994, school taxes may no longer be captured unless they are necessary to make payments on existing eligible obligations. For more information about TIF, see Michigan Department of Treasury's Tax Increment Financing FAQ web page at http://www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-3218---F,00.html. The State of Michigan has adopted enabling legislation to allow TIF through five types of authorities. Each type of authority has a focus relating to development/redevelopment: Downtown Development Authority (PA 197 of 1975) Correct and prevent deterioration in business districtsEncourage historic preservationPromote economic growth of the districts Tax Increment Finance Authority (PA 450 of 1980)Prevent urban deteriorationEncourage economic development and activityEncourage neighborhood revitalization and historic preservationClosed to new applicants since 1987Allows the development of virtually any type of land use Local Development Finance Authority (PA 281 of 1986)Encourage local developmentPromote conditions of employmentPromote economic growthLimited to business activities involving:ManufacturingAgricultural processingHigh-technology activitiesEnergy productionBusiness incubators Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (PA 381 of 1996)Promote revitalization, redevelopment, and reuse of certain propertyFocus on tax reverted, blighted, or functionally obsolete propertyMDEQ must approve brownfield redevelopment areas Corridor Improvement Authority (PA 281 of 2005)Correct and prevent deterioration in business districtsEncourage historic preservationPromote economic growth of the districtsMust be adjacent to a road classified as an arterial or collectorThese quasi-public entities are created by resolution through a community's governing body. CIA and LDFA boundaries may cross municipal boundaries. In the case of these multi-jurisdictional authorities, both communities must pass resolutions establishing authority. There is currently only one Joint LDFA (Cities of Southfield and Troy) and there are no CIAs in Oakland County. When the community establishes the authority, it must also define the geographic boundaries in which it will operate. DDAs and CIAs are authorized to levy and collect taxes through a special assessment on all properties within the authority boundary. After the authority and its boundaries are established, the authority creates a tax increment financing and development plan. The plan estimates the amount of tax increment financing that will be captured and lists specific projects on which it will be spent. It also defines the development area where the tax increment financing and projects will occur. The development area must be completely within the authority boundary; however, it may be coincident with the authority boundary. An authority may contain multiple development areas, each with its own development and tax increment financing plan. BRAs normally designate development areas as a one or two parcels for a specific development project, while the other types of authorities define development areas as a larger area. Also, LDFAs are only allowed to capture TIF from parcels in a permitted use, such as manufacturing. There may be both eliglible and inelgible parcels within a development area; however, the inelgible parcels do not participate in TIF capture. The base year used to calculate the amount of tax increment financing is set when the development plan is adopted. If the development plan is expanded at a later date, the base year could be reset for the entire development area or the capture could be calculated using multiple base years. The source for the base year was the tax billing code used by Oakland County Equalization. When no tax billing code was available (for communities that don't use the county's assessing system), the community was contacted to obtain the base year. When two separate authorities overlap, each authority can establish overlapping development areas. The authority that first created the development area has first claim on tax increment financing capture. Authority boundaries are represented using multiple features when the development area is not coincident with the authority boundary. One feature represents the development area and a second feature represents the remainder of the authority district that is not part of the development area. Multiple features are also used to represent authorities that have multiple development areas or development areas that have multiple base years. Brownfield Redevelopment Authorities are unique in that the authority boundaries are generally defined as the entire municipality. For this reason, the non-development areas of BRA's have been excluded from this data. The following list shows communities in Oakland County that have established a BRA: City of Auburn Hills City of Birmingham City of Farmington City of Farmington Hills City of Ferndale City of Hazel Park Charter Township of Highland Village of Holly City of Madison Heights Village of Milford County of Oakland City of Oak Park City of Pontiac City of Rochester City of Rochester Hills Charter Twp of Royal Oak City of Royal Oak City of Southfield City of Troy Charter Township of Waterford Source documents for the boundary of each feature were obtained from the State of Michigan Office of the Great Seal, Oakland County Equalization, and the Oakland County Treasurer's office. These could be in the form of a legal description, parcel list, and/or map. For several boundaries, multiple sources were available and conflicted with each other. When this occurred, hierarchy was given to the legal description, then a parcel list, over the map, and the conflict is noted in the Comments field. However, if a parcel was shown in a parcel list, but not described in the authority based on the legal description, then it was still shown in the authority.It should also be noted that legal descriptions were not digitized using exact coordinate geometry. Instead, features were created by referencing the legal description to snap vertices to parcels, right-of-way, section corners, subdivisions, and lots. Features digitized from a legal description or map included road and railroad rights-of-way as it was described or shown in the document.For vague legal descriptions and parcel lists, right-of-way was addressed uniquely for each authority. Some source documents had statements that all or half of the surrounding right-of-way is to be included in the boundary, but some did not address right-of-way at all. In these cases, right-of-way was addressed distinctly for each authority based on the type of authority and the source documents with the method used recorded in the Comments field. The data will be updated on an "as needed" basis when authorities amend their development plans or new authorities are established. Oakland County Equalization and the Oakland County Treasurer's Office will notify and forward the source documents of necessary revisions to Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services who is the custodian of the feature class. Communities will be contacted annually to verify that the districts have not changed without the knowledge of county departments. In particular, county departments may not be aware of BRA development projects when no TIF is captured. Lastly, because the tax parcel feature class is revised periodically and it is important for the features to be coincident with the tax parcel feature class, the development authority feature class will also be updated annually to correct conflicts due to parcel shifting.

More Metadata

The Digital Surficial Geologic-GIS Map of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 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 (piro_surficial_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 (piro_surficial_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 (piro_surficial_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 (piro_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (piro_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 (piro_surficial_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the piro_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: Western Michigan University. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (piro_surficial_geology_metadata.txt or piro_surficial_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 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 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).

Abstract

Michigan State University was assigned to design the impact evaluation (IE) of the Land Administration Reform Project (LARP) funded under the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)-Lesotho compact. The impact evaluation is designed to test the following key economic hypotheses. It is hypothesized that land with formally recognized titles will result in: 1. Increased number of land parcels used as collateral for mortgage 2. Increased investment in the property, increased frequency of transfers, subletting, rentals, and other economic activities 3. Increased value of land 4. Reduction in land related conflicts 5. Increase in income/expenditures of beneficiaries

The purpose of the rigorous IE design is to measure and monitor these hypothesized impacts and assess the causality in effects outlined in the impact pathway. The IE design is based on a difference-in-difference (DiD) analytical framework requiring the collection and analysis of baseline and end line data from treatment and control areas. Data towards the baseline assessment were collected by T&T Geomatics and MASAZI Development Associates (referred hereafter as the ‘survey firm’) from March to June 2013 and final data sets and data documentation were submitted to MCA on September 27, 2013. This documentation describes the variables created by Michigan State University based on the data files submitted by the survey firm to generate variables used for descriptive data analysis reflected in the Baseline Report. The explanation of how variables are generated based on original data is found in the difinition of the variable in the variable list. "Missing" values reported in the variable list correspond to "no response", "don't know" or "not applicable" in the original data files. The original data had duplicated observation and other issues. How these issues were addressed is described in Annex A, which is included as a separate attachment to this meta data.

Geographic coverage

The survey covered the following village/sub-villages in MMC1, MMC2, MMC3 and MMC27 in Maseru city:

MMC # Village name Group Name of the cluster (sub-village) Cluster code

MMC01 Boiketlo Treatment Boiketlo 101 MMC01 Kuroane Treatment Kuroane 102 MMC01 Le-coop Treatment Le-coop 103 MMC01 Pecha Treatment Pecha 104 MMC01 Phomolong Treatment Phomolong 1 105 MMC01 Phomolong Treatment Phomolong 2 106 MMC01 Rasetimala Treatment Rasetimela 1 107 MMC01 Rasetimala Treatment Rasetimela 2 108 MMC01 Selakhapane Treatment Selakhapane 109 MMC01 Thoteng-Khubetsoana Treatment Thoteng-Khubetsoana 110 MMC01 Bochabela I Treatment Bochabela I 111 MMC01 Bochabela I Treatment Bochabela II 112 MMC01 Bochabela II Treatment Bochabela III 113 MMC02 Bochabela IV Treatment Bochabela IV 201 MMC02 Lifelekoaneng-Mabote Treatment Lifelekoaneng-Mabote 202 MMC02 Mapaleng-Mabote Treatment Mapaleng-Mabote 203 MMC02 Maqalika Treatment Maqalika 204 MMC02 Phahameng-Khubetsoana Treatment Phahameng-Khubetsoana 205 MMC02 Phpoletsa-Mabote Treatment Phpoletsa-Mabote 206 MMC02 Rural Treatment Rural 207 MMC02 Sebaboleng Treatment Sebaboleng 208 MMC02 Taung-Mabote Treatment Taung Mabote 209 MMC02 Thoteng-Mabote Treatment Thoteng-Mabote 1 210 MMC02 Thoteng-Mabote Treatment Thoteng-Mabote 2 211 MMC03 Tsosane (part not regularized) Treatment Tsosane (not reg) 1 301 MMC03 Tsosane (part not regularized) Treatment Tsosane (not reg) 2 302 MMC03 Naleli-Tsosane Treatment Naleli-Tsosane 1 303 MMC03 Naleli-Tsosane Treatment Naleli-Tsosane 2 304 MMC27 Ha Foso Control Ha Foso 1 2701 MMC27 Ha Foso Control Ha Foso 2 2702 MMC27 Ikheteleng Control Ikhetelong 1 2703 MMC27 Ikheteleng Control Ikhetelong 2 2704 MMC27 Ikheteleng Control Ikhetelong 3 2705 MMC27 Khopane Control Khopane 2706 MMC27 Koalabata Control Koalabata 1 2707 MMC27 Koalabata Control Koalabata 2 2708 MMC27 Koalabata Control Koalabata 3 2709 MMC27 Koalabata Control Koalabata 4 2710 MMC27 Marabeng Control Marabeng 2711 MMC27 Sekhutlong Control Sekhutlong 2712

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

Households in the 22 treatment villages

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In the first step, the 22 treatment villages identified were divided into 28 clusters (or sub-villages) and the 6 control villages were divided into 12 clusters (or sub-villages) such that each cluster had at least 100 households and belonged to only one village. In other words, big villages were sub-divided into smaller clusters (or sub-villages) for sampling purpose. Each of these villages or sub-villages were considered as units of intervention for the IE design (and statistics analysis). Based on the village boundaries identified in the field (with the help from the LARP Project Implementing Unit), and using the GPS coordinates of this boundary and superimposing it on the satellite imagery of the MMC map that shows the density of land parcels with structures (i.e., roof outlines), the 40 sub-villages were mapped.

In step two, 45 households from each cluster were randomly selected. To aid in this selection process, a GIS based method of 'listing' was undertaken. This involved using orthophotos to pre-vectorize land parcels (which were provided by COWI, the project implementer) and using them to produce GIS maps for sample selection. This method was used to randomly select the required numbers of households (and replacement households) in each cluster across all MMCs.

In step three, to augment the number of parcels in the survey that are used for commercial purposes, a field based listing exercise was undertaken to identify all the parcels in each cluster where some kind of commercial activities would be taking place. An average of about 4-6 additional parcels per cluster that were identified as commercial plots (but were not part of the sample selection based on the GIS method) were randomly selected to increase the number of observations for commercial parcels.

For the purpose of this IE, in both steps 2 and 3 of sample selection, the sampling frame was defined as "households that have land parcels that belong to them in the same village where they are being interviewed, and for which they have not yet obtained any Lease. The land parcel could be either occupied by the HH or rented to others for housing or commercial purpose." However, as reported in the results section, 276 parcels inventoried using the GIS based sampling frame already had Lease. To establish the baseline, parcels with a Lease are excluded from all the plot level analysis included in the baseline report.

Research instrument

The questionnaire included more than 25 sections encompassing modules on: · Household characteristics (demographic information by each member of the HH) · Employment and sources of any other cash transfers · Identification and list of all the parcels · Information on Parcel Acquisition, Documents and Land Value · Land conflicts · Rights to the land and perceptions of the risk · Parcels rented out, rented in · Characteristics of parcels · Investments on land · Perceptions about Lease, renting land, the land law, women's rights and LAA · Ownership of Assets · Expenditures · Credit in the last 12 months · Consumption · Woman module

This dataset comes from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs' Office of Land Survey and Remonumentation (OLSR). See Act 345 of 1990: State Survey and Remonumentation Act for more information.The system of record was queried for approved locations where grid coordinates were provided. Records with coordinates outside the state's geographical boundary were retained (34 locations). The columns "DMS LAT" and "DMS LONG" were added to the extraction table and populated with data from fields "Latitude N" and "Longitude W" and formatted to DMS2. The data was exported as feature class using geoprocessing tool "Convert Coordinate Notation," geographic coordinate system WGS 1984 Web Mercator (auxiliary sphere).This dataset was last updated June 6, 2022, with quarterly updates to begin in 2023.More Metadata

The Unpublished Digital Geologic Map of Natural Bridges National Monument and Vicinity, Utah is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables in a 10.1 file geodatabase (nabr_geology.gdb), a 10.1 ArcMap (.MXD) map document (nabr_geology.mxd), individual 10.1 layer (.LYR) files for each GIS data layer, an ancillary map information (.PDF) document (nabr_geology.pdf) which contains source map unit descriptions, as well as other source map text, figures and tables, metadata in FGDC text (.TXT) and FAQ (.HTML) formats, and a GIS readme file (nabr_gis_readme.pdf). Please read the nabr_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the file geodatabase and other map files. To request GIS data in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format contact Stephanie O’Meara (stephanie.o’meara@colostate.edu; see contact information below). The data is also available as a 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. Google Earth software is available for free at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. 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). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: Michigan Technological University. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (nabr_metadata_faq.html; available at http://nrdata.nps.gov/geology/gri_data/gis/nabr/nabr_metadata_faq.html). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 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 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. 2.2. (available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone 12N, however, for the KML/KMZ format the data is projected upon export to WGS84 Geographic, the native coordinate system used by Google Earth. The data is within the area of interest of Natural Bridges National Monument.

Michigan’s environmental remediation program authorizes EGLE to set cleanup standards by considering how the contaminated land will be used in the future. Michigan’s cleanup standards are risk-based and reflect the potential for human health or ecological risks from exposure to hazardous or regulated substances at contaminated sites. A person may use land use or resource use restrictions, as outlined in Part 201 and Part 213, to manage risk by reducing or restricting exposure to environmental contamination left in-place at a property.

Land or Resource Use Restrictions may be in various forms including Restrictive Covenant, Notice of Aesthetic Impact, Notice of Corrective Action, Local Public Highway Institutional Control, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Environmental License Agreement, Local Ordinance, or an Alternative Institutional Control.

This dataset shows locations of Land or Resource Use Restrictions that have been used to aid in the closure of a site of environmental contamination. The locations provided are not all-inclusive as they only represent those restrictions that have been sent to EGLE. This point dataset must be used along with the available polygon dataset Land or Resource Use Restrictions (Polygons) to show all the EGLE-mapped restrictions. Restrictions having proper legal descriptions and/or surveyed restriction area are represented with a polygon, while those having incomplete area and/or location details are represented by a point feature. The data is refreshed daily from EGLE’s spatial database engine.

Restrictions are mapped relative to existing GIS datasets including survey sections and aerial imagery and therefore have inherent inaccuracies. Locations provide a general representation but should not be relied upon for site-specific planning or decision making.The dataset’s field names are described below.

Field Name

Description

OBJECTID

Unique identifier for the GIS

Acres

Area of the restriction (acres)

SquareMiles

Area of the restriction (square miles)

KermitID

Unique identifier used to link to a scan of the restriction

RestrictionType

Numeric Code for the type of restriction

1 = Restrictive Covenant (RC)
2 = Notice of Corrective
  Action (NCA)
3 = Notice of Aesthetic
  Impairment (NAI)
4 = Ordinance
5 = Notice of Approved
  Environmental Remediation (NAER)
6 = Notice of Environmental Remediation (NER)
7 = Rescission of a Notice
  of Approved Environmental Remediation
8 (Not used)9 = Michigan Department of Transportation, Environmental License Agreement (MDOT)
0 = Other Institutional
  Control. This includes State Law/Local Health Code (SLHC), Public
  Highway Institutional Control (PHIC), Notice of Contamination (NOC),

RestrictionStatus

Status of the restriction

2 = Filed, Effective,
  Issued, or Recorded

FacilityName

Name of the Part 213 site or Part 201 facility

Address

Physical street address for the site or facility

City

City in which the site or facility is located

ZipCode

Zip code for the site or facility

EgleReferenceNumber

Unique reference number assigned by EGLE to the Land and Resource Use Restriction

Shape

GIS geometry type

CreatedUser

Username of person who created the feature

CreatedDate

Date of feature creation

LastEditedUser

Username of the person who last edited the feature

LastEditedDate

Date the feature was last updated

LandUseRestrictionType

Text descriptor for the type of restriction

MgEntityCd

Lead EGLE division managing the site when restriction was imposed

ProgramType

Pertinent part of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act

DeedDate

Date of effectiveness and/or recording with the Register of Deeds

LocationId

Unique identifier for the site within RRD’s RIDE database

For questions about this data, please reach out to EGLE-Maps@Michigan.gov.