Comprehensive list containing 59 verified Database management company businesses in Michigan, United States with lastest contact information, ratings, reviews, and location data.

Curated database of 700+ community resources across all 83 Michigan counties including health, housing, food, transportation, and legal services.

Comprehensive database of residential and commercial building permits in Michigan including Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint, and other communities (where available).

This dataset includes over 49,000 well records from the state well drillers databases in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Each state well has at a minimum the well depth and a static water level. Static water levels were mostly determined when the well was constructed. Data included in this shapefile include the well construction date, well depth, well elevation (if determined), type of well, the methods used for determining the well location and elevation (if determined), casing and screen depths (where reported), the static water level and a date, and the year the well was constructed. The field names from each of the state databases were harmonized to merge the data, and a table of the original field names is included. Tabular files are included with codes describing the original field names mapped to the combined field names, and descriptions of codes used to describe the well location method, well depth method, and well type for each state. The USGS wells in this dataset were pulled from the National Water Information System (NWIS) and have at least one water level measurement. Additional data for the NWIS wells can be retrieved from the USGS National Water Dashboard https://dashboard.waterdata.usgs.gov/app/nwd/en/?region=lower48&aoi=default.

United States Population: Michigan data was reported at 9,962,311.000 Person in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 9,933,445.000 Person for 2016. United States Population: Michigan data is updated yearly, averaging 9,966,019.000 Person from Jun 2000 (Median) to 2017, with 18 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 10,090,554.000 Person in 2005 and a record low of 9,876,199.000 Person in 2011. United States Population: Michigan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by US Census Bureau. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G003: Population by State.

The Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA) houses environmental data collected by EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) programs that sample water, aquatic life, sediments, and air to assess the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. GLENDA is available to the public on the EPA Central Data Exchange (CDX). A CDX account is required, which anyone may create. GLENDA offers “Ready to Download Data Files” prepared by GLNPO or a “Query Data” interface that allows users to select from predefined parameters to create a customized query. Query results can be downloaded in .csv format. GLNPO programs providing data in GLENDA include the Great Lakes Water Quality Survey and Great Lakes Biology Monitoring Program (1983-present, biannual monitoring throughout the Great Lakes to assess water quality, chemical, nutrient, and physical parameters, and biota such as plankton and benthic invertebrates), the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and Surveillance Program (1977-present, annual analysis of top predator fish composites to assess historic and emerging persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic chemical contaminants), the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (2002-present, intensive water quality and biology sampling of one lake per year focusing on key challenges and data gaps), the Great Lakes Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (1990-present, monitoring Great Lakes air and precipitation for persistent toxic chemicals), the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (1993-1996, analyzed the atmosphere, tributaries, sediments, water column, and biota of Lake Michigan for nutrients, atrazine, PCBs, trans-nonachlor, and mercury modelling), and the Great Lakes Legacy Act (1996-present, evaluations of sediment contamination in Areas of Concern). GLENDA is updated frequently with new data.

This Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) GeoPackage (.gpkg) contains water-well point features and associated tables for the state of Michigan, reformatted according to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) profile of the OGC GroundWaterML2 (GWML2) standard (https://docs.ogc.org/is/19-013/19-013.html). The water-well records are sourced from the state-managed database of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and consist primarily of information submitted by licensed well drillers at the time of well completion. These records include well locations, construction details, lithologic logs, static water-level measurements, and pumping test results. No additional processing or interpretation has been performed by the USGS beyond formatting to align with the GWML2 standard and applying a baseline set of data integrity rules. The data are provided largely "as-is."

The Database, Storage & Backup Software Publishing industry in Michigan is expected to grow an annualized x.x% to $x.x billion over the five years to 2025, while the national industry will likely grow at x.x% during the same period. Industry establishments increased an annualized x.x% to xx locations. Industry employment has increased an annualized x.x% to x,xxx workers, while industry wages have increased an annualized x.x% to $x.x million.

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. For additional information contact Luke Trumble TrumbleL@michigan.gov

Many businesses utilize underground storage tanks for products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and other liquid chemicals. Environmental damages and safety risks can result from improper installation and maintenance as well as degradation of the tanks over time. The design, construction, installation and maintenance of underground storage tanks that store regulated substances are licensed under Part 211, Underground Storage Tank Regulations, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA) by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). Those underground storage tanks that require corrective actions due to a release are regulated under Part 213, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, of NREPA by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). This data layer shows the locations of known underground storage tanks in Michigan including those that have a record of a release. This data is regularly updated. Field NameAliasDescriptionOBJECTIDN/AN/AADDRESS AddressStreet address for the locationCITY CityCity associated with the street address ZIPCODE Zip CodeZip code of the locationLATITUDE Latitude Latitude (Y Coordinate) of the location.LONGITUDE LongitudeLongitude (X Coordinate) of the location. FacilityID Facility IDThe identification number assigned to the underground storage tank facility. Also referred to as Location ID.FacilityName Facility NameThe name of the underground storage tank facility. Also referred to as Location NameProjectManagerProjectManagerThe RRD staff person assigned to manage the locationCounty CountyCounty where the site is locatedWorkUnit WorkUnitThe EGLE district which contains the locationHorizontalReferenceDatum Horizontal Reference DatumHorizontal Reference DatumHorizontalCollectionMethod Horizontal Collection MethodMethod of collection HorizontalAccuracy Horizontal AccuracyAn estimated measure of the horizontal accuracy of the pointReferencePoint Reference PointProvides a description of the relationship between the point feature and the overall locationScaleNum Scale Number The representative fraction or scale at which the point feature was mapped TotalTank Total TankTotal number of underground storage tanks at a locationActiveTank Active Tank Total number of active underground storage tanks at a location TotalRelease Total Release The total number of known releases (e.g., spilling, leaking, emitting, discharging, escaping, or leaching from an underground storage tank system into groundwater, surface water, or subsurface soils) that have occurred at the location. OpenRelease Open ReleaseThe number of releases at a locationfor which actions have not been taken to address contamination resulting from the tank releases (leaks). ClosedReleaseClosedReleaseThe number of releases at a location for which corrective actions have met the applicable risk-based target levelsReleaseStatusReleaseStatusThe overall status of the location based on releases from all known USTs. Open = 1 or more open releasesClosed = 0 open releasesRegulatoryProgramRegulatoryProgramIndicates whether a location is a registered location under Part 211 and/or regulated under Part 213. Note that all Part 213 locations are also Part 211. CurrentClassificationCurrentClassificationThe most recently reported classification for the location’s degree of risk to the public and the environment consistent with ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) and Part 213, i.e., 1) immediate, 2) short-term, 3) long-term, 4) no demonstrable long-term unacceptable risk based on current use, or 5) no demonstrable long-term unacceptable risk based on current and reasonably anticipated future use. PreviousClassificationPreviousClassificationThe classification reported prior to the current one for the location’s degree of risk to the public and the environment consistent with ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) and Part 213.HighestClassificationHighestClassificationThe reported classification representing the maximum hazard or greatest exposure throughout time for the location based on the degree of risk to the public and the environment consistent with ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) and Part 213.RiskConditionRiskConditionAn overall assessment of risk and required corrective actions at the locationRestrictions Property RestrictionRestrictions – indicates whether EGLE has knowledge of a land or resource use restriction that has been imposed at the location. HasBEA Has BEA Indicates whether a baseline environmental assessment has been submitted to EGLE at the location. LastUpdated LastUpdated The date the point was updated For more information about this data, please contact Matt Warner at WarnerM1@Michigan.gov.

United States CCI: Michigan data was reported at 87.800 1985=100 in Jan 2026. This records an increase from the previous number of 81.900 1985=100 for Dec 2025. United States CCI: Michigan data is updated monthly, averaging 83.100 1985=100 from Feb 2007 (Median) to Jan 2026, with 228 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 151.100 1985=100 in Dec 2019 and a record low of 11.900 1985=100 in Mar 2009. United States CCI: Michigan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by The Conference Board. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.H: Consumer Confidence Index. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy's (EGLE) Environmental Remediation Program manages and reduces risk at sites of environmental contamination. This is achieved through activities such as site evaluation, feasibility studies, operation and maintenance of systems, implementing land use and resource use restrictions, and monitoring. This data layer shows facilities that have been identified and mapped under Part 201, Environmental Remediation, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA) those areas, places, or parcels of property, or portion of a parcel of property where a hazardous substance in excess of the concentrations that satisfy the cleanup criteria for unrestricted residential use has been released, deposited, disposed of, or otherwise comes to be located. This data layer does not include all of the facilities that are subject to regulation under Part 201 because owners are not required to inform EGLE about the facilities and can pursue cleanup independently. Facilities that are not known to EGLE are not on the Inventory, nor are locations with releases that resulted in low environmental impact. This data is regularly updated. Field NameAliasDescriptionOBJECTIDN/AN/ASITENAME Site NameName for the location assigned by RRDADDRESS Address Street address for the site CITY City City associated with the street address ZIPCODE Zip Code Zip code the of the site COUNTY County County where the site is located LATITUDE Latitude Latitude (Y-Coordinate) of the siteLONGITUDE Longitude Longitude (X-Coordinate) of the siteSITEIDSite IDUnique identifier for the site within RRD’s RIDE database which connects to the Environmental MapperBusinessTypeBusiness TypeGeneral classification of the type of business that is/was associated with the Part 201 site.HorizontalReferenceDatumHorizontal Reference DatumHorizontal Reference Datum HorizontalCollectionMethodHorizontal reference Method of CollectionDescribes the method used for identifying the siteHorizontalAccuracyHorizontal Accuracy (m)An estimated measure of the horizontal accuracy of the point in meters.ReferencePointReference PointProvides a description of the relationship between the point feature and the overall siteSourceMapScale Source Map Scale The representative fraction or scale at which the point feature was mapped RiskCondition Risk ConditionRisk condition classification applied to the site by EGLE's Remediation and Redevelopment Division, which is used by the division to identify sites that are a priority to address, to manage workloads, and to report metrics on the overall facility status consistently across programs.ContaminantsContaminantsChemical classification identified on the siteHasBeaOrNomHasBeaOrNomIndicates whether EGLE has knowledge of a baseline environmental assessment or a notice of migration for the site.ProjectManagerProject ManagerThe RRD staff person assigned to manage that locationLastUpdatedLast UpdatedThe date the point was updated ShapeN/AN/A For more information about this data, please contact Matt Warner at WarnerM1@Michigan.gov.

This collection contains catalog records from the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology’s Insect Division’s specimen collection. Many specimen records include a specimen and label data image. The database currently contains about 400,000 specimen records out of the estimated 3 million estimated specimens in the collection. Some records contain complete collection, preparation, and taxonomic detail, while others only have a specimen data image and limited taxonomic detail. Records include specimen information from the early 1800’s through the present and are of global distribution. Most of our databased or digitized records currently are of Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, & crickets), Odonata (dragonflies & damselfies), and Hymenoptera (bees, wasps & ants)

Complete dataset: Michigan Colleges Alliance's 1 incidents, security score trends, compliance status, and comparative benchmarks against industry peers.

Find 1+ verified Michigan City founder emails. Access decision makers, CEOs, and CTOs in Michigan City companies for B2B sales & recruiting.

The Database & Directory Publishing industry in Michigan is expected to decline an annualized -x.x% to $x.x million over the five years to 2025, while the national industry will likely decline at -x.x% during the same period. Industry establishments decreased an annualized -x.x% to x locations. Industry employment has decreased an annualized -x.x% to xxx workers, while industry wages have decreased an annualized -x.x% to $x.x million.

The University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) comprises three separate, but affiliated, organizations: the Hospitals and Health Centers (HHC), which is the clinical delivery system; the University of Michigan Medical School; and MCare, the University of Michigan-owned health care plan. A health system data warehouse (HSDW) database was developed from these organizations in 2000 and contains administrative data such as ICD-9 billing codes, as well as coded patient demographics. Five methods of interface between warehouse and users have evolved since its inception, and each is aimed at the needs of a particular user group.

This dataset includes over 49,000 well records from the state well drillers databases in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Each state well has at a minimum the well depth and a static water level. Static water levels were mostly determined when the well was constructed. Data included in this shapefile include the well construction date, well depth, well elevation (if determined), type of well, the methods used for determining the well location and elevation (if determined), casing and screen depths (where reported), the static water level and a date, and the year the well was constructed. The field names from each of the state databases were harmonized to merge the data, and a table of the original field names is included. Tabular files are included with codes describing the original field names mapped to the combined field names, and descriptions of codes used to describe the well location method, well depth method, and well type for each state. The USGS wells in this dataset were pulled from the National Water Information System (NWIS) and have at least one water level measurement. Additional data for the NWIS wells can be retrieved from the USGS National Water Dashboard https://dashboard.waterdata.usgs.gov/app/nwd/en/?region=lower48&aoi=default.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The Michigan Study of Life After Prison examined the association between neighborhood context and outcomes related to employment and recidivism among the cohort of former prisoners released on parole from Michigan state prisons in one calendar year (2003), controlling for pre-incarceration neighborhood context, local labor market conditions, and a large set of individual characteristics. The primary goals of this study were to answer two questions: (1) "Are ex-offenders who are released to more disadvantaged neighborhoods (those with greater poverty, unemployment, residential turnover, etc.) more likely to recidivate?" (2) "Are ex-offenders who are released to more disadvantaged neighborhoods less likely to gain stable employment?" This research sought to supplement available literature on prisoner reentry and criminal desistance, which the researchers posit existing literature has largely ignored the role that neighborhoods play in shaping the recidivism and employment of returning prisoners. The 31 data files included as part of this collection are as follows: Cleaned Data Files: casenotearrestsreps1-4_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 4,932 Cases, 12 Variables casenotearrestsreps5-8_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 5,302 Cases, 13 Variables casenotearrestsrep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 2,321 Cases, 13 Variables casenoteemploymentreps1-4_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 4,871 Cases, 28 Variables casenoteemploymentreps5-8_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 4,754 Cases, 23 Variables casenoteemploymentrep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 2,610 Cases, 23 Variables cleanedcasenoteaddressesreps1-8_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 50,207 Cases, 72 Variables cleanedcasenoteaddressesrep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 10,309 Cases, 69 Variables preprisonaddress_all_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 5,183 Cases, 30 Variables preprisonaddress_all_rep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 1,017 Cases, 63 Variables postprisads_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 11,064 Cases, 41 Variables cleaned-demographics-population_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 11,064 Cases, 57 Variables simplecrimhistory.dta: 11,064 Cases, 4 Variables popSAhistory.dta: 11,064 Cases, 8 Variables deathdates_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 308 Cases, 3 Variables popprisonenterdates.dta: 11,064 Cases, 7 Variables discharge dates.dta: 7,369 Cases, 5 Variables parole and release dates for pop.dta: 11,064 cases, 3 Variables mdoc_recidivism_measures.dta: 11,064 Cases, 6 Variables recidivism dates from transits.dta: 11,064 Cases, 8 Variables recidivism from bir.dta: 11,064 Cases, 3 Variables sample marker.dta: 3,689 Cases, 2 Variables samplereps.dta: 3,689 Cases, 2 Variables tta_rsid_rep.dta: 1,363 Cases, 2 Variables Contextual Data Files: Complete.data.file.dta: 2,757 Cases, 1,055 Variables countyemployment.dta: 10,956 Cases, 6 Variables places.dta: 5,004 Cases, 5 Variables TractDataInterpolated-long.dta: 57,036 Cases, 50 Variables TractDataInterpolated-wide.dta: 2,716 Cases, 1,009 Variables tractscales2000.dta: 2,716 Cases, 49 Variables urbanicity + density.dta: 2,716 Cases, 9 Variables Demographic variables included: gender, race, educational attainment, age, employment, and marital status.

Compartments are used to assist staff in making management and planning decisions. State forest lands are arranged into blocks called Compartments. A compartment may be a contiguous area of state-owned lands or a compilation of nearby non-contiguous areas within in a Forest Management Unit (FMU), State Park, State Game Area or other designation. Compartments provide a convenient location reference, a metric for distributing management activities over time, and a discrete unit for planning purposes. Compartments range in size from less than 100 acres to over 5,000 acres with a typical size of about 1,500 to 3,000 acres. Smaller compartments are necessary in areas of fragmented ownership or used when management objectives are more readily met. Larger compartments may be used to improve operational efficiencies, when management objectives require large areas for specific goals, or to include an entire unit in the same compartment (e.g., a large State Park or State Game Areas). Compartment boundaries are usually static except in the case of minor adjustment of stand lines sharing a compartment boundary or if a case is made to change boundaries to align with management goals. For forest management activities specifically, compartments were developed to: Summarize data and make treatment recommendations on an area small enough to allow quick visualization of existing conditions and the effects of treatments. Systematically examine and consider treatments in a localized forest acreage. Disperse treatments spatially across the FMU. Disperse treatments temporally across the FMU as each compartment is also assigned one of ten Years of Entry. Attempt to ensure even distribution of treatment acres across years.