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/ .

Survey sections and private claims for Michigan's Upper and Lower PeninsulasMore Metadata

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

A survey map of islands in Lake George between Bruce Township and Sugar Island in Chippewa County, Michigan, measured in 1977.

More Metadata

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of generalized Oakland County community master plans. These polygons were digitized from each of Oakland's 62 community's future land use map in their master plan. The data was completed in March of 2006 and will be updated as each community amends their plan. The key attribute is Composite Plan representing generalized, countywide future land uses.This data depicts a future land use based on each community's master plan as currently adopted. The data will be updated each time a community amends their master plan. Below is a list recording the master plan and date of adoption that was used to digitize each community. Township of Addison Addison Township Land Use Master Plan - 7/9/2002 City of Auburn Hills City of Auburn Hills Master Land Use Plan - 11/7/2002 Auburn Hills Opkyke Road Corridor Study - 2/1/2007 Auburn Hills Collier Road Area Land Use Study - 1/3/2008 City of Berkley City of Berkley, Michigan Master Plan Update - 1/23/2007 Village of Beverly Hills Village of Beverly Hills Master Plan - 3/28/2007 Village of Bingham Farms Village of Bingham Farms Master Plan - 9/13/2004 City of Birmingham The Birmingham Plan - 1/1/1979 Township of Bloomfield Charter Township of Bloomfield Master Plan Update - 3/26/2007 City of Bloomfield Hills Master Plan of Land Use City of Bloomfield Hills - 8/11/1987 Township of Brandon Brandon Township Land Use Plan Update - 3/14/2000 City of the Village of Clarkston Master Plan City of the Village of Clarkston - 8/4/1997City of Clawson Downtown Clawson Framework Urban Design Plan - 11/1/2004 Master Plan City of Clawson - 1/23/1990 Township of Commerce Commerce Charter Township Master Plan 2003 - 6/28/2004 Commerce Charter Township Master Plan Amendment - 11/27/2006 City of Farmington Master Plan City of Farmington - 2/1/1998 City of Farmington Hills Master Plan for Future Land Use City of Farmington Hills - 3/28/1996 City of Fenton Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 (Used the Holly Township Master Plan because Fenton's was unavailable) City of Ferndale City of Ferndale Land Use Plan - 6/1/1998 Village of Franklin Franklin Village Master Plan Update - 10/15/1997 Township of Groveland Master Plan for Future Land Use - 5/9/2005 City of Hazel Park Master Plan, Hazel Park Michigan - 3/21/2000 Township of Highland Highland Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2000-2020 - 7/6/2000 South Milford Road Corridor Micro-Area Analysis - 4/13/2005 East Highland Commercial District Micro Area Analysis - 12/19/2002 West Highland Micro-Area Analysis - 8/2/2001 North Hickory Ridge Road Micro-Area Analysis - 12/7/2006 Township of Holly Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 Village of Holly Village of Holly Master Plan - 1/24/2007 City of Huntington Woods Huntington Woods Master Plan - 12/17/2007 Township of Independence Independence Township Vision 2020 Master Plan - 12/9/1999 City of Keego Harbor City of Keego Harbor Comprehensive Master Plan - 9/5/2002 City of Lake Angelus City of Lake Angelus Master Plan - 7/25/1994 Village of Lake Orion Master Plan 2002-2022 - 1/6/2003 Amendment #1 to Lake Orion Master Plan - 3/3/2008 City of Lathrup Village The Lathrup Village Plan - 1/1/1981 Village of Leonard Master Plan Village of Leonard - 10/17/1991 Township of Lyon Charter Township of Lyon Master Plan - 3/27/2006 City of Madison Heights Madison Heights Master Plan: 1990, 2000, 2010 - 10/16/1990 Madison Heights Future Land Use Plan Amendment - 5/15/2007 Township of Milford Charter Township of Milford Land Use Plan Update - 5/27/1999 Village of Milford Village of Milford Master Plan - 3/1/1998 City of Northville City of Northville Master Plan - 2/22/2000 City of Novi City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use 2004 - 12/1/2004 City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use Amendments - 4/16/2008 Township of Novi None (Does not have a Master Plan, assumed to be Single Family Residential) City of Oak Park City of Oak Park Master Plan - 9/9/1996 City of Oak Park Master Plan Addition - Unknown Township of Oakland Oakland Charter Township A Community Master Plan - 1/4/2005 City of Orchard Lake Village Master Plan City of Orchard Lake Village - 6/6/2006 Township of Orion Orion Township Master Plan - 5/7/2003 Lapeer Road Master Plan Update - 4/19/2006 Village of Ortonville The Ortonville Plan - 1/1/1980 Township of Oxford Charter Township of Oxford Master Plan - 7/14/2005 Village of Oxford Village of Oxford Master Plan - 5/10/2005 City of Pleasant Ridge City of Pleasant Ridge Community Master Plan - 9/1/1999 City of Pontiac Pontiac 2010 A New Reality - 12/4/1991 City of Rochester Master Plan: 2000 City of Rochester - 6/3/2000 Downtown Development Area MP amendment - 5/2/2005 City of Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Master Land Use Plan 2007 - 2/6/2007 Township of Rose Master Plan Rose Township - 7/7/2005 City of Royal Oak Master Plan City of Royal Oak - 8/24/1999 Township of Royal Oak A Vision for the Year 2010 Master Plan 1996 Update - 12/11/1996 City of South Lyon Master Plan of Future Land Use City of South Lyon - 1/10/2002 City of Southfield Southfield Master Plan - 1/1/1988 Township of Southfield Southfield Township Master Plan - 11/25/2002 Township of Springfield Springfield Township Master Plan - 3/7/2002 City of Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake Master Plan 2005 - 4/10/2007 City of Troy City of Troy Future Land Use Plan - 1/8/2002 City of Walled Lake City of Walled Lake Master Plan - 8/1/2002 Township of Waterford Waterford Master Plan 2003-2023 - 1/2/2003 Township of West Bloomfield West Bloomfield Township 2005 Master Land Use Plan Update - 7/26/2005 Township of White Lake White Lake Township Master Plan - 10/6/2006 City of Wixom City of Wixom Master Plan - 8/9/2005 Village of Wolverine Lake Village of Wolverine Lake Land Use Plan - 12/4/1985 Every category identified on the future land use map within each master plan was translated into a composite value. For example, one community may have two commercial districts- Local Commerical and General Commercial. Another community may have three commercial districts- Neighborhood Commercial, Hi-Tech Office, and Retail Commercial. A wide range of uses could be included in these categories, but for the purpose of this feature class, they are all translated into "Commercial/Office." In some cases a category on community's future land use map could not be translated into a single composite category. When this occurred, areas were manually translated into the appropriate generalized category. For example, a Public Lands class on a community's map would be manually translated into the Public/Institutional and Recreation/Conservation composite categories.

description: PLSS Townships and Sections dataset current as of unknown. Public Land Survey Sections - originally created from USGS Topographic Maps.; abstract: PLSS Townships and Sections dataset current as of unknown. Public Land Survey Sections - originally created from USGS Topographic Maps.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of Tax Parcels. Key attributes include KeyPIN. The KeyPIN is the unique parcel identification number used to link the tax parcel to the parcel attributes which are stored and maintained in Oakland County land records.There is no definite accuracy related to parcel boundaries. The information shown on these maps is for representation purposes only and is not intended to be a legally recorded map or survey. The information was compiled from a number of sources including recorded deeds, plats, tax maps surveys and other public records and data. Users of this data should consult the information sources listed above for verification of the information.

Hunter Access Program Lands include lands managed by private citizens in agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources that are open to public hunting. Please double check with the appropriate agency for specific rules, regulations, and restrictions.

County town, range, section, quarter/quarter, quarter polygons, town, range, section, government lot polygons, or private claim polygons.More Metadata

This data set provides an estimate of annual groundwater recharge for each public land survey section in Michigan. Groundwater Inventory and Mapping Project, a cooperative effort between the Water Bureau - Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (now Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy), USGS - Michigan Water Science Center and Michigan State University - Institute of Water Research, RS&GIS and Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering. This project was mandated by P.A. 148 (Michigan Acts of 2003). Major funding was provided by EGLE (MDEQ at the time), supplemented with additional funds from the USGS Cooperative Water Program.Public Law 148 required the MDEQ to obtain a map of state-wide groundwater recharge. The US Geological Survey and Michigan State University have created this data set to meet that need.Accuracy of the recharge estimate is estimated to be +/- 2.44 inches/yr in the western and northern Lower Peninsula, +/- 1.1 in/yr in the southeastern Lower Peninsula, and +/- 2.9 inches/yr in the Upper Peninsula. Areas in the eastern Upper Peninsula (Luce, Chippewa, and Mackinaw Counties) may have higher error because of relatively poor representation of specific geologic environments.Base flow separations were compiled 208 USGS streamflow gages in Michigan from those completed by Neff and others (2005). Within each region, an average recharge rate was calculated based on the baseflow yield. Residuals were computed for each streamflow gage.Watershed characteristics describing the geology, land cover, and general climate characteristics of the gaged watersheds were also compiled. These data were analyzed in Systat v.11 using a forward stepwise regression procedure to identify watershed characteristics that might be useful in predicting the value fo the residual. Within the eastern Lower Peninsula, the significant predictive variables, in addition to area, were: agricultural land use, urban land use, annual growing degree days, annual precipitation, and percent of the watershed underlain by lacustrine deposits. Within the western Lower Peninsula, the significant predictive variables, in addition to area, were: winter (December through March) precipitation, the percentage of the watershed underlain by till, and the percentage of the watershed occupied by forests. In the Upper Peninsula, the significant predictive variables, in addition to area, were: growing degree days and winter precipitation.Each of these predictive variables were calculated for each Public Land Survey section, the data used to predict a residual, then the residual added to the base recharge prediction for the region. Attribute Label Attribute Definition

FID Internal feature number, Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated

Shape Feature geometry, Coordinates defining the features

AREA Section area in square meters

PERIMETER Section perimeter in meters

TWN PLSS Township

RNG PLSS Range

SEC PLSS Section

COUNTY County ID

Recharge_I Inches of annual groundwater recharge Neff, B.P., Day, S.M., Piggott, A.R., and Fuller, L.M., Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5217, 23 p.

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.

The data in this layer is is updated weekly from Wellogic, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy statewide groundwater database. This layer is filtered to only show Type II public wells. Type II wells are noncommunity wells and serve 25 or more individuals or 15 or more service connections on an average daily basis for 60 or more days per year. Examples include restaurants, schools, hotels, campgrounds, churches, and day care centers.Although the derived data in these files represents the best readily available data, the six files do not represent a complete database of all wells or well records in existence. Until January 1, 2000 not all water well records for new wells in Michigan were entered into Wellogic. For wells drilled before 2000 the rate of inclusion is highly variable from one county to another. Further, there is a quality control check on location that may exclude a limited number of wells from Wellogic from this complete layer.NOTE: This data download does not contain the associated lithology files. Download this data on our Wellogic Water Wells by County website. If you have questions concerning this data, please contact:Wellogic@Michigan.gov------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Field Definitions:WELLID : Wellogic ID number (unique identifying number, first 2 digits represent county number)PERMIT_NUM : Well permit number as assigned by local health departmentWELL_TYPE : Type of wellOTH = OtherHEATP = Heat pumpHOSHLD = HouseholdINDUS = IndustrialIRRI = IrrigationTESTW = Test wellTY1PU = Type I publicTY2PU = Type II publicTY3PU = Type III publicTYPE_OTHER : Type of well if WELL_TYPE is 'OTH'WEL_STATUS : Status of wellOTH = OtherACT = ActiveINACT = InactivePLU = Plugged/AbandonedSTATUS_OTH : Status of well if WEL_STATUS is 'OTH'WSSN : Water Supply Serial Number, only if public wellWELL_NUM : Individual well number/name, only if public wellDRILLER_ID : Water Well Drilling Contractor Registration Number as assigned by State of MichiganDRILL_METH : Method used to drill the well boreholeOTH = OtherAUGBOR = Auger/BoredCABTOO = Cable ToolCASHAM = Casing HammerDRIVEN = Driven HandHOLROD = Hollow RodJETTIN = JettedMETH_OTHER : Method used to drill if DRILL_METH is 'OTH'CASE_TYPE : Well casing typeOTH = OtherUNK = UnknownPVCPLA = PVC PlasticSTEBLA = Steel-blackSTEGAL = Steel-GalvanizedCASE_OTHER : Well casing type is CASE_TYPE is 'OTH'CASE_DIA : Well Casing Diameter (in inches)CASE_DEPTH : Depth of Casing (in feet)SCREEN_FRM : Depth of top of screen (in feet)SCREEN_TO : Depth of bottom of screen (in feet)SWL : Depth of Static Water Level (in feet)FLOWING : Naturally flowing well (Y or N)AQ_TYPE : Aquifer typeDRIFT = Well draws water from the glacial driftROCK = Well draws water from the bedrockDRYHOL = Dry hole, well did not produce waterUNK = UnknownTEST_DEPTH : Depth of drawdown when the well was developed (in feet)TEST_HOURS : Duration of pumping when the well was developed (in hours)TEST_RATE : Rate of water flow when the well was developed (in Gallons per Minute)TEST_METHD : Method used to develop the wellUNK = UnknownOTH = OtherAIR = AirBAIL = BailerPLUGR = PlungerTSTPUM = Test PumpTEST_OTHER : Method used to develop the well if TEST_METHD is 'OTH'GROUT : Whether the well was grouted or notPMP_CPCITY : Capacity of the pump installed in the well (in Gallons per minute)METHD_COLL : Method of collection of the latitude/longitude coordinates001 = Address Matching-House Number002 = Address Matching-Street Centerline004 = Address Matching-Nearest Intersection012 = GPS Carrier Phase Static Relative Position Tech.013 = GPS Carrier Phase Kinematic Relative Position Tech.014 = GPS Code Measurement Differential (DGPS)015 = GPS Precise Positioning Service016 = GPS Code Meas. Std. Positioning Service SA Off017 = GPS Std. Positioning Service SA On018 = Interpolation-Map019 = Interpolation-Aerial Photo020 = Interpolation-Satellite Photo025 = Classical Surveying Techniques027 = Section centroid028 = TownRange centroid036 = Quarter-Quarter-Quarter centroidELEV_METHD : Method of collection of the elevation003 = GPS Code Measurement Differential (DGPS)005 = GPS Code Meas. Std. Positioning Svc. SA Off007 = Classical Surveying Techniques014 = Topographic Map InterpolationOTH = OtherUNK = UnknownWITHIN_CO: Whether the well is within the stated countyWITHIN_SEC: Whether the well is within the stated land survey sectionLOC_MATCH: Whether the well is within the stated Tier/RangeSEC_DIST: Whether the well point is within 200 feet of the stated land survey sectionELEV_DEM: Elevation in feet above mean sea levelELEV_DIF: Absolute difference, in feet, between ELEVATION and ELEV_DEMLANDSYS: The Land System Group polygon that the well falls withinDEPTH_FLAG:1: WELL_DEPTH = 02: WELL_DEPTH < 25ft or WELL_DEPTH > 1000ftELEV_FLAG:1: ELEVATION (Wellogic Field) =02: ELEVATION (Wellogic Field) < 507ft OR > 1980ft3: ELEVATION (Wellogic Field) < DEM min OR > DEM max4: ELEV_DIF > 20 ftSWL_FLAG:1: SWL = 02: SWL >= WELL_DEPTH in a Bedrock well OR SWL >= SCREEN_BOT in a Glacial well3: SWL > 900ftSPC_CPCITY: Specific Capacity = (TEST_RATE / TEST_DEPTH). Only calculated if TEST_METHD = BAIL, PLUGR or TSTPUMAQ_CODE:N: No Lithology Record associated with the well recordB: Blank (AQTYPE = null) noted among the strataD: Drift (Glacial) WellR: Rock WellU: Unknown Lithology noted among the strata*PROCESSING NOTE– This evaluation reads the [AQTYPE] field for each stratum from the LITHOLOGY table, beginning at the top and looping down to each subjacent stratum. If the previous stratum = ‘R’ANDthe bottommost stratum = ‘R’, then [AQ_CODE] is set to ‘R’. If the previous stratum = ‘R’ANDthe next stratum = ‘D’, then [AQ_CODE] is set to ‘D’ and [AQ_FLAG] is set to ‘L’. IfaType= ‘R’ANDscreendepth> 0 R’AND screendepth<=welldepth, then [AQ_CODE] is set to ‘D’ and [AQ_FLAG] is set to ‘S’. IfaType= ‘R’ANDwelldepth <= topofrock,then [AQ_CODE] is set to ‘D’ and [AQ_FLAG] is set to ‘D’.

Between 1816 and 1856, Michigan was systematically surveyed by the General Land Office (GLO), which had been established by the federal government in 1785. The detailed notes taken by the land surveyors have proven to be a useful source of information on Michigan's landscape as it appeared prior to wide-spread European settlement. Surveyors took detailed notes on the location, species, and diameter of each tree used to mark section lines and section corners. They commented on the locations of rivers, lakes, wetlands, the agricultural potential of soils and the general quality of timber along each section line as they were measured out. Biologists from the Michigan Natural Features Inventory developed a methodology to translate the notes of the GLO surveys into a digital map that can be used by researchers, land managers, and the general public. Explore this GIS data to see the 31 types of land cover that resulted from the survey.Click here to see the original report.

The Chicago region was a mosaic of prairies, woods, and wetlands prior to Euro-American settlement. This map shows the distribution of this vegetation. It was adapted from Marlin Bowles et al. (2015), where they digitized pre-settlement surveyor's notes. In these surveys, they recorded vegetation type at section lines, and then drew the vegetation distribution by hand. It should be noted that while these maps are largely accurate, there are instances where the surveyors made mistakes. Users should be cautious about over-interpreting the map.Links to the original publications of this research can be found here. This map should be referenced using the following citation:McBride, J. & S. Halsey. 2015. Vegetation of the Prairie Peninsula Region of Southern Lake Michigan as Mapped by the Public Land Survey 1829-1835. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL. Technical scientific support: Marlin Bowles, The Morton Arboretum; Noel Pavlovic, US Geological Survey

The Approved 2025-2029 (PDF) Five-Year Transportation Program (5YTP) is available for review. The public comment period is open until Sept. 3th, 2024. Projects listed on the map are for reference, and a full list by region is available in the PDF above. To leave a non-project-specific comment, open the general comment form.The 5YTP supports efforts to further bolster Michigan's position as a major player in the global economy. The document includes information about MDOT's funding picture, performance measures, system condition, and specific transportation projects planned for the next five years in each of MDOT’s seven regions.Get involved: The earlier you can get involved and provide comment, the more impact your input can have. The best way to influence a project in your area is to participate in early planning public meetings. To learn more about major projects and transportation studies, visit the MDOT Projects and Programs website. Want to report a problem with a road, highway, or bridge? If so, Contact MDOT with the road name, closest intersection, and description of the issue. MDOT has jurisdiction over state roads (I, M and US routes). All other roads are under local jurisdiction, typically the city or county road agency in that area.Not seeing a project? There are numerous reasons why projects may not appear on the 5YTP dataset, including the funding used, the type of project, and more. For more details, visit the Help/FAQs tab. More Information: Five-Year Transportation Program page