This dataset at 1:24,000 scale is a greatly expanded version of the hydrologic units created in the mid-1970's by the U.S. Geological Survey under the sponsorship of the Water Resources Council. The WBD is a complete set of hydrologic units from new watershed and subwatersheds less than 10,000 acres to entire river systems draining large hydrologic unit regions, all attributed by a standard nomenclature. Development of the Watershed Boundary Dataset started in the early 1990's and has progressed to the format and attribution that is now being distributed. The delineation and attribution was done on a state basis using a variety of methods and source data. Each state HU dataset has gone through an extensive quality review process to ensure accuracy and compliance to the Federal Standard for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries before and during submittal to USDA-NRCS National Geospatial Management Center (NGMC).

The Michigan’s Major Watersheds - Subbasins shape file depicts the drainage areas of 20 square miles or greater at geographic features such as the mouth of a river or the location of a USGS stream flow collection station. The shape file is used to determine hydrologic parameters for determining a range of flows in watershed analysis.

Cell maps for each oil and gas assessment unit were created by the USGS to illustrate the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in an assessment unit or province. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, dry, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown. The well information was initially retrieved from the IHS Energy Group, PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data from PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data were current as of October 2002 when the cell maps were ...

This data represents the extent of nine-element watershed management plans developed by local partners and approved by Michigan's Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program as meeting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) nine-element requirements. The EPA Nine Element Watershed Management Plan is a framework developed by the EPA to guide the development of comprehensive watershed management plans. Data also includes nine element plans that are currently being developed with funding from the NPS Program. An approved nine-element watershed management plan is required to be eligible for NPS Program implementation funds. The data is a compilation of watershed boundaries developed by stakeholders or extracted from the U.S. Geological Survey's Watershed Boundary Dataset. Individual files were merged or appended in ArcGIS Pro. Data is updated annually to include new nine element plan approvals. For additional information contact Peter Vincent at VincentP@Michigan.gov. Field NameDescriptionWaterCourseName of the waterbody that is the focus of the watershed management plan. AcresArea covered by the watershed management plan in acresSqMilesArea covered by the watershed management plan in square miles.ApprovalType of approval the plan received. CMI= Sate of Michigan's Clean Michigan Initiative approval, 319= EPA's nine-element approval.YearApprovedYear the plan was approved as meeting EPA's nine-elements or pending for plans currently under development.PlanCuratorPrimary group that was responsible for developing the watershed management plan.EGLEDistrictEGLE District the watershed management plan dominantly resides in.NPSDistrictStaffEGLE Non-Point Source (NPS) Program District Staff to contact for information on the watershed management plan.PhoneNumberPhone number of NPS Program District Staff.EmailEmail of NPS Program District StaffPlanGeographyThe data includes nine-element watershed management plans that are either standalone or "nested" within a larger geographic plan. Nested plans refer to areas that are covered by a nine-element plan but also fall within the boundaries of another, larger nine-element plan. This distinction is primarily for visualization purposes, highlighting the relationship between plans of different geographic extents. Both standalone and nested plans meet the Environmental Protection Agency's nine-element requirements and are eligible for Michigan's Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program. There are two options a polygon could fall under: 1. Base (not within the area of another plan) or 2. Nested (within the area of another plan).

This digital data release presents contour data from multiple subsurface geologic horizons as presented in previously published summaries of the regional subsurface configuration of the Michigan and Illinois Basins. The original maps that served as the source of the digital data within this geodatabase are from the Geological Society of America’s Decade of North American Geology project series, “The Geology of North America” volume D-2, chapter 13 “The Michigan Basin” and chapter 14 “Illinois Basin Region”. Contour maps in the original published chapters were generated from geophysical well logs (generally gamma-ray) and adapted from previously published contour maps. The published contour maps illustrated the distribution sedimentary strata within the Illinois and Michigan Basin in the context of the broad 1st order supercycles of L.L. Sloss including the Sauk, Tippecanoe, Kaskaskia, Absaroka, Zuni, and Tejas supersequences. Because these maps represent time-transgressive surfaces, contours frequently delineate the composite of multiple named sedimentary formations at once. Structure contour maps on the top of the Precambrian basement surface in both the Michigan and Illinois basins illustrate the general structural geometry which undergirds the sedimentary cover. Isopach maps of the Sauk 2 and 3, Tippecanoe 1 and 2, Kaskaskia 1 and 2, Absaroka, and Zuni sequences illustrate the broad distribution of sedimentary units in the Michigan Basin, as do isopach maps of the Sauk, Upper Sauk, Tippecanoe 1 and 2, Lower Kaskaskia 1, Upper Kaskaskia 1-Lower Kaskaskia 2, Kaskaskia 2, and Absaroka supersequences in the Illinois Basins. Isopach contours and structure contours were formatted and attributed as GIS data sets for use in digital form as part of U.S. Geological Survey’s ongoing effort to inventory, catalog, and release subsurface geologic data in geospatial form. This effort is part of a broad directive to develop 2D and 3D geologic information at detailed, national, and continental scales. This data approximates, but does not strictly follow the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program's GeMS data structure schema for geologic maps. Structure contour lines and isopach contours for each supersequence are stored within separate “IsoValueLine” feature classes. These are distributed within a geographic information system geodatabase and are also saved as shapefiles. Contour data is provided in both feet and meters to maintain consistency with the original publication and for ease of use. Nonspatial tables define the data sources used, define terms used in the dataset, and describe the geologic units referenced herein. A tabular data dictionary describes the entity and attribute information for all attributes of the geospatial data and accompanying nonspatial tables.

Boundary line depicting the applicable extent for the Lake Michigan Coastal Program grants. The Lake Michigan Coastal Program is based on a watershed approach. The boundary for the program, the Coastal Program Area, includes those areas that drain into Indiana's portion of Lake Michigan. The Coastal Program Area boundary defines the areas that will be eligible to participate in the program. More information about the Coastal Program Area can be found in Chapter 3 of the Lake Michigan Coastal Program document. For more information: https://www.in.gov/dnr/lakemich/6039.htm.

This data set contains the shallowest principal aquifers of the Lake Michigan basin, portrayed as polygons. The data set was developed as part of the effort to produce the maps published at 1:2,500,000 in the printed series 'Ground Water Atlas of the United States '. The published maps contain base and cultural features not included in these data. This is a replacement for the July 1998 data set called Principal Aquifers of the 48 Conterminous United States.

description: The hydrogeologic framework for the Lake Michigan Basin model was developed by grouping the bedrock geology of the study area into hydrogeologic units on the basis of the functioning of each unit as an aquifer or confining layer within the basin. Available data were evaluated based on the areal extent of coverage within the study area, and procedures were established to characterize areas with sparse data coverage. Top and bottom altitudes for each hydrogeologic unit were interpolated in a geographic information system for input to the model and compared with existing maps of subsurface formations. Fourteen bedrock hydrogeologic units, making up 17 bedrock model layers, were defined, and they range in age from the Jurassic Period red beds of central Michigan to the Cambrian Period Mount Simon Sandstone. Each hydrogeologic unit is referred to as its model layer number as represented in the report U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Report 2009-5060 (SIR2009-5060). They are listed below for reference as to the model layer number, and the hydrogeoloigc unit name. Dataset values represent the bottom of the layer. LSD Land surface L1_3 Quaternary unit (Bottom of Quaternary unit is Layer 3 in the model) L4 Jurassic unit L5 Upper Pennsylvanian unit L6 Lower Pennsylvanian unit L7 Michigan Formation unit L8 Marshall Formation unit L9 Devonian-Mississippian unit L10_12 Silurian-Devonian unit (Bottom of Silurian-Devonian unit is Layer 12 in the model) L13 Maquoketa Formation unit L14 Sinnipee Formation unit L15 St. Peter Formation unit L16 Prairie du Chien-Franconia unit L17 Ironton-Galesville unit L18 Eau Claire unit L19_20 Mt Simon Formation unit (Bottom of Mt Simon Formation unit is Layer 20 in the model) The Lake Michigan Basin groundwater model is discretized into a grid of 391 by 261 cells. The model has 20 layers: 3 that simulate the glacial and unconsolidated sediments and 17 that simulate the bedrock units. The model provides additional detail in the area of greatest interest, in this case, the Lake Michigan Basin, by use of smaller grid spacing in the innermost model domain compared with the grid spacing at the model boundaries. The smallest interior grid cells are 5,000 by 5,000 ft. At the model boundaries, the size of grid cells reaches approximately 68,930 ft (13 mi) from north to south by 116,490 ft (22 mi) from east to west. The grid cells each have values for the altitude to the bottom of each layer. The layer numbers are from top to bottom of the aquifer system. Three hydrogeologic units are represented by the multiple layers; abstract: The hydrogeologic framework for the Lake Michigan Basin model was developed by grouping the bedrock geology of the study area into hydrogeologic units on the basis of the functioning of each unit as an aquifer or confining layer within the basin. Available data were evaluated based on the areal extent of coverage within the study area, and procedures were established to characterize areas with sparse data coverage. Top and bottom altitudes for each hydrogeologic unit were interpolated in a geographic information system for input to the model and compared with existing maps of subsurface formations. Fourteen bedrock hydrogeologic units, making up 17 bedrock model layers, were defined, and they range in age from the Jurassic Period red beds of central Michigan to the Cambrian Period Mount Simon Sandstone. Each hydrogeologic unit is referred to as its model layer number as represented in the report U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Report 2009-5060 (SIR2009-5060). They are listed below for reference as to the model layer number, and the hydrogeoloigc unit name. Dataset values represent the bottom of the layer. LSD Land surface L1_3 Quaternary unit (Bottom of Quaternary unit is Layer 3 in the model) L4 Jurassic unit L5 Upper Pennsylvanian unit L6 Lower Pennsylvanian unit L7 Michigan Formation unit L8 Marshall Formation unit L9 Devonian-Mississippian unit L10_12 Silurian-Devonian unit (Bottom of Silurian-Devonian unit is Layer 12 in the model) L13 Maquoketa Formation unit L14 Sinnipee Formation unit L15 St. Peter Formation unit L16 Prairie du Chien-Franconia unit L17 Ironton-Galesville unit L18 Eau Claire unit L19_20 Mt Simon Formation unit (Bottom of Mt Simon Formation unit is Layer 20 in the model) The Lake Michigan Basin groundwater model is discretized into a grid of 391 by 261 cells. The model has 20 layers: 3 that simulate the glacial and unconsolidated sediments and 17 that simulate the bedrock units. The model provides additional detail in the area of greatest interest, in this case, the Lake Michigan Basin, by use of smaller grid spacing in the innermost model domain compared with the grid spacing at the model boundaries. The smallest interior grid cells are 5,000 by 5,000 ft. At the model boundaries, the size of grid cells reaches approximately 68,930 ft (13 mi) from north to south by 116,490 ft (22 mi) from east to west. The grid cells each have values for the altitude to the bottom of each layer. The layer numbers are from top to bottom of the aquifer system. Three hydrogeologic units are represented by the multiple layers

A watershed layer specifically utilized in wetland mitigation and mitigation banking. These areas along with eco-regions determine which watershed will be utilized as part of the process. These watersheds tend to differ slightly from that of other watershed boundaries. The layer was originally created in 1997. No updates will be made to this layer at this time.

Field Name

Descriptions

WatershedIdNumber

Number code for each mitigation watershed. This code coorelates with the Mitigation watersheds PDF map at: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/water-resources/wetlands/mitigation-banking

WatershedName

Name of each mitigation watershed.

For questions regarding the data layer, contact Jeremy Jones (JonesJ28@Michigan.gov). For questions regarding mitigation contact Michael Pennington (PenningtonM@Michigan.gov).

Layered GeoPDF 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map. Layers of geospatial data include orthoimagery, roads, grids, geographic names, elevation contours, hydrography, and other selected map features.

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.

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

The watersheds indicate approximate areas used for determination of the waste load (point sources) and load allocation (nonpoint sources) of each TMDL. Data are compiled by the State of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), Water Resources Division. At a minimum, this dataset is updated every two years after the approval of Michigan's Integrated Report (303d List). Features include a hyperlink to the applicable TMDL document, and the year of USEPA approval.Please direct questions to Molly Rippke,RippkeM@Michigan.gov.Version: November, 2020.Field NameField DescriptionTotalMaxiumumDailyLoadNameOfficial name of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)TMDLCategoryCategory of parameter being addressed by the TMDLYearYear the TMDL was issued and approved by EPATMDLDocumentOfficial TMDL DocumentationTMDLIDOfficial TMDL IdentifierImpairedDesignatedUse1Primary designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLImpairedDesignatedUse2Additional designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLCauseOfImpairment1Parameter causing the primary designated use impairmentCauseOfImpairment2Parameter causing the additional designated use impairmentEPAIDOfficial EPA TMDL IdentifierUniqueIDUnique identifier used to differentiate TMDLs within the same categoryStatusEPA approval status of TMDL

The watersheds indicate approximate areas used for determination of the waste load (point sources) and load allocation (nonpoint sources) of each TMDL. Data are compiled by the State of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), Water Resources Division. At a minimum, this dataset is updated every two years after the approval of Michigan's Integrated Report (303d List). Features include a hyperlink to the applicable TMDL document, and the year of USEPA approval. Please direct questions to Molly Rippke, RippkeM@Michigan.gov.Version: November, 2020. Field NameField DescriptionTotalMaxiumumDailyLoadNameOfficial name of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)TMDLCategoryCategory of parameter being addressed by the TMDLYearYear the TMDL was issued and approved by EPATMDLDocumentOfficial TMDL DocumentationTMDLIDOfficial TMDL IdentifierImpairedDesignatedUse1Primary designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLImpairedDesignatedUse2Additional designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLCauseOfImpairment1Parameter causing the primary designated use impairmentCauseOfImpairment2Parameter causing the additional designated use impairmentEPAIDOfficial EPA TMDL IdentifierUniqueIDUnique identifier used to differentiate TMDLs within the same categoryStatusEPA approval status of TMDL

The watersheds indicate approximate areas used for determination of the waste load (point sources) and load allocation (nonpoint sources) of each TMDL. Data are compiled by the State of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), Water Resources Division. At a minimum, this dataset is updated every two years after the approval of Michigan's Integrated Report (303d List). Features include a hyperlink to the applicable TMDL document, and the year of USEPA approval. Please direct questions to Molly Rippke, RippkeM@Michigan.gov.Version: November, 2020.Field NameField DescriptionTotalMaxiumumDailyLoadNameOfficial name of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)TMDLCategoryCategory of parameter being addressed by the TMDLYearYear the TMDL was issued and approved by EPATMDLDocumentOfficial TMDL DocumentationTMDLIDOfficial TMDL IdentifierImpairedDesignatedUse1Primary designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLImpairedDesignatedUse2Additional designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLCauseOfImpairment1Parameter causing the primary designated use impairmentCauseOfImpairment2Parameter causing the additional designated use impairmentEPAIDOfficial EPA TMDL IdentifierUniqueIDUnique identifier used to differentiate TMDLs within the same categoryStatusEPA approval status of TMDL

The watersheds indicate approximate areas used for determination of the waste load (point sources) and load allocation (nonpoint sources) of each TMDL. Data are compiled by the State of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), Water Resources Division. At a minimum, this dataset is updated every two years after the approval of Michigan's Integrated Report (303d List). Features include a hyperlink to the applicable TMDL document, and the year of USEPA approval. Please direct questions to Molly Rippke, RippkeM@Michigan.gov.Version: November, 2020.Field NameField DescriptionTotalMaxiumumDailyLoadNameOfficial name of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)TMDLCategoryCategory of parameter being addressed by the TMDLYearYear the TMDL was issued and approved by EPATMDLDocumentOfficial TMDL DocumentationTMDLIDOfficial TMDL IdentifierImpairedDesignatedUse1Primary designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLImpairedDesignatedUse2Additional designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLCauseOfImpairment1Parameter causing the primary designated use impairmentCauseOfImpairment2Parameter causing the additional designated use impairmentEPAIDOfficial EPA TMDL IdentifierUniqueIDUnique identifier used to differentiate TMDLs within the same categoryStatusEPA approval status of TMDL

The watersheds indicate approximate areas used for determination of the waste load (point sources) and load allocation (nonpoint sources) of each TMDL. Data are compiled by the State of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), Water Resources Division. At a minimum, this dataset is updated every two years after the approval of Michigan's Integrated Report (303d List). Features include a hyperlink to the applicable TMDL document, and the year of USEPA approval. Please direct questions to Molly Rippke, RippkeM@Michigan.gov.Version: November, 2020. Field NameField DescriptionTotalMaxiumumDailyLoadNameOfficial name of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)TMDLCategoryCategory of parameter being addressed by the TMDLYearYear the TMDL was issued and approved by EPATMDLDocumentOfficial TMDL DocumentationTMDLIDOfficial TMDL IdentifierImpairedDesignatedUse1Primary designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLImpairedDesignatedUse2Additional designated use that is impaired and being addressed by the TMDLCauseOfImpairment1Parameter causing the primary designated use impairmentCauseOfImpairment2Parameter causing the additional designated use impairmentEPAIDOfficial EPA TMDL IdentifierUniqueIDUnique identifier used to differentiate TMDLs within the same categoryStatusEPA approval status of TMDL

Surface water samples analyzed for PFAS are collected through EGLE’s Water Chemistry Monitoring Program and watershed/source tracking investigations. To learn more about EGLE’s effort in sampling lakes and streams for PFAS visit the MPART PFAS Sampling in Lakes & Streams website.Surface water contaminant concentrations are compared against Michigan’s Water Quality Standards. Michigan derives Water Quality Standards for PFAS under Part4 Rule 57 and current water quality values for specific PFAS can be found in the Rule 57 Water Quality Values spreadsheet.Contaminant data often include flags, also known as qualifiers, which are notes attached to data that gives detailed information about that particular result. In the surface water PFAS data layer, PFAS analytes associated with a “K” flag were not detected in the sample and therefore the method detection limit (MDL) is displayed. “J” flagged results indicate an estimated concentration as the result is above the MDL but below the laboratory reporting limit.The number of PFAS analytes EGLE analyzes in surface water samples has increased over the years. The current suite of PFAS analytes can be found in the PFAS Minimum Laboratory Analyte List. In the surface water PFAS data layer, if a flag is listed as “Not Measured”, that particular PFAS analyte was not included in the analysis for that sample.This data is used in the MPART: PFAS Geographic Information System (item details). For more information about Michigan's PFAS response, please visit our State of Michigan PFAS Response website. Call 800-662-9278 for assistance with reading or interpreting this data.Questions regarding the surface water PFAS data can be directed to Dr. Geoff Rhodes, Rhodesg2@Michigan.gov. To submit feedback on the data, please reach out to EGLE-Maps@Michigan.gov. Field Name Description

LabSampleId The sample ID provided by the analytical laboratory

SiteCode The sampling location name

CocSampleId The sample ID listed on chain of custody provided to the analytical laboratory

SampleType An expanded description of what type of sample was collected

LabName The name of the analytical laboratory used for analysis of the sample

LabJobName The analytical laboratories job/work order name

Matrix The environmental matrix sampled

CollectionDate The date that the sample was collected

AnalysisMethod The analysis method used by the analytical laboratory to analyze the sample

DilutionFactor The dilution factor used by the analytical laboratory during sample preparation

AnalysisDate The date that the analysis was conducted by the analytical laboratory

Duplicate A description of what type of sample was collected

Unit The units, provided by the analytical laboratory, of concentration for the analysis

Watershed The watershed that the sample was collected from

VisitID The identification number of the sampling event

SampleDepth An expanded description of the sampling depth

CAS307244_PFHxA The concentration of PFHxA in the sample

CAS307244_PFHxAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFHxA

CAS307244_PFHxAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFHxA

CAS307244_PFHxARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFHxA

CAS307551_PFDoA The concentration of PFDoA in the sample

CAS307551_PFDoAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFDoA

CAS307551_PFDoAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFDoA

CAS307551_PFDoARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFDoA

CAS335671_PFOA The concentration of PFOA in the sample

CAS335671_PFOAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFOA

CAS335671_PFOAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFOA

CAS335671_PFOARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFOA

CAS335762_PFDA The concentration of PFDA in the sample

CAS335762_PFDAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFDA

CAS335762_PFDAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFDA

CAS335762_PFDARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFDA

CAS335773_PFDS The concentration of PFDS in the sample

CAS335773_PFDSFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFDS

CAS335773_PFDSMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFDS

CAS335773_PFDSRl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFDS

CAS355464_PFHxS The concentration of PFHxS in the sample

CAS355464_PFHxSFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFHxS

CAS355464_PFHxSMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFHxS

CAS355464_PFHxSRl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFHxS

CAS356025_33FTCA The concentration of 3:3 FTCA in the sample

CAS356025_33FTCAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of 3:3 FTCA

CAS356025_33FTCAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for 3:3 FTCA

CAS356025_33FTCARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for 3:3 FTCA

CAS375224_PFBA The concentration of PFBA in the sample

CAS375224_PFBAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFBA

CAS375224_PFBAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFBA

CAS375224_PFBARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFBA

CAS375735_PFBS The concentration of PFBS in the sample

CAS375735_PFBSFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFBS

CAS375735_PFBSMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFBS

CAS375735_PFBSRl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFBS

CAS375859_PFHpA The concentration of PFHpA in the sample

CAS375859_PFHpAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFHpA

CAS375859_PFHpAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFHpA

CAS375859_PFHpARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFHpA

CAS375928_PFHpS The concentration of PFHpS in the sample

CAS375928_PFHpSFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFHpS

CAS375928_PFHpSMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFHpS

CAS375928_PFHpSRl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFHpS

CAS375951_PFNA The concentration of PFNA in the sample

CAS375951_PFNAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFNA

CAS375951_PFNAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFNA

CAS375951_PFNARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFNA

CAS376067_PFTeA The concentration of PFTeA in the sample

CAS376067_PFTeAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFTeA

CAS376067_PFTeAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFTeA

CAS376067_PFTeARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFTeA

CAS646833_PFecHS The concentration of PFecHS in the sample

CAS646833_PFecHSFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFecHS

CAS646833_PFecHSMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFecHS

CAS646833_PFecHSRl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFecHS

CAS754916_PFOSA The concentration of PFOSA in the sample

CAS754916_PFOSAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFOSA

CAS754916_PFOSAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFOSA

CAS754916_PFOSARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFOSA

CAS812704_73FTCA The concentration of 7:3 FTCA in the sample

CAS812704_73FTCAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of 7:3 FTCA

CAS812704_73FTCAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for 7:3 FTCA

CAS812704_73FTCARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for 7:3 FTCA

CAS1763231_PFOS The concentration of PFOS in the sample

CAS1763231_PFOSFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFOS

CAS1763231_PFOSMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFOS

CAS1763231_PFOSRl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFOS

CAS2058948_PFUnA The concentration of PFUnA in the sample

CAS2058948_PFUnAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of PFUnA

CAS2058948_PFUnAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for PFUnA

CAS2058948_PFUnARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for PFUnA

CAS2355319_NMeFOSAA The concentration of NMeFOSAA in the sample

CAS2355319_NMeFOSAAFlag A note from the analytical laboratory with additional information about the analysis of NMeFOSAA

CAS2355319_NMeFOSAAMdl The analytical laboratories method detection limit for NMeFOSAA

CAS2355319_NMeFOSAARl The analytical laboratories reporting limit for NMeFOSAA

CAS2706903_PFPeA The concentration of PFPeA in the sample

CAS2706903_PFPeAFlag A note from the

This data set provides estimates of the groundwater contribution to stream flow, frequently referred to as base flow, in cubic feet per second. The baseflow of a stream or river is the amount of groundwater discharged from an aquifer to the watercourse. This discharge occurs year-round, and fluctuates seasonally depending on the level of the water in the aquifer. Baseflow is supplemented by direct runoff during and immediately after precipitation or melt events, resulting in peaks on a hydrograph showing stream flow through time. The process of dividing these peaks into base flow and runoff is called hydrograph separation. Hydrograph separations were completed for all USGS stream-flow gauging stations in Michigan that had more than 10 years of daily records. Sites that were clearly affected by upstream impoundments (lakes, dams) were excluded. No attempt was made to detect or correct for trends in the data. This may lead to some errors in the comparison of streams with data from different time periods if there is an underlying temporal trend in the data, but inclusion of all records in the analysis was necessary to increase the data pool and provide better spatial coverage. Watersheds were delineated for each of the 208 stream-flow gauging stations, and various characteristics of each watershed, such as topographic relief, surficial geology, land cover, growing degree days, annual and winter-season precipitation, and others were tabulated. Regression modeling, described in the Technical Report, was used to estimate the baseflow for each steam segment of the 1:100,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset.