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

The NationalWetlandsInventory digital data files are records of wetlands location and classification as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This polygon feature class was adjusted from a shapefile downloaded in 2001 from the State of Michigan's Online Geographic Data Library (http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mgdl/). The feature class was reprojected from its original projection, and some of the atttributes were removed. The original data was published from 1979-1994, and was collected at the same scale as the USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps. The key attributes include: ACRES, NWICODE, SYSTEM, CLASS, WATER, and SUBCLASS.

This layer is sourced from gisservices.oakgov.com.

This layer was developed by EGLE's Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Unit (WLSU) to inventory the cities, townships, and other municipalities that have a local wetland ordinance in place. These ordinances are typically more restrictive than State Wetland Protection laws, and provide enhanced control to local communities to restrict wetland development and impact.This layer was produced by combining the different municipal boundaries for the cities, villages, and townships that currently have a local wetland ordinance in place.

Field Name

Descriptions

FMCD

Minor civil division identification code

Name

Township or City that has a local wetland ordinance.

For questions about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

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

This map series is maintained by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources', Michigan Resource Inventory Program (MRIP). Each land cover category is depicted by a polygon and identified with a land cover code. Patterned land cover maps have also been created for selected counties depicting urban, agriculture, woodland, and wetland categories (products 201, 202, 203, and 204 respectively). This layer includes only the land cover codes that represent the different vegetative and open water categories of wetlands captured in the MIRIS Land Cover effort.

This layer was produced from the source MIRIS 1978 LULC Dataset. All wetland land cover codes were queried and exported in a GIS environment for use in the Part 303 State Wetland Inventory completed in 2007.

Field Name

Descriptions

MIRISCode

Combined level codes used to determine the land cover type.

Level1

Wetlands codes

Level2

Forested Codes

Level3

Shrub Swamp codes

LandCoverType

Wetland Landcover type

Acres

Size of the MIRIS polygon

County

county in which the wetland is in.

For questions about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

This map presents the percentage of existing wetlands that are in a protected status by sub-lake unit (reporting unit) for each Great Lake, as determined by the LAMPs for each lake. Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario report by sub-lake units. Lake Superior reports by watersheds.*Coastal Wetlands defined here as connected to the Great Lakes and >2 ha (5 acres) in size.Data SourcesWe used the following database for coastal wetland area:Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands 2004 Polygons (Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium): https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CWC-GreatLakesCoastalWetlandsInventory-Metadata.pdf We used the following databases for protected area: Nature Conservancy Canada (data agreement) Commission for Environmental Cooperation (databasin.org)- Canada Protected Terrestrial Areas 2012 (Ontario)Ontario GeoHub- Ontario Federal Protected Lands (Ontario) 2018:PAD-US (Protected Areas Database of the U.S.) 2018. CARL (Conservation and Recreation Lands) 2017. Feature Service for Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Great Lakes Atlantic Region (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa). This layer contains fee lands, preserves, designated lands and other protected lands. This layer does not contain easements.Consultations with regional land experts (The Nature Conservancy GIS Managers) for the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.

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

This dataset provides a land cover map focused on peatland ecosystems in the upper peninsula of Michigan. The map was produced at 12.5-m resolution using a multi-sensor fusion (optical and L-band SAR) approach with imagery from Landsat-5 TM and ALOS PALSAR collected between 2007 and 2011. A random forest classifier trained with polygons delineated from field data and aerial photography was used to determine pixel classes. Accuracy assessment based on field-sampled sites show high overall map accuracy (92%).

The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) from 2005 was produced by Great Lakes/Atlantic Region Office (GLARO) of Ducks Unlimited with funding provided by EGLE. The NWI 2005 was an update to the original 1978 NWI Layer produced by US Fish and Wildlife Service, and utilized 1998 and 2005 imagery to map wetland loss/change over time. Classification of wetlands is based on the Cowardin Wetland Classification system with a minimum mapping unit of 1/10 acre. The NWI+ data includes hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands in addition to the normal Cowardin wetland classification, and includes functional assessment information of each wetland in the attribution. The full report on this dataset is available by request to the Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Unit. The data is updated as watershed areas are completed. Website for more information can be: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/water-resources/wetlands/landscape-level-assessmentField NameDescriptionsNWICodeThe wetland classification codes are a series of letter and number codes that have been developed to adapt the national wetland classification system to map form. These alpha-numeric codes correspond to the classification nomenclature that best describes a particular wetland habitat. For example, PFO1A = Palustrine (P), Forested (FO), Broad-leaved Deciduous (1), Temporarily Flooded (A).HGMCodeCode for the Landscape Level Assessment. Combines each of the coded types. For example TEBAVR = Terrene Basin Vertical FlowAcresSize of the wetland polygon.NWIKeyUnique Identifier Key used in the 2005 NWI update.ImageDateDate of the imagery in which the wetland polygon was mapped from.VegOrNotVegIs the wetland vegetated or open water (non veg).EGLETypeType of wetland open water, emergent, forested, shrub scrub etc.ModifierWetland modifier identifying excavated, ditched, impounded etc.LandformThe type of geological feature in which the wetland resides. Slope (SL) Wetlands occurring on a slope of 5% or greater. Island (IS) A wetland completely surrounded by water. Fringe (FR) Wetland occurs in the shallow water zone of a permanent waterbody. *NWI water regime F, G, and H Floodplain (FP) Wetland occurs on an active alluvial plain along a river and some streams. *Modifiers FPba (Basin) and FPfl ( Flat) Basin (BA) Wetland occurs in a distinct depression. *NWI water regime C and E Flat (FL) Wetland occurs on a nearly level landform. *NWI water regime A and BLandscape_PositionLandscape position values are determined by cross referencing NWI with hydrology and topography. NWI polygons that spatially intersect a stream/river in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) are classified as lotic. Lotic type wetlands can be further refined to indicate their adjacency to a stream or a river (lotic stream or lotic river). High resolution NHD data was used to differentiate rivers from streams in this analysis. A NHD classification completed by MDNR, Institute for Fisheries Research separated rivers by temperature gradient (cold, cool, warm) and size, based on average water flows (cubic feet per second or CFS). This dataset was used in the LLWFA analysis to mark this distinction. NWI Polygons that are determined to be within the basin of a lake are classified as lentic. Identifying the extent of a lake basin, and thus which wetlands fall within it, is done with the assistance of digital elevation models (DEM). NWI Polygons that don’t intersect surface water features or aren’t spatially located within a lake basin are classified as terreneWaterbody_TypeWaterbody type classification is the simplest of the 4 LLWW descriptors. Ponds, lakes, and rivers are classified as such based explicitly on NWI Cowardin code. Lakes and ponds were separated at the 5-acre mark, all open-water polygons less than or equal to 5 acres were classified as ponds, while all open-water polygons larger than 5 acres were classified as lakes. The 5 acre cutoff was chosen to remain consistent with previously existing EGLE regulations. High resolution NHD data was used to differentiate rivers from streams in this analysis. A NHD classification completed by MDNR, Institute for Fisheries Research separated rivers by temperature gradient (cold, cool, warm) and size, based on average water flows (CFS) This dataset was used in the LLWFA analysis to mark this distinction.Waterflow_PathWater flow path, otherwise known as hydrodynamics, is classified by automated and manual interpretation of the intersection of NHD surface water features and NWI. Automated methods include intersecting NHD and NWI to capture throughflow wetlands (in-stream wetlands), both natural and artificial. A distinction is drawn in NHD between natural stream/river features and artificial canal/ditch features. Vegetated NWI wetlands that don’t intersect any surface water body are classified as isolated. Detailed coding was developed in an effort to differentiate intermittent, artificial, and perennial connections between wetlands and other surface waterbodies. Any wetland classified as lentic (Landscape Position) is automatically assigned a water flow path of bidirectional, accounting for the tidal effects of lakes on adjacent wetlandsLandform1A secondary code used to determine type of floodplain and if a vegetated wetland is associated with a pond. Associated w/Pond (pd) Basin (ba) Flat (fl)Landscape1Field used to display if a wetland falls within a Headwater area Headwater (hw)HMValuesAll function Values combined to perform the count.FunCountNumber of Functions each wetland could be performing.FloodWaterStorageFunction field for Flood Water Storage H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateStreamflowMaintenanceFunction field for Streamflow Maintenance H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateNutrientTransformationFunction field for Nutrient TransformationH (2) = High M (1) = ModerateSedimentRetentionFunction field for Sediment Retention H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateShorelineStabilizationFunction field for Shoreline Stabilization H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateFishHabitatFunction field for Fish Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateStreamShadingFunction field for Stream Shading H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateWaterfowlWaterbirdHabitatFunction field for Waterfowl and Water Bird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateShorebirdHabitatFunction field for Shorebird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateInteriorForestBirdHabitatFunction field for Interior Forest Bird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateAmphibianHabitatFunction field for Amphibian Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateCORIWetlandsSpeciesFunction field for Conservation of Rare Imperiled Wetland Speices H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateGroundWaterInfluenceFunction field for Ground Water Influence H (2) = High M (1) = ModerateCarbonSequestrationFunction field for Carbon Sequestration H (2) = High M (1) = ModeratePathogenRententionFunction field for Pathogen Retention 1 = Wetlands that intersect 303d listed streams, 2 = Wetlands within a 500 ft buffer of 303d streams, 3 Streams that intersect wetlands that filter Pathogens, 4 wetlands within a 500 ft buffer that filter pathogens. For historical wetlands this would be showing best areas to do potential restoration.For more information about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

This map presents the percentage of Coastal Wetlands that are protected for each state or province in the Great Lakes Basin (except Québec, due to data limitations). The percentages vary from a high of 91% to a low of 4%, but the number of coastal wetland acres also varies widely. The five states with the highest total wetland acreage have protected between 37% and 54% of coastal wetlands, while Ontario has protected 17%. *Coastal Wetlands defined here as connected to the Great Lakes and >2 ha (5 acres) in size.Data SourcesWe used the following database for coastal wetland area:Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands 2004 Polygons (Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium): https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CWC-GreatLakesCoastalWetlandsInventory-Metadata.pdf We used the following databases for protected area: Nature Conservancy Canada (data agreement) Commission for Environmental Cooperation (databasin.org)- Canada Protected Terrestrial Areas 2012 (Ontario)Ontario GeoHub- Ontario Federal Protected Lands (Ontario) 2018:PAD-US (Protected Areas Database of the U.S.) 2018. CARL (Conservation and Recreation Lands) 2017. Feature Service for Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Great Lakes Atlantic Region (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa). This layer contains fee lands, preserves, designated lands and other protected lands. This layer does not contain easements.Consultations with regional land experts (The Nature Conservancy GIS Managers) for the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.

This map allows users to view coastal wetland investments in protection, restoration, and enhancement projects across the Great Lakes basin. This is not a comprehensive inventory of coastal wetland investments and relevant data sets will continue to be incorporated as they are identified. Please click on the links below the map frame for more information on individual data sets. When using these data sets, please credit the original data provider.GLRI projects were downloaded 9/14/18 from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's web map, "Coastal Wetland Project Sites Fiscal Year 2010 Through 2017." Monitoring, Assessment, and Planning projects are not included in the coastal wetland database. Coastal wetland projects that lacked a hydrologic connection to the Great Lakes were removed. Overall, 51 projects that did not meet the Blue Accounting coastal wetland project criteria were removed from the original data set. 2018 and 2019 GLRI coastal wetland projects were then filtered out of the GLRI project map and added to the database. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's HabITS data from 2010-2019 within a 5mile buffer of the Great Lakes shoreline is included in the database through a data sharing agreement between The Great Lake Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Overall 14 projects were not included in the database from the 5 mile clip that did not meet BA's criteria as a protection, restoration or enhancement coastal wetland project. Investment projects that list USFWS as the data source have been spatially aggregated to the correlating county shoreline unit to protect private landowner information. Additional data sources include United States Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Coldwater Consulting LLC and The City of Racine, Wisconsin. Location Accuracy: coastal wetland project locations may have errors or may reflect the recipient entities' physical location. The precision category definitions clarify confidence of location accuracy. Some project locations were reassigned from the original EPA database to more accurately reflect the coastal wetland project location based on the EPA’s project description, the recipient organization's website and ESRI satellite imagery. Fields: Project Title: title of coastal wetland project.Recipient: recipient entity that received funding for the stated coastal wetland project.Recipient Category: recipient data that is grouped into seven categories (Federal, State, County, Regional Commission, Municipal, Tribal and Non-Profit).Project Description: description of coastal wetland project.Funding Amount: funding amount for coastal wetland project.Latitude: coordinate of the coastal wetland project.Longitude: coordinate of the coastal wetland project.Project Start Date: the date the project began or is planned to begin.Project End Date: the date the project work ended or is planned to end.Project Award End Year: the year the project work ended or is planned to end.Project Acreage: Individual project acreage. Unknown is chosen for all projects that did not disclose individual project acreage.Lake: Great Lake in which the coastal wetland project takes place.County: county in which the coastal wetland project takes place.State: state in which the coastal wetland project takes place.Congressional District: congressional district in which the coastal wetland project takes place.County: the county in which the coastal wetland project takes place. Funder: the entity that funded the coastal wetland project.Funding Type: funding data that is grouped into five categories (Federal, State, County, Regional Commission, Municipal, Tribal and Non-Profit).Protection: project type that applies that is defined as any acquisition of land that protects coastal wetlands.Enhancement: project type that is defined as activities conducted within an existing coastal wetland that increase ecosystem function(s).Invasive Control: sub category for project type "Enhancement" where invasive species treatment and/or removal is conducted.Restoration: project type that applies to projects in which a non-wetland area (e.g., farm field) is restored to be a coastal wetland. Hydrologic Restoration: sub category for project type “restoration” in which a hydrologic connection is restored.Shoreline Softening: sub category for project type “restoration” in which hardened shoreline is converted to natural shoreline. Socio-Economic Benefit: additional project type category that generalizes projects with a socio-economic benefit. Such as, Recreation, Fisheries, Employment and Ecosystem Services. Project Type: combined category for Protection, Enhancement, Invasive Control, Restoration, Hydrologic Restoration and Shoreline Softening. Note: if project type is a sub-category only the sub-category is identified. Multiple Project Locations: a "Yes" or "No" value is assigned for multiple projects. "Yes" is assigned when there are multiple project locations listed in the project description.Location Precision: Values are assigned based on the precision scale defined as the following-High: project site is displayed and accurate based on EPA database project description, recipient organization’s website and Esri satellite imagery.Medium: Location is within the correct county and congressional district for at least one of the listed projects but may not represent the exact project location.Low: project is on the right lakeshore for at least one of the listed project locations, but county/congressional district could be incorrect.Site ID: All projects are assigned a Site ID that correlate to the Object ID of the original projects in the EPA’s “Coastal wetland project sites fiscal year 2010 through 2017” layer.Data Source: data source defines the data provider for the given coastal wetland project.The three data sources are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan Coastal Management Program, and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. More data sources will be identified as additional entities provide coastal wetlands investment data.Project Contact: Y/N category for if a project contact has been identified. Contact information will be stored in a related table and unavailable publicly. Verification Status: Verified/Unverified category describes if the coastal wetlands project has been verified by Blue Accounting. Unverified projects have been submitted by a public user and are pending verification by Blue Accounting (these are not shown on the map).

The Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Inventory was developed through the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium (GLCWC) as a bi-national initiative to create a single, hydrogeomorphically classified inventory of all coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes basin. This inventory is built upon the most comprehensive coastal wetland data currently available for the Great Lakes and connecting channels. For the U.S., National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI); Ohio Wetland Inventory (OWI); and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reports and corresponding topographic maps by Charles E. Herdendorf which describe coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin (Herdendorf Wetland Inventory, HWI); are the major datasets included. Additional wetland projects were utilized for each lake if available. The Canadian dataset is built off 'The Ontario Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Atlas'. Published in March 2003, this document summarized all known data to-date for coastal wetlands and identifies numerous data gaps in the current information. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) digital Evaluated Wetlands polygon data provided the spatial extents for digital wetland boundaries where available. Data gaps have been filled in using air photograph interpretation following National Biological Service guidelines, and digitization techniques following GLCWC guidelines. The inventory contains the spatial extents, hydrogeomorphic classification, name, centroid position and area measurement for all known coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes basin. Hydrological modifiers imposing on each system are also identified. Hydrogeomorphology dictates wetland delineations per criteria developed by the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium (GLCWC) working group and described in the Great Lake Commission's (GLC) Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Classification First Revision (July 2003; original November 2001). These data are not intended for use finer than scale of sources used. The Inventory includes both a point, GLCWC_CWI and polygon coverage, GLCWC_CWI_pt. The orginial polygon layer was converted to a 30m gridded (by cell center) product by HGM Class 1 to work with the GLAHF framework.

The purpose of "Ecological Diversity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests" is to determine the ecological diversity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests of northern Lower Michigan by determining the occurence of landscape ecosystems at several hierachical spatial scales to determine the major wetland ecosystems, provide examples of local wetland ecosystems, and map their pattern of occurence to determine how well the areas designated as potential old growth forests represent the ecological diversity of the forests, and to provide and overall conceptual model for the study of ecological diversity of large landscapes.

The overall goal is to characterize the ecological diversity of the Huron-Manistee National Forest, an area of over 800,000 acres in the northern part of lower Michigan. In particular, to examine the extent to which the 173,000 acres of old-growth lands tentatively set aside respresent the full range of ecological diversity.

Collection Organization: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources & Environment

Collection Methodology: The approach is to study the existing regional and local classifications of the area and determine kinds and patterns of landscape ecosystems within selected levels of these classifications, to determine the amount of old growth forest in each classification unit and unique ecosystems that should be set aside as old growth, to examine and sample dryland and wetland ecosystems throughout the forests and develop a classification of wetland ecosystems for the area, map local areas to illustrate the fine-scale diversity of landscape ecosystems. In the field transects were run and sampled, and sample plots were established and sampled.

Collection Frequency: Data collected at different places in field seasons: 1992, 1993, 1994.

Update Characteristics: No data update. Analyses have been performed on field data.

LANGUAGE:

English ACCESS/AVAILABILITY:

Data Center: University of Michigan Dissemination Media: Hard copy (notes/data taken in field); also exists on plot forms, and student computer disks Access Instructions: Contact the data center. Access Restrictions: None

The NWI 2005 was an update to the original 1978 NWI Layer produced by US Fish and Wildlife Service, and utilized 1998 and 2005 imagery to map wetland loss/change over time. Classification of wetlands is based on the Cowardin Wetland Classification system with a minimum mapping unit of 1/10 acre. Wetland data produced by interpreting aerial imagery and digitizing boundaries in a heads up GIS environment. The most current up to date statewide wetland inventory for Michigan available as of 2020. NWI 2015 update is currently in progress in a partnership between EGLE and Ducks Unlimited, with expected statewide completion in 2025.

Field Name

Descriptions

NWICode

The wetland classification codes are a series of letter and number codes that have been developed to adapt the national wetland classification system to map form. These alpha-numeric codes correspond to the classification nomenclature that best describes a particular wetland habitat. For example, PFO1A = Palustrine (P), Forested (FO), Broad-leaved Deciduous (1), Temporarily Flooded (A).

Acres

Size of the wetland.

WETLAND_TYPE

Written description of the wetland type.

For questions about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

Hydric soils indicate a current or former wetland condition, and for this layer, hydric inclusions (>15% hydric soils) were not added to the layer, while hydric complexes (<15% hydric soils) were included. This is a statewide layer that can be used as one resource in identifying current or former wetland areas. United States Department of Agriculture-National Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) Soils were used as the base dataset and hydric soil types were queried out on a county by county basis in a GIS environment. USDA-NRCS State Soil Scientists provided the hydric soil types in Excel table format by county, and Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams unit (WLSU) produced this layer from that official list.

Field Name

Descriptions

CoverType

This is the approximate historical landcover type. This data was pulled from the land 1800 Michigan Natural Features Inventory dataset. Its typcially used as part of the Landscape Level Wetland Functional Assesement.

MapUnitSymbol

Map unit symbol is an attribute that tracks the type of soil. This code can be used to look up information for a partical soil.

Acres

Size of the hydric soil polygon.

AreaSymbol

County code for location of the polygon.

AreaName

Name of the county in which the soil is found.

MapUnitCode

A symbol used to uniquely identify the soil map unit in the soil survey

MapUnitName

Correlated name of the mapunit (recommended name or field name for surveys in progress).

Component

Name assigned to a component based on its range of properties. Local Phase - Phase criterion to be used at a local level, in conjunction with "component name" to help identify a soil component.

Representation

The percentage of the component of the mapunit.

Landforms

A word or group of words used to name a feature on the earth's surface, expressed in the plural form.

HydricRating

A yes/no field that indicates whether or not a map unit component is classified as a "hydric soil". If rated as hydric, the specific criteria met are listed in the Component Hydric Criteria table. Because this data is a hydric layer all will be yes

HydricCriteria

Criterion code for the soil characteristic(s) and/or feature(s) that cause the map unit component to be classified as a "hydric soil." These codes are the paragraph numbers in the hydric soil criteria publication.

NWIWater

The approximated National Wetland Inventory water regime code assigned to this soil type. This was done as part of the Landscape Level Functional Assessment.

NWICode

Code generated from the landcover type and NWI water field. The approximated National Wetland Inventory Code approximated for this historic landcover.

HGMCode

Code for the Landscape Level Assessment. Combines each of the coded types. For example TEBAVR = Terrene Basin Vertical Flow

Landform

The type of geological feature in which the wetland resides. Slope (SL) Wetlands occurring on a slope of 5% or greater. Island (IS) A wetland completely surrounded by water. Fringe (FR) Wetland occurs in the shallow water zone of a permanent waterbody. *NWI water regime F, G, and H Floodplain (FP) Wetland occurs on an active alluvial plain along a river and some streams. *Modifiers FPba (Basin) and FPfl ( Flat) Basin (BA) Wetland occurs in a distinct depression. *NWI water regime C and E Flat (FL) Wetland occurs on a nearly level landform. *NWI water regime A and B

Landscape_Position

Landscape position values are determined by cross referencing NWI with hydrology and topography. NWI polygons that spatially intersect a stream/river in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) are classified as lotic. Lotic type wetlands can be further refined to indicate their adjacency to a stream or a river (lotic stream or lotic river). High resolution NHD data was used to differentiate rivers from streams in this analysis. A NHD classification completed by MDNR, Institute for Fisheries Research separated rivers by temperature gradient (cold, cool, warm) and size, based on average water flows (cubic feet per second or CFS). This dataset was used in the LLWFA analysis to mark this distinction. NWI Polygons that are determined to be within the basin of a lake are classified as lentic. Identifying the extent of a lake basin, and thus which wetlands fall within it, is done with the assistance of digital elevation models (DEM). NWI Polygons that don’t intersect surface water features or aren’t spatially located within a lake basin are classified as terrene

Waterbody_Type

Waterbody type classification is the simplest of the 4 LLWW descriptors. Ponds, lakes, and rivers are classified as such based explicitly on NWI Cowardin code. Lakes and ponds were separated at the 5-acre mark, all open-water polygons less than or equal to 5 acres were classified as ponds, while all open-water polygons larger than 5 acres were classified as lakes. The 5 acre cutoff was chosen to remain consistent with previously existing EGLE regulations. High resolution NHD data was used to differentiate rivers from streams in this analysis. A NHD classification completed by MDNR, Institute for Fisheries Research separated rivers by temperature gradient (cold, cool, warm) and size, based on average water flows (CFS) This dataset was used in the LLWFA analysis to mark this distinction.

Waterflow_Path

Water flow path, otherwise known as hydrodynamics, is classified by automated and manual interpretation of the intersection of NHD surface water features and NWI. Automated methods include intersecting NHD and NWI to capture throughflow wetlands (in-stream wetlands), both natural and artificial. A distinction is drawn in NHD between natural stream/river features and artificial canal/ditch features. Vegetated NWI wetlands that don’t intersect any surface water body are classified as isolated. Detailed coding was developed in an effort to differentiate intermittent, artificial, and perennial connections between wetlands and other surface waterbodies. Any wetland classified as lentic (Landscape Position) is automatically assigned a water flow path of bidirectional, accounting for the tidal effects of lakes on adjacent wetlands

Landform1

A secondary code used to determine type of floodplain and if a vegetated wetland is associated with a pond. Associated w/Pond (pd) Basin (ba) Flat (fl)

Landscape1

Field used to display if a wetland falls within a Headwater area Headwater (hw)

LLWFAComments

Field used to make notes during the LLWFA coding process.

HMValues

All function Values combined to perform the count.

FunCount

Number of Functions each wetland could be performing.

VegOrNotVeg

Is the wetland vegetated or open water (non veg).

FloodWaterStorage

Function field for Flood Water Storage H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

StreamflowMaintenance

Function field for Streamflow Maintenance H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

NutrientTransformation

Function field for Nutrient TransformationH (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

SedimentRetention

Function field for Sediment Retention H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

ShorelineStabailization

Function field for Shoreline Stabilization H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

FishHabitat

Function field for Fish Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

StreamShading

Function field for Stream Shading H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

WaterfowlWaterbirdHabitat

Function field for Waterfowl and Water Bird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

ShorebirdHabitat

Function field for Shorebird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

InteriorForestBirdHabitat

Function field for Interior Forest Bird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

AmphibianHabitat

Function field for Amphibian Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

GroundWaterInfluence

Function field for Ground Water InfluenceH (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

CarbonSequestration

Function field for Carbon Sequestration H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

PathogenRetention

Function field for Pathogen Retention 1 = Wetlands that intersect 303d listed streams, 2 = Wetlands within a 500 ft buffer of 303d streams, 3 Streams that intersect wetlands that filter Pathogens, 4 wetlands within a 500 ft buffer that filter pathogens. For historical wetlands this would be showing best areas to do potential restoration.

The hydric soils polygons are not updated, however attributes will be updated when Landcape Level Wetland Functional data is completed.For questions about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

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. More information can be found here: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/water-resources/wetlands/mitigationField NameDescriptionsWatershedIdNumberNumber 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-bankingWatershedNameName 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).

This table includes the code definitions for the Attribute field in the National Wetlands Inventory LLWFA dataset. This field consists of several sub-codes that interact with one another to produce thousands of possible values. By joining this table to the NWI LLWFA data for Southeast Michigan (available for download as the "Southeast Michigan Wetlands" layer in SEMCOG's Open Data Portal), it is possible to associate all of the relevant sub-code defiitions with each wetland feature.

All data was constructed from legal meets and bounds on file at Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). Our hope is that this data set will be used by others to protect, conserve, and construct wetlands around the state. This EGLE digitized field map of the conservation easements (easement) is intended to be used as a visual aid to assist in identifying in general the size, shape, and location of the easement boundaries. The locations are based upon land surveys that have been converted to a geographic information system. Some of the easement shapefiles had to be manipulated to reference known landmarks (roads, rivers) as depicted on aerial photos to best reflect the areas the easements were intended to cover. Therefore, since accuracy of the data may vary, all polygons should be used to approximate the easement boundary lines and should not be used to determine jurisdictional boundaries.

Field Name

Description

Acres

Size of each conservation easement polygon.

MappingDate

Approximate date that the easement polygon was created/mapped.

FileNumber

Conservation Easement number and or name used to track and find each easement. This number can be searched in MiEnviro for more information on the Easement.

County

County in which the conservation easement is located.

Township

Township and or City in which the easement is located.

For questions about the data contact: Jeremy Jones (jonesj28@michigan.gov) or Jeff Bridgland (bridglandJ@michigan.gov).

This layer displays several key factors relevant to the siting of large-scale solar power and combines them, demonstrating the “suitability” of regions within Michigan to this technology. The purpose of this tool is to aid proactive planning and zoning for local governments by highlighting the quantity and location of areas of potential development interest. The suitability models were created using the Suitability Modeler in ArcGIS Pro for both solar and wind energy. These models were based on the Geospatial Energy Mapper (GEM) but have been enhanced with higher-resolution data and modifications tailored to Michigan's landscape. The key factors involved are land use type, land slope, distance to substations, and population density. For land use type, each type was assigned a suitability score by the creators. These four factors are then weighted based on total relevance to energy development, also assigned by the creators, to ultimately produce a total suitability score. The creators determined land use type scores and weighting based on research, peer feedback, and general experience with energy siting. Notably, this map does not include solar potential/solar insolation due to relative consistency across the state, which led to the decreased distinction between other key factors, reducing the utility of this tool for local governments to plan and zone with. An additional layer of high voltage transmission lines is included for further relevant context, though this is not involved in the suitability score.

Model Parameters (Modified upon GEM models): Utility Scale PV (Solar)

Parameters

Weight

Slope

2

Land Cover

4

Population Density

1

Distance to substation

3

Data Sources and Model Weighting:

Slope (Land Fire slope)SUITABILITYRANGE/CLASS1000 - 1%902%903%304%105%16 - 10%0≥ 11% Land Cover (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium – CONUS 2021)GEM - Solar REA - solarSUITABILITYRANGE/CLASS SUITABILITYRANGE/CLASS100Unclassified (0) 0Unclassified (0)1Open Water (11) 0Open Water (11)10Perennial Snow/Ice (12) 0Perennial Snow/Ice (12)75Developed, Open Space (21) 0Developed, Open Space (21)75Developed, Low Intensity (22) 0Developed, Low Intensity (22)75Developed, Medium Intensity (23) 0Developed, Medium Intensity (23)75Developed, High Intensity (24) 0Developed, High Intensity (24)100Barren Land (31) 50Barren Land (31)50Deciduous Forest (41) 0Deciduous Forest (41)50Evergreen Forest (42) 0Evergreen Forest (42)50Mixed Forest 0Mixed Forest90Shrub/Scrub (52) 90Herbaceous (71)90Hay/Pasture (81) 100Hay/Pasture (81)90Cultivated Crops (82) 100Cultivated Crops (82)40Woody Wetlands (90) 0Woody Wetlands (90) Distance to Substation (220 to 345kV) (ArcGIS Substations)SUITABILITYRANGE/CLASS1000 - 1 miles901 - 5 miles755 - 10 miles50Over 10 miles Population Density (GPW v4 Population Density)SUITABILITYRANGE/CLASS75101 - 15050151 - 20025201 - 3000301 and higher0No Data

For any questions, please contact Ian O’Leary at olearyi@michigan.gov, or reference the Renewable Energy Academy website to see how EGLE offers technical assistance for renewable energy.

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