Geospatial data about Oakland County, Michigan Lot Lines. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Property Gateway is a leading-edge Internet tool built to provide free and fee-based online access to Oakland County's land and property information including tax parcel reports and maps. Reports and maps can be purchased via a credit card transaction; recurring users request a business account. Visit Property Gateway, HERE.

Parcel boundary from Kent County GIS Data Library, available at https://www.accesskent.com/GISLibrary/.This data is used in the North Kent Disposal Area PFAS web map. If you have questions regarding the North Kent Disposal Area site contact Karen Vorce at 616-439-8008 or vorcek@michigan.gov.

Online mapping application showing parcels in Eaton County, Michigan, USA. Parcels are not currently survey-grade and are useful only as a general reference. For important decisions regarding property lines, a land surveyor should be consulted.

Oakland County's public-facing parcel viewer. Oakland County staff and CVTs can request free accounts by contacting the Oakland County Service Center (servicecenter@oakgov.com, 248-858-8812). More information about the products available in Property Gateway can be found here: https://www.oakgov.com/propertygateway/Pages/default.aspx.

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

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

Spatial Reference: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

This 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

Location of different zoning codes in the city of Detroit, Michigan. Parcels sharing the same zoning code have been dissolved together, but remain separated by street boundaries. A comprehensive list of zoning code descriptions is contained in the attribute table. Data are from 2010 and may not reflect changes in the zoning code of parcels.Click here for metadata.

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.

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Isle Royale National Park and Vicinity, Michigan is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (isro_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (isro_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (isro_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) A GIS readme file (isro_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (isro_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (isro_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the isro_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (isro_geology_metadata.txt or isro_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:62,500 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 31.8 meters or 104.2 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

In 2009, Data Driven Detroit partnered with Living Cities, the Detroit Office of Foreclosure Prevention and Response and Community Legal Resources (Michigan Community Resources) to conduct a survey of 1-4 unit residential structures and vacant lots in the City of Detroit. Surveyors went out in the field in August and September of 2009, and following this, data were entered into a database and cleaned. The survey collected information on property type, condition, vacancy, danger to the surrounding community, fire damage, and improvements on vacant lots.For more information on the DRPS, including aggregations and maps of the original data, please visit www.detroitparcelsurvey.org.Upon request, field description metadata is also available for this dataset.

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

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.

Download In State Plane Projection Here. This is our working version of the Lake County boundary. Although technically the county's eastern border extends eastward into Lake Michigan to the state line where Illinois meets Michigan, we routinely use the Lake Michigan shoreline as our eastern boundary for mapping purposes. The north, west and south boundaries are based on a compilation of survey data which aligns well, but not perfectly, with the border as mapped by neighboring counties and the State of Wisconsin, which forms the northern boundary of the county. Update Frequency: This dataset is updated on a weekly basis.

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.

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

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.

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

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/ .

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