NOTE TO USERS -- There may be disruption to this dataset between March 19 to March 29 related to an upgrade. Do not use this data to make zoning determinations. This data does not show all zoning regulations for an address, including overlays and situations where an address has more than one zoning. Also, the data may be out of date. Use the interactive mapping application https://maps.austintexas.gov/GIS/PropertyProfile/ to make zoning determinations, and call 311 if you have questions about zoning. Zoning only applies to addresses within the City of Austin city limits. This dataset is a list of addresses with their zoning provided to answer questions such as "what property addresses have CS zoning." This data is derived from GIS layer for address and zoning. The place_id field is provided for linking to the addresses GIS layer. This product is produced by the City of Austin for informational purposes. No warranty is made they City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness.

Parcel Viewer makes searching for King County parcel information easy. You can search by address, search by parcel number, or you can just zoom in on the map and click on a parcel. Once a parcel is selected, you will get direct links to the King County Assessor’s eReal Property report and the Districts and Development Conditions report.

Land cover has been interpreted from Satellite images and field checked, other information has been digitized from topographic maps

 Members informations:
 Attached Vector(s):
  MemberID: 1
 Vector Name: Land use
 Source Map Name: SPOT Pan
 Source Map Scale: 50000
 Source Map Date: 1989/90
 Projection: Polyconic on Modified Everest Ellipsoid
 Feature_type: polygon
 Vector 
 Land use maps, interpreted from SPOT panchromatic imagery and field
 checked (18 classes)

 Members informations:
 Attached Vector(s):
  MemberID: 2
 Vector Name: Administrative boundaries
 Source Map Name: topo sheets
 Source Map Scale: 50000
 Source Map Date: ?
 Feature_type: polygon
 Vector 
 Dzongkhags (Districts) and Gewogs

 Members informations:
 Attached Vector(s):
  MemberID: 3
 Vector Name: Roads
 Source Map Name: topo sheets
 Source Map Scale: 50000
 Source Map Date: ?
 Feature_type: lines
 Vector 
 Road network

 Attached Report(s)
 Member ID: 4
 Report Name: Atlas of Bhutan
 Report Authors: Land use planning section
 Report Publisher: Ministry of Agriculture, Thimpu
 Report Date: 1997-06-01
 Report 
 Land cover (1:250000) and area statistics of 20 Dzongkhags

This map is one of a series of soil landscape maps that are intended for all of central and eastern NSW, based on standard 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 topographic sheets. The map provides an inventory of soil and landscape properties of the area and identifies major soil and landscape qualities and constraints. It integrates soil and topographic features into single units with relatively uniform land management requirements. Soils are described in terms of soil materials in addition to the Great Soil Group and Northcote classification systems. The Cooma 1:100,000 map sheet covers the Peak View, Kybeyan, Rock Flat and Chakola areas. Online Maps: This dataset can be viewed using eSPADE (NSW’s soil spatial viewer), which contains a suite of soil and landscape information including soil profile data. Many of these datasets have hot-linked soil reports. An alternative viewer is the SEED Map; an ideal way to see what other natural resources datasets (e.g. vegetation) are available for this map area. Reference: Tulau M.J., 1994, Soil Landscapes of the Cooma 1:100,000 Sheet map and report, NSW Department of Conservation and Land Management, Sydney. Data and Resources

7.5 Minute Digital Elevation Model for the state of Arizona. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is the terminology adopted by the USGS to describe terrain elevation data sets in a digital raster form. The standard DEM consists of a regular array of elevations cast on a designated coordinate projection system. The DEM data are stored as a series of profiles in which the spacing of the elevations along and between each profile is in regular whole number intervals. The normal orientation of data is by columns and rows. Each column contains a series of elevations ordered from south to north with the order of the columns from west to east. The DEM is formatted as one ASCII header record (A-record), followed by a series of profile records (B-records) each of which include a short B-record header followed by a series of ASCII integer elevations per each profile. The last physical record of the DEM is an accuracy record (C-record). The DEM for 7.5-minute units correspond to the USGS 1:24000 scale topographic quadrangle map series for all of the United States and its territories. Each 7.5 minute DEM is based on 30- by 30-meter data spacing with Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM) projection. Each 7.5- by 7.5-minute block provides the same coverage as the standard USGS 7.5-minute map series.

The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.

COMPLETED 2010. The data was converted from the most recent (2010) versions of the adopted plans, which can be found at https://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/planning/plans/ Supplemental Information: In March 2010, Pima Association of Governments (PAG), in cooperation with the City of Tucson (City), initiated the Planned Land Use Data Conversion Project. This 9-month effort involved evaluating mapped land use designations and selected spatially explicit policies for nearly 50 of the City's adopted neighborhood, area, and subregional plans and converting the information into a Geographic Information System (GIS) format. Further documentation for this file can be obtained from the City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department or Pima Association of Governments Technical Services. A brief summary report was provided, as requested, to the City of Tucson which highlights some of the key issues found during the conversion process (e.g., lack of mapping and terminology consistency among plans). The feature class "Plan_boundaries" represents the boundaries of the adopted plans. The feature class "Plan_mapped_land_use" represents the land use designations as they are mapped in the adopted plans. Some information was gathered that is implicit based on the land use designation or zones (see field descriptions below). Since this information is not explicitly stated in the plans, it should only be viewed by City staff for general planning purposes. The feature class "Plan_selected_policies" represents the spatially explicit policies that were fairly straightforward to map. Since these policies are not represented in adopted maps, this feature class should only be viewed by City staff for general planning purposes only. 2010 - created by Jamison Brown, working as an independent contractor for Pima Association of Governments, created this file in 2010 by digitizing boundaries as depicted (i.e. for the mapped land use) or described in the plans (i.e. for the narrative policies). In most cases, this involved tracing based on parcel (paregion) or street center line (stnetall) feature classes. Snapping was used to provide line coincidence. For some map conversions, freehand sketches were drawn to mimick the freehand sketches in the adopted plan. Field descriptions Field descriptions for the "Plan_boundaries" feature class: Plan_Name: Plan name Plan_Type: Plan type (e.g., Neighborhood Plan) Plan_Num: Plan number ADOPT_DATE: Date of Plan adoption IMPORTANT: A disclaimer about the data as it is unofficial. URL: Uniform Resource Locator Field descriptions for the "Plan_mapped_land_use" feature class: Plan_Name: Plan name Plan_Type: Plan type (e.g., Neighborhood Plan) Plan_Num: Plan number LU_DES: Land use designation (e.g., Low density residential) LISTED_ALLOWABLE_ZONES: Allowable zones as listed in the Plan LISTED_RAC_MIN: Minimum residences per acre (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_RAC_TARGET: Target residences per acre (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_RAC_MAX: Maximum residences per acre (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_FAR_MIN: Minimum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_FAR_TARGET: Target Floor Area Ratio (if applicable), as listed in the Plan LISTED_FAR_MAX: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable), as listed in the Plan BUILDING_HEIGHT_MAX Building height maximum (ft.) if determined by Plan policy IMPORTANT: A disclaimer about the data as it is unofficial. URL: Uniform Resource Locator IMPLIED_ALLOWABLE_ZONES: Implied (not listed in the Plan) allowable zones IMPLIED_RAC_MIN: Implied (not listed in the Plan) minimum residences per acre (if applicable) IMPLIED_RAC_TARGET: Implied (not listed in the Plan) target residences per acre (if applicable) IMPLIED_RAC_MAX: Implied (not listed in the Plan) maximum residences per acre (if applicable) IMPLIED_FAR_MIN: Implied (not listed in the Plan) minimum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable) IMPLIED_FAR_TARGET: Implied (not listed in the Plan) target Floor Area Ratio (if applicable) IMPLIED_FAR_MAX: Implied (not listed in the Plan) maximum Floor Area Ratio (if applicable) IMPLIED_LU_CATEGORY: Implied (not listed in the Plan) general land use category. General categories used include residential, office, commercial, industrial, and other.PurposeLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Dataset ClassificationLevel 0 - OpenKnown UsesThis layer is intended to be used in the City of Tucson's Open Data portal and not for regular use in ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Enterprise or other web applications.Known ErrorsLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Data ContactJohn BeallCity of Tucson Development Services520-791-5550John.Beall@tucsonaz.govUpdate FrequencyLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

The analyst downloaded the raw data used to develop this dataset from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Pursuant to statutory guidelines under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), the DEQ is required to “post on its website an inventory of residential closures and a separate inventory of other known facilities.” For the purposes of this dataset, “residential closures”have not been included; these were submitted to the DEQ in a No Further Action Report and satisfy remediation standards for Residential Facilities. All“other known facilities” available are included in the Inventory of Facilities dataset that serves as the foundation for this layer.

The Inventory of Facilities includes all locations where there have been a release of hazardous substances as defined under multiple subsets of NREPA. Although this list is commonly referred to as Brownfields, it can contain other types of designations including but not limited to: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), Baseline Environmental Site Assessments (BEAs) and Environmental Site Assessments. Each of these designations requires further action, and the sites are pursuing cleanup in conjunction with the DEQ.

It is also important to mention that this inventory does not necessarily include every facility that is subject to NREPA’s guidelines, since owners are not required to inform the DEQ about the facilities and can pursue cleanup independently. Facilities that are not known to the DEQ are not on the inventory, nor are locations with releases that resulted in little or no environmental impact.Metadata associated with this file includes field description metadata and a narrative summary detailing the creation of this dataset.For more information about the Motor City Mapping project, please visit www.motorcitymapping.org.

THIS ITEM IS PUBLIC AND READ ONLYThe Property feature layer is a spatial inventory of miscellaneous property features on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands that has not been included in other facility related layers. This is a read-only, public AGOL View of FWS_HQ_Fac_Property_Pt. Content can be added/edited by joining the FWS Asset Editing Group if a member of the FWS Organization. This public view only shows records that meet the following criteria:Record Status = "Valid"Public Viewable = "Yes"Data Set Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resource Program Center, GIS Team Lead, richard_easterbrook@fws.govU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Catalog (ServCat) Record - https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/140661

The Unpublished Digital Surficial Geologic-GIS Map of Tuzigoot National Monument, Arizona is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables in a 10.1 file geodatabase (clar_surficial_geology.gdb), a 10.1 ArcMap (.MXD) map document (clar_surficial_geology.mxd), individual 10.1 layer (.LYR) files for each GIS data layer, an ancillary map information (.PDF) document (moca_tuzi_geology.pdf) which contains source map unit descriptions, as well as other source map text, figures and tables, metadata in FGDC text (.TXT) and FAQ (.HTML) formats, and a GIS readme file (moca_tuzi_geology_gis_readme.pdf). Please read the moca_tuzi_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the file geodatabase and other map files. To request GIS data in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format contact Stephanie O'Meara (stephanie.omeara@colostate.edu; see contact information below). The data is also available as a 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. Google Earth software is available for free at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. 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). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: Arizona 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 (clar_surficial_geology_metadata_faq.html; available at http://nrdata.nps.gov/geology/gri_data/gis/tuzi/clar_surficial_geology_metadata_faq.html). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 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 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: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone 12N, however, for the KML/KMZ format the data is projected upon export to WGS84 Geographic, the native coordinate system used by Google Earth. The data is within the area of interest of Tuzigoot National Monument.

The Unpublished Digital Geologic Map of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and Vicinity, Alaska is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables in a 10.1 file geodatabase (bela_geology.gdb), a 10.1 ArcMap (.MXD) map document (bela_geology.mxd), individual 10.1 layer (.LYR) files for each GIS data layer, an ancillary map information (.PDF) document (bela_geology.pdf) which contains source map unit descriptions, as well as other source map text, figures and tables, metadata in FGDC text (.TXT) and FAQ (.HTML) formats, and a GIS readme file (bela_gis_readme.pdf). Please read the bela_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the file geodatabase and other map files. To request GIS data in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format contact Stephanie O’Meara (stephanie.omeara@colostate.edu; see contact information below). The data is also available as a 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. Google Earth software is available for free at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. 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). 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 (bela_metadata_faq.html; available at http://nrdata.nps.gov/geology/gri_data/gis/bela/bela_metadata_faq.html). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:500,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 254 meters or 833.3 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 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. 2.2. (available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone AD_1983_Alaska_AlbersN, however, for the KML/KMZ format the data is projected upon export to WGS84 Geographic, the native coordinate system used by Google Earth. The data is within the area of interest of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.

Terms of Use:

Data Limitations Disclaimer

The MassDEP Estimated Sewer System Service Area Boundaries datalayer may not be complete, may contain errors, omissions, and other inaccuracies, and the data are subject to change. The user’s use of and/or reliance on the information contained in the Document (e.g. data) shall be at the user’s own risk and expense. MassDEP disclaims any responsibility for any loss or harm that may result to the user of this data or to any other person due to the user’s use of the Document.

All sewer service area delineations are estimates for broad planning purposes and should only be used as a guide. The data is not appropriate for site-specific or parcel-specific analysis. Not all properties within a sewer service area are necessarily served by the system, and some properties outside the mapped service areas could be served by the wastewater utility – please contact the relevant wastewater system. Not all service areas have been confirmed by the sewer system authorities.

This is an ongoing data development project. Attempts have been made to contact all sewer/wastewater systems, but not all have responded with information on their service area. MassDEP will continue to collect and verify this information. Some sewer service areas included in this datalayer have not been verified by the POTWs, privately-owned treatment works, GWDPs, or the municipality involved, but since many of those areas are based on information published online by the municipality, the utility, or in a publicly available report, they are included in the estimated sewer service area datalayer.

Please use the following citation to reference these data

MassDEP. Water Utility Resilience Program. 2025. Publicly-Owned Treatment Work and Non-Publicly-Owned Sewer Service Areas (PubV2024_12).

We want to learn about the data uses. If you use this dataset, please notify staff in the Water Resilience program (WURP@mass.gov).

Layers and Tables:

The MassDEP Estimated Sewer System Service Area data layer comprises two feature classes and a supporting table:

Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Sewer Service Areas feature class SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_POTW_POLY includes polygon features for sewer service areas systems operated by publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)Non-Publicly Owned Treatment Works (NON-POTW) Sewer Service Areas feature class SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_NONPOTW_POLY includes polygon features for sewer service areas for operated by NON publicly owned treatment works (NON-POTWs)The Sewer Service Areas Unlocated Sites table SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_USL contains a list of known, unmapped active POTW and NON-POTW services areas at the time of publication.

ProductionData Universe

Effluent wastewater treatment plants in Massachusetts are permitted either through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) surface water discharge permit program or the MassDEP Groundwater Discharge Permit Program. The WURP has delineated active service areas served by publicly and privately-owned effluent treatment works with a NPDES permit or a groundwater discharge permit.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the EPA is the permitting authority for regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to surface waters. NPDES permits regulate wastewater discharge by limiting the quantities of pollutants to be discharged and imposing monitoring requirements and other conditions. NPDES permits are typically co-issued by EPA and the MassDEP. The limits and/or requirements in the permit ensure compliance with the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards and Federal Regulations to protect public health and the aquatic environment. Areas served by effluent treatment plants with an active NPDES permit are included in this datalayer based on a master list developed by MassDEP using information sourced from the EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).

Groundwater Discharge (GWD) Permits

In addition to surface water permittees, the WURP has delineated all active systems served by publicly and privately owned effluent treatment works with groundwater discharge (GWD) permits, and some inactive service areas. Groundwater discharge permits are required for systems discharging over 10,000 GPD sanitary wastewater – these include effluent treatment systems for public, district, or privately owned effluent treatment systems. Areas served by an effluent treatment plant with an active GWD permit are included in this datalayer based on lists received from MassDEP Wastewater staff.

Creation of Unique IDs for Each Service Area

The Sewer Service Area datalayer contains polygons that represent the service area of a particular wastewater system within a particular municipality. Every discharge permittee is assigned a unique NPDES permit number by EPA or a unique GWD permit identifier by MassDEP. MassDEP WURP creates a unique Sewer_ID for each service area by combining the municipal name of the municipality served with the permit number (NPDES or GWD) ascribed to the sewer that is serving that area. Some municipalities contain more than one sewer system, but each sewer system has a unique Sewer_ID. Occasionally the area served by a sewer system will overlap another town by a small amount – these small areas are generally not given a unique ID. The Estimated sewer Service Area datalayer, therefore, contains polygons with a unique Sewer_ID for each sewer service area. In addition, some municipalities will have multiple service areas being served by the same treatment plant – the Sewer_ID for these will contain additional identification, such as the name of the system, to uniquely identify each system.

Classifying System Service Areas

WURP staff reviewed the service areas for each system and, based on OWNER_TYPE, classified as either a publicly-owned treatment work (POTW) or a NON-POTW (see FAC_TYPE field). Each service area is further classified based on the population type served (see SECTOR field).

Methodologies and Data Sources

Several methodologies were used to create service area boundaries using various sources, including data received from the sewer system in response to requests for information from the MassDEP WURP project, information on file at MassDEP, and service area maps found online at municipal and wastewater system websites. When MassDEP received sewer line data rather than generalized areas, 300-foot buffers were created around the sewer lines to denote service areas and then edited to incorporate generalizations. Some municipalities submitted parcel data or address information to be used in delineating service areas. Many of the smaller GWD permitted sewer service areas were delineated using parcel boundaries related to the address on file.

Verification Process

Small-scale pdf file maps with roads and other infrastructure were sent to systems for corrections or verifications. If the system were small, such as a condominium complex or residential school, the relevant parcels were often used as the basis for the delineated service area. In towns where 97% or more of their population is served by the wastewater system and no other service area delineation was available, the town boundary was used as the service area boundary. Some towns responded to the request for information or verification of service areas by stating that the town boundary should be used since all, or nearly all, of the municipality is served by one wastewater system.

To ensure active systems are mapped, WURP staff developed two work flows. For NPDES-permitted systems, WURP staff reviewed available information on EPA’s ICIS database and created a master list of these systems. Staff will work to routinely update this master list by reviewing the ICIS database for new NPDES permits. The master list will serve as a method for identifying active systems, inactive systems, and unmapped systems. For GWD permittees, GIS staff established a direct linkage to the groundwater database, which allows for populating information into data fields and identifying active systems, inactive systems, and unmapped systems.

All unmapped systems are added to the Sewer Service Area Unlocated List (SEWER_SERVICE_AREAS_USL) for future mapping. Some service areas have not been mapped but their general location is represented by a small circle which serves as a placeholder - the location of these circles are estimated based on the general location of the treatment plant or the general estimated location of the service area - these do not represent the actual service area.

Sources of information for estimated wastewater service areas:

EEOA Water Assets Project (2005) sewer lines (these were buffered to create service areas) Horsely Witten Report 2008 Municipal Master Plans, Open Space Plans, Facilities Plans, Wastewater and Sewer System Webpages, reports and online interactive maps GIS data received from POTWs and NON-POTWs Detailed infrastructure mapping completed through the MassDEP WURP Critical Infrastructure Initiative

In the absence of other service area information, for municipalities served by a town-wide sewer system serving at least 97% of the population, the municipality’s boundary was used. Percent served information and determinations of which municipalities are 97% or more served by the wastewater system were made based on the Percent Sewer Service Map created in 2018 by MassDEP based on various sources of information including but not limited to:

The number of services as a percent of developed parcelsTaken directly from a Master Plan, Sewer Department Website, Open Space Plan, etc. found online Calculated using information from the town on population served MassDEP staff estimateHorsely Witten Report 2008 or Pioneer Institute 2004 Calculated from Sewer System Areas Mapped through MassDEP WURP Critical

This is a collection of all GPS- and computer-generated geospatial data specific to the Alpine Treeline Warming Experiment (ATWE), located on Niwot Ridge, Colorado, USA. The experiment ran between 2008 and 2016, and consisted of three sites spread across an elevation gradient. Geospatial data for all three experimental sites and cone/seed collection locations are included in this package. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Geospatial files include cone collection, experimental site, seed trap, and other GPS location/terrain data. File types include ESRI shapefiles, ESRI grid files or Arc/Info binary grids, TIFFs (.tif), and keyhole markup language (.kml) files. Trimble-imported data include plain text files (.txt), Trimble COR (CorelDRAW) files, and Trimble SSF (Standard Storage Format) files. Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) and comma-separated values (.csv) files corresponding to the attribute tables of many files within this package are also included. A complete list of files can be found in this document in the “Data File Organization” section in the included Data User's Guide. Maps are also included in this data package for reference and use. These maps are separated into two categories, 2021 maps and legacy maps, which were made in 2010. Each 2021 map has one copy in portable network graphics (.png) format, and the other in .pdf format. All legacy maps are in .pdf format. .png image files can be opened with any compatible programs, such as Preview (Mac OS) and Photos (Windows). All GIS files were imported into geopackages (.gpkg) using QGIS, and double-checked for compatibility and data/attribute integrity using ESRI ArcGIS Pro. Note that files packaged within geopackages will open in ArcGIS Pro with “main.” preceding each file name, and an extra column named “geom” defining geometry type in the attribute table. The contents of each geospatial file remain intact, unless otherwise stated in “niwot_geospatial_data_list_07012021.pdf/.xlsx”. This list of files can be found as an .xlsx and a .pdf in this archive. As an open-source file format, files within gpkgs (TIFF, shapefiles, ESRI grid or “Arc/Info Binary”) can be read using both QGIS and ArcGIS Pro, and any other geospatial softwares. Text and .csv files can be read using TextEdit/Notepad/any simple text-editing software; .csv’s can also be opened using Microsoft Excel and R. .kml files can be opened using Google Maps or Google Earth, and Trimble files are most compatible with Trimble’s GPS Pathfinder Office software. .xlsx files can be opened using Microsoft Excel. PDFs can be opened using Adobe Acrobat Reader, and any other compatible programs. A selection of original shapefiles within this archive were generated using ArcMap with associated FGDC-standardized metadata (xml file format). We are including these original files because they contain metadata only accessible using ESRI programs at this time, and so that the relationship between shapefiles and xml files is maintained. Individual xml files can be opened (without a GIS-specific program) using TextEdit or Notepad. Since ESRI’s compatibility with FGDC metadata has changed since the generation of these files, many shapefiles will require upgrading to be compatible with ESRI’s latest versions of geospatial software. These details are also noted in the “niwot_geospatial_data_list_07012021” file.

The DC Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR), Real Property Tax Administration (RPTA) values all real property in the District of Columbia. This public interactive Real Property Assessment map application accompanies the OCFO MyTax DC and OTR websites. Use this mapping application to search for and view all real property, assessment valuation data, assessment neighborhood areas and sub-areas, detailed assessment information, and many real property valuation reports by various political and administrative areas. View by other administrative areas such as DC Wards, ANCs, DC Squares, and by specific real property characteristics such as property type and/or sale date. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions regarding the Real Property Assessment Map, contact the Real Property Assessment Division GIS Program at (202) 442-6484 or maps.title@dc.gov.

Profile baselines as approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)

Land cover/land use (LULC) maps for the catchments of Kelani Ganga and Attanagalu Oya, and LULC Change comparing 1991, 2001 with the recent LCLU (2012). Classification includes two thematic levels (national 7-class scheme and 15 land cover/land use classes according to user definitions).

This dataset is one of the products produced under the 2014-2016 World Bank (WBG) - European Space Agency (ESA) partnership, and is published in the partnership report: Earth Observation for Sustainable Development, June 2016.

The Thala Valley Tip Site GIS dataset mapped from January 2001 aerial photography. The dataset includes watercourse, waterhole, breakline, spot height, contour, embankment, rock, sea ice, snow, tide crack and contaminated site features.

March 2025

Vacant Building Categories: The City of Saint Paul requires a review of the sale of all vacant buildings. Requirements differ based on the category of vacancy. CATEGORY I: Payment of registration and fees Notify the City of new ownership Restore utilities and comply with orders for legal occupancy Obtain a Truth-in-Sale of Housing Report CATEGORY II (No sale without City approval): Registration of new ownership Payment of registration and fees Code compliance report Cost estimate from licensed contractor for all repairs A schedule for completion of the repairs Proof of financial capability to complete all repairs. CATEGORY III (No sale without City approval): No sale without a Certificate of Code Compliance or Certificate of Occupancy. For more information about Saint Paul's Vacant Building Program visit: https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/safety-inspections/rent-buy-sell-property/vacant-buildings/vacant-building-program