Opportunity Zones

Opportunity Zones are a new community development program established by Congress as a part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, they are designed to encourage long-term private investments in low-income communities. This program provides a federal tax incentive for taxpayers who reinvest unrealized capital gains into "Opportunity Funds," which are specialized vehicles dedicated to investing in low-income areas called "Opportunity Zones."The zones themselves are to be comprised of low-income community census tracts and designated by governors in every state. South Carolina designated 25 percent of qualifying census tracts as an Opportunity Zone. Qualifying Zones are based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey.

Channel Migration Zone Floodway

As part of a Channel Migration Zone Study, GeoEngineers, Inc. was contracted by Pierce County, Public Works Surface Water Management formerly “Water Programs” Division to create a series of shapefiles including the SPC_Migration_Potential_Areas.shp. Pierce_Migration_Potential_Areas.shp combines the include severe, moderate or low migration potential areas. GeoEngineers, Inc. completed migration potential studies of the White, Puyallup and Carbon Rivers (completed 2003 adopted 2005), South Prairie Creek (completed 2005 adopted 2017) and Upper Nisqually River (completed 2007 adopted 2017). These were accepted by SWM and Adopted by County Council.The MPA delineation involved identifying severe, moderate and low migration potential areas within the delineated CMZ. The MPA delineation approach is similar to that employed in our CMZ analysis; that future rates and character of migration will be similar to those of the past for similar water discharges, sediment influx, and debris entrainment conditions. This analysis was also based on the absence of levees, revetments and other confining structures. The width of each MPA was measured, based on delineation criteria developed specifically for this project, and then adjusted to accommodate geomorphic conditions not accounted for in the maximum migration rates. Criteria developed for mapping severe, moderate and low MPA are provided in the following paragraphs: Severe MPA includes the area lying inside the HCOT, and an area immediately outside the HCOT boundary equivalent to a distance the channel could travel in a specified period. The extent of the Severe Migration Potential Area outside the HCOT boundary is determined by two criteria. The first criterion is the distance the outside channel edge could travel in 10 years of steady lateral migration away from the HCOT boundary (Maximum lateral migration rates multiplied by a ten- year period). The second is defined by the distance the outside channel edge could travel in storm single event (i.e. maximum overnight rate) from the current channel position (2002). The landward most boundary of the two criteria defines the Severe Migration Potential Area.Moderate MPA includes areas adjacent to the outside edge of the severe migration potential area. The width of the moderate migration potential area is determined by the distance the outside channel edge could travel in five years (for South Prairie Creek 10 years) of steady lateral migration beyond the outside edge of the severe migration potential area. The CMZ boundary will serve as the outside edge of the moderate migration potential boundary at sites where the distance between the severe migration potential boundary and the CMZ boundary represents less the five years (for South Prairie Creek 10 years)of steady lateral migration. Moderate migration potential areas are not included at sites where the outside edge of the severe migration potential area is determined by the location of the CMZ boundary. The rate of migration used in the calculation is the maximum average rate of migration for each geomorphic reach (measured as described above). In some places the width of the Moderate Migration Potential Area may be modified based on geologic interpretation, professional judgment. Low MPA includes areas adjacent to the outside edge of the moderate migration potential area. The extent of the Low Migration Potential Area beyond the moderate migration potential boundary will be determined by CMZ boundary, as determined by our CMZ evaluation. Low migration potential areas will not be included at sites where the outside edge of either a severe or moderate migration potential area is determined by the location of the CMZ boundary. The most common adjustments typically involved widening the moderate MPA to include ancient abandoned channel deemed capable of arresting main stem flow in an avulsion event. Other common Moderate MPA adjustments involved increasing or decreasing the ba

Channel Migration Zone Floodway

As part of a Channel Migration Zone Study, GeoEngineers, Inc. was contracted by Pierce County, Public Works Surface Water Management formerly “Water Programs” Division to create a series of shapefiles including the SPC_Migration_Potential_Areas.shp. Pierce_Migration_Potential_Areas.shp combines the include severe, moderate or low migration potential areas. GeoEngineers, Inc. completed migration potential studies of the White, Puyallup and Carbon Rivers (completed 2003 adopted 2005), South Prairie Creek (completed 2005 adopted 2017) and Upper Nisqually River (completed 2007 adopted 2017). These were accepted by SWM and Adopted by County Council.The MPA delineation involved identifying severe, moderate and low migration potential areas within the delineated CMZ. The MPA delineation approach is similar to that employed in our CMZ analysis; that future rates and character of migration will be similar to those of the past for similar water discharges, sediment influx, and debris entrainment conditions. This analysis was also based on the absence of levees, revetments and other confining structures. The width of each MPA was measured, based on delineation criteria developed specifically for this project, and then adjusted to accommodate geomorphic conditions not accounted for in the maximum migration rates. Criteria developed for mapping severe, moderate and low MPA are provided in the following paragraphs: Severe MPA includes the area lying inside the HCOT, and an area immediately outside the HCOT boundary equivalent to a distance the channel could travel in a specified period. The extent of the Severe Migration Potential Area outside the HCOT boundary is determined by two criteria. The first criterion is the distance the outside channel edge could travel in 10 years of steady lateral migration away from the HCOT boundary (Maximum lateral migration rates multiplied by a ten- year period). The second is defined by the distance the outside channel edge could travel in storm single event (i.e. maximum overnight rate) from the current channel position (2002). The landward most boundary of the two criteria defines the Severe Migration Potential Area.Moderate MPA includes areas adjacent to the outside edge of the severe migration potential area. The width of the moderate migration potential area is determined by the distance the outside channel edge could travel in five years (for South Prairie Creek 10 years) of steady lateral migration beyond the outside edge of the severe migration potential area. The CMZ boundary will serve as the outside edge of the moderate migration potential boundary at sites where the distance between the severe migration potential boundary and the CMZ boundary represents less the five years (for South Prairie Creek 10 years)of steady lateral migration. Moderate migration potential areas are not included at sites where the outside edge of the severe migration potential area is determined by the location of the CMZ boundary. The rate of migration used in the calculation is the maximum average rate of migration for each geomorphic reach (measured as described above). In some places the width of the Moderate Migration Potential Area may be modified based on geologic interpretation, professional judgment. Low MPA includes areas adjacent to the outside edge of the moderate migration potential area. The extent of the Low Migration Potential Area beyond the moderate migration potential boundary will be determined by CMZ boundary, as determined by our CMZ evaluation. Low migration potential areas will not be included at sites where the outside edge of either a severe or moderate migration potential area is determined by the location of the CMZ boundary. The most common adjustments typically involved widening the moderate MPA to include ancient abandoned channel deemed capable of arresting main stem flow in an avulsion event. Other common Moderate MPA adjustments involved increasing or decreasing the ba

Municipal Wastewater COVID19 Sampling Data 10/1/2020-6/30/2022

This dataset is no longer being updated as of 6/30/2022. It is being retained on the Open Data Portal for its potential historical interest. In November 2020, the City of Cambridge began collecting and analyzing COVID-19 data from municipal wastewater, which can serve as an early indicator of increased COVID-19 infections in the city. The Cambridge Public Health Department and Cambridge Department of Public Works are using technology developed by Biobot, a Cambridge based company, and partnering with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). This Cambridge wastewater surveillance initiative is funded through a $175,000 appropriation from the Cambridge City Council. This dataset indicates the presence of the COVID-19 virus (measured as viral RNA particles from the novel coronavirus per ml) in municipal wastewater. The Cambridge site data here were collected as a 24-hour composite sample, which is taken weekly. The MWRA site data ere were collected as a 24-hour composite sample, which is taken daily. MWRA and Cambridge data are listed here in a single table. An interactive graph of this data is available here: https://cityofcambridge.shinyapps.io/COVID19/?tab=wastewater All areas within the City of Cambridge are captured across four separate catchment areas (or sewersheds) as indicated on the map viewable here: https://cityofcambridge.shinyapps.io/COVID19/_w_484790f7/BioBot_Sites.png. The North and West Cambridge sample also includes nearly all of Belmont and very small areas of Arlington and Somerville (light yellow). The remaining collection sites are entirely -- or almost entirely -- drawn from Cambridge households and workplaces. Data are corrected for wastewater flow rate, which adjusts for population in general. Data listed are expected to reflect the burden of COVID-19 infections within each of the four sewersheds. A lag of approximately 4-7 days will occur before new transmissions captured in wastewater data would result in a positive PCR test for COVID-19, the most common testing method used. While this wastewater surveillance tool can provide an early indication of major changes in transmission within the community, it remains an emerging technology. In assessing community transmission, wastewater surveillance data should only be considered in conjunction with other clinical measures, such as current infection rates and test positivity. Each location is selected because it reflects input from a distinct catchment area (or sewershed) as identified on the color-coded map. Viral data collected from small catchment areas like these four Cambridge sites are more variable than data collected from central collection points (e.g., the MWRA facility on Deer Island) where wastewater from dozens of communities are joined and mixed. Data from each catchment area will be impacted by daily activity among individuals living in that area (e.g., working from home vs. traveling to work) and by daytime activities that are not from residences (businesses, schools, etc.) As such, the Regional MWRA data provides a more stable measure of regional viral counts. COVID wastewater data for Boston North and Boston South regions is available at https://www.mwra.com/biobot/biobotdata.htm

Land Use_data

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

City of Gainesville 2020 Neighbor Survey - Raw Data

This dataset includes the raw results from the City of Gainesville 2020 Neighborhood Survey. Please view the survey, given here: https://tinyurl.com/CoGNeighborSurvey for reference to columns within this dataset. Responses of "9" for questions on a 1-5 scale indicate a non-response or a response of "Don't know".

2012 Richmond Community Survey Data

Community Survey

Each year the city of Austin administers a community survey to assess satisfaction with the delivery of the major City Services and to help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's ongoing planning process. To find out more information about the Community Survey and to view the Survey Instruments, please refer to the attachments. The data set for the Community Survey captures data from 2015 through 2019.

2012 Richmond Community Survey Data

This is a raw data from the 1371 responses of the mailed community survey in spring 2012 by our contracted vendor ETC Institute. Responses to questions are based upon following scoring: Answers Provided as: 5 Very Satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Neither 2 Dissatisfied 1 Very Dissatisfied 9 Don't Know Final Report from vendor is attached.

Community Survey Results

ETC Institute administered a survey to resident of the City of Henderson. The purpose of the survey was to gather information on residents’ level of satisfaction with City services and to gather residents’ opinions regarding various other topics. Input received will be used to help City leaders know where they are doing well and where they can improve; to make certain they are making decisions that align to the needs of residents and prioritizing services that will positively impact the community.