This is the official Street Centerline dataset for the County of Sacramento and the incorporated cities within. The Street Range Index table is a distinct list of street names within the Centerline dataset along with the existing address range for each street by zip code.The Street Name Index table is a distinct list of street names within the Centerline dataset.

California's Central Valley ranges from the mountain fronts toward a central trough, mainly defined by the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, and the relative distance from trough to valley edges is of interest. This data release provides supplemental data for the USGS Professional Paper 1766, titled Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California and provides geographic information systems (GIS) datasets containing this relative distance grid and supporting data. Included in this data release are shapefiles used to define the Central Valley study area, the Central Valley trough, and a relative distance grid that may be used to spatially define other GIS data into zones between the edge of the Central Valley and the trough. These relative distances were calculated as part of groundwater availability study documented in the Professional Paper, for a 30 x 30-meter cell size grid for the Central Valley. The edge of the valley was represented by the boundary of the valley fill deposits and was assigned an arbitrary value of 1000. The valley trough was represented by the division of California's Department of Water Resource's groundwater subbasins from west to east, from the intersection of Enterprise, Anderson, and Millville subbasins in the north to the Westside and Kings subbasins in the south with an extended line through historic lakes Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern. This valley trough was assigned a value of 0 which included the boundaries of the historic lakes.

This is the official Street Centerline dataset for the County of Sacramento and the incorporated cities within. The Street Range Index table is a distinct list of street names within the Centerline dataset along with the existing address range for each street by zip code.The Street Name Index table is a distinct list of street names within the Centerline dataset.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

For more information about the CWHR system, visit the CWHR Homepage: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

The Metropolitan Council routinely compiles individual land use plans and plan amendments from communities within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area into a single regional data layer. A principal goal of the Regional Planned Land Use dataset is to allow users to view, analyze and display planned land use data for anywhere in the seven county metropolitan area with a consistent land use classification scheme. The Metropolitan Council uses the Regional Planned Land Use (PLU) data to help monitor growth and plan for regional services such as regional parks, transit service, and wastewater collection and treatment.

Although the planned land use data is based on the locally adopted land use plans and designations for each community, it represent only data that has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review per the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1995 (Minn. Stat 473.864, Subd 2 and 473.175, Subd 1). See Data Quality Information (Section 2 of this metadata) for specifics about the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1995 under Completeness information.

Since there is no official State or Regional land use coding scheme that communities must conform with, the variability of content and codes between communities' land use plans is nearly as vast as the number of communities themselves (187). Differences among communities can range from the implementation of different land use categories to conflicting definitions of similar categories. The PLU dataset attempts to effectively level out the variability among communities by translating communities land use categories and descriptions into a common classification scheme developed and endorsed by MetroGIS (a regional GIS data sharing consortium) participants while retaining each communities' original categories. Although the comparability of land use plans between communities has greatly improved as a result of this translation or "regionalization" of communities' land use codes, it is possible that not all community land use definitions have been precisely translated into the most appropriate regional land use category.

In conjunction with other regional information (i.e., land use trend data, households and jobs forecasts), the PLU data can help communities more easily understand regional and sub-regional planning goals and Council staff, working with individual local units of government, can better plan for the future needs and financing of regional services.

- Contact individual communities for more information on their locally adopted planned land use categories.

- See Data Quality Information (Section 2 of this metadata) for specifics about the development of the regional dataset and its accuracy.

- See Entities and Attributes Information (Section 5 of this metadata) for specifics about the regional land use codes and categories.

CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

The southern portion of this range was adopted from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193. Experimental population: The FWS may designate a population of a listed species as experimental if it will be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species’ current range. An experimental population is a special designation for a group of plants or animals that will be reintroduced in an area that is geographically isolated from other populations of the species. With the experimental population designation, the specified population is treated as threatened under the ESA, regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its range. CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

The Sheeprocks (UT) was revised to resync with the UT habitat change as reflected in the Oct 2017 habitat data, creating the most up-to-date version of this dataset. Data submitted by Wyoming in February 2018 and by Montana and Oregon in May 2016 were used to update earlier versions of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding). PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat. PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH. Datasets used to create PPH and PGH: Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review. Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011). Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35). Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping. Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: Areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016 and again in October 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, the Core Area maps and data were developed as one component of the Conservation Strategy for sage-grouse. Specifically, these data provide a tool in planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. These maps will assist in making

The Umpqua River drains 12,103 square kilometers (4,673 square miles) in southwest Oregon before flowing into the Pacific Ocean at Winchester Bay near the city of Reedsport. In cooperation with the Portland District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the USGS evaluated sediment transport and gravel storage along the downstream alluvial reaches of the North and South Umpqua Rivers and the entire mainstem Umpqua River. This includes the lower 46.8 kilometers (29.1 miles) of the North Umpqua River and the lower 122.6 kilometers (76.2 miles) of the South Umpqua River. The Umpqua River gravel transport study involved multiple analyses, including tracking patterns of historical channel change and estimation of a sediment budget. To support these analyses, digital channel maps were produced to depict channel and floodplain conditions along the Umpqua River system from different time periods. GIS layers defining the active channel of the Umpqua River system were developed for three time periods: 1939, 1967, and 2005. For the South Umpqua River and the 19 kilometers (12 miles) of the mainstem Umpqua River downstream from the confluence of the North and South Umpqua Rivers, GIS layers were also developed for the time periods 1994, 2000, and 2009. For this project, the active channel was defined as area typically inundated during annual high flows, and includes the low-flow channel as well as side channels, islands, and channel-flanking gravel bars. The active channel datasets were developed by digitizing from aerial photographs. Aerial photographs from 1939 and 1967 were scanned, rectified, and mosaiced for this project. Digital orthophotographs from 1994, 2000, 2005, and 2009 are publicly available (See metadata for each photograph set for more information on the rectification process and resolution of each dataset). Although our study area encompasses the Umpqua River and lower reaches of the North and South Umpqua Rivers, the extent of each dataset depended upon the underlying aerial photographs; for example, the 1967 photographs extend only as far downstream as floodplain kilometer 7, whereas the 1939 and 2005 datasets extend to the mouth of the Umpqua River at the Pacific Ocean.

CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

CWHR species range datasets represent the maximum current geographic extent of each species within California. Ranges were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts more than 30 years ago and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Species occurrence data are used in defining species ranges, but range polygons may extend beyond the limits of extant occurrence data for a particular species. When drawing range boundaries, CDFW seeks to err on the side of commission rather than omission. This means that CDFW may include areas within a range based on expert knowledge or other available information, despite an absence of confirmed occurrences, which may be due to a lack of survey effort. The degree to which a range polygon is extended beyond occurrence data will vary among species, depending upon each species’ vagility, dispersal patterns, and other ecological and life history factors. The boundary line of a range polygon is drawn with consideration of these factors and is aligned with standardized boundaries including watersheds (NHD), ecoregions (USDA), or other ecologically meaningful delineations such as elevation contour lines. While CWHR ranges are meant to represent the current range, once an area has been designated as part of a species’ range in CWHR, it will remain part of the range even if there have been no documented occurrences within recent decades. An area is not removed from the range polygon unless experts indicate that it has not been occupied for a number of years after repeated surveys or is deemed no longer suitable and unlikely to be recolonized. It is important to note that range polygons typically contain areas in which a species is not expected to be found due to the patchy configuration of suitable habitat within a species’ range. In this regard, range polygons are coarse generalizations of where a species may be found. This data is available for download from the CDFW website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. The following data sources were collated for the purposes of range mapping and species habitat modeling by RADMAP. Each focal taxon’s location data was extracted (when applicable) from the following list of sources. BIOS datasets are bracketed with their “ds” numbers and can be located on CDFW’s BIOS viewer: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database, Terrestrial Species Monitoring [ds2826], North American Bat Monitoring Data Portal, VertNet, Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Insights, eBird, iNaturalist, other available CDFW or partner data.

Idaho:Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas (habitat) in the Proposed Plan of the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as Priority, Important, and General. Management Areas were delineated by BLM, U.S. Forest Service, State of Idaho and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on considerations of sage-grouse occupancy, landscape, habitat and land use/adaptive management opportunities.This data was developed as the Administrative Draft Proposed Plan (ADPP) for the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This layer was edited 5/7/2015 at the WO direction to add three areas of non-habitat in the Sagebrush Focal Areas as PHMA. See procesing steps. UPDATEAs of 09/17/2015, the areas of PHMA that were originally non-habitat in Sagebrush Focal Areas were removed from this dataset if they fell on NFS lands.Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) have the highest conservation value based on various sage-grouse population and habitat considerations and reflect the most restrictive management designed to promote sage-grouse conservation. Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA) are closely aligned with PHMA, but management is somewhat less restrictive, providing additional management flexibility. The General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) designation is the least restrictive due to generally lower occupancy of sage-grouse and more marginal habitat conditions.A decision was made in September 2014 by the Washington Office that all sub-regions would use a consistent naming convention for identifying Habitat Management Areas (HMA). These are Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). The Idaho and Southwestern Montana sub-region has an additional HMA identified as Important Habitat Management Area (IHMA). Attributes in this layer were updated 9/26/2014. Core updated to PHMA, Important updated to IHMA, and General updated to GHMA.The layer was renamed from ManagementZones_Alt_G_05272014_Final to ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final. The field identifying the Management Areas was renamed from Management_Zone to Habitat_Management_Area.ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final renamed to Habitat_ADPP on 01212015This habitat data provided for Alt G for the IDMT EIS has been clipped to the official IDMT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Nevada / California:Full description of base data available at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more_programs/geographic_sciences/gis/geospatial_data.htmlThis data has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NV/CA FS GRSG EIS boundaries.NW Colorado:This dataset is a combination of the General and Priority habitat component files that were provided to the FS. The following is the metdata associated with that data. This dataset does not include linkages, and has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NWCO FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Greater sage-grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) within Colorado. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding).PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat.PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH.Datasets used to create PPH and PGH:Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review.Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011).Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping.Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Utah:This data set was created to facilitate the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed and addressed, and used during preparation of an environmental impact statement to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as 6 Forest Service land use plans. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Final Environmental Impact Statement, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on May 29, 2015. The purpose of the planning process is to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with the US Forest Service, which is a cooperating agency on this planning effort. The planning effort will address the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, and will address the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS.The data include the identification of priority and general habitat management areas, as well as a portion occupied habtiat within the planning area identified as neither priority or general. Definitions of priority and general, as well as the management associated with each, is located in the Final EIS.This dataset has been isolated to NFS lands within the official UT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Wyoming:This dataset shows the proposed Greater Sage-grouse Prioirity Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) (including Priority-Core and Priority-Connectivity) and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) for Alternative E within the Wyoming 9-Plan FS GRSG EIS boundaries. It was built, using the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset ("No Action" data) as a base. Alterations were made to reflect proposed changes under Alternative E in the WY 9-Plan GRSG EIS, which included adding areas of proposed 'Priority-Core' and 'Priority-Connectivity' (both delineations considered as PHMA), predominately within areas previously categorized as 'General' habitat.Please refer to the bottom of this section for more details on the data and workflow used in altering the 'No Action' data for Alternative E. This layer was initially completed on 08/27/2014, and later finalized for publication and distribution on 10/01/2015.The metadata associated with the Wyoming portion of the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset is listed below:Wyoming –PPHand PGH: FINAL DRAFT; Developed by the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team and Wyoming Game and Fish Department in cooperation with Wyoming BLM (PGH modified from Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. Schroeder et al., 2004).Alterations were only made to areas on the Bridger-Teton NF and the Thunder Basin NG. The following data was supplied:From the BTNF: (1) BT_added_occupied.shp; (2) BTProposedCoreSG_April2014.shpFrom TBNG: (1) ProposedSageGrouseCore.shpThe following general steps were taken to complete this dataset:1. The 'BT_added_occupied' dataset was merged with the existing PGH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. In places where the 'BT_added_occupied' data intersected exiting PPH or the proposed core or connectivity data, the PPH/core/connectivity delineation was maintained. 2. The 'BTProposedCoreSG_April2014' and 'ProposedSageGrouseCore' datasets were added to the existing PPH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. Any overlap in the proposed core or connectivity data with existing