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

A map used in the Floodplain Inquiry application to locate parcels impacted by FEMA floodplain boundaries.UNDER REVIEW 3/22/2024 GIS TEAM

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

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)

Geospatial data about Summit County, Ohio Wetlands. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Summit County, Ohio Sewer Lines. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

A public view of the geographic extent of a school district or attendance zone and educational facilities.

Summit County Building Footprints - collected in 2000.

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) contracted with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and Aerial Information Systems (AIS) to produce an alliance-level, vegetation classification and map of Western Riverside County, California. The resulting classification and map products will be used to help establish a monitoring basis for the vegetation and habitats of the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The plan aims to conserve over 500,000 acres of land out of the 1.26 million acre total. This area is the largest MSHCP ever attempted and is an integral piece of the network of Southern California Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Planning (Dudek 2001, Dudek 2003). Riverside County is one of the fastest growing counties in California, as well as one of the most biodiverse counties in the United States. A wide array of habitats are found within the non-developed lands in Western Riverside County, including coastal sage scrub, vernal pools, montane coniferous forest, chaparral, foothill woodland, annual grassland, and desert. In the CNPS contract, vegetation resources were assessed quantitatively through field surveys, data analysis, and final vegetation classification. Field survey data were analyzed statistically to come up with a floristically-based classification. Each vegetation type sampled was classified according to the National Vegetation Classification System to the alliance level (and association level if possible). The vegetation alliances were described floristically and environmentally in standard descriptions, and a final key was produced to differentiate among 101 alliances, 169 associations, and 3 unique stands (for final report, see https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18245). In a parallel but separate effort by AIS (as reported in this dataset), vegetation mapping was undertaken through interpretation of ortho-rectified, aerial photographs for vegetation signatures in color infrared (CIR) and in natural color (imagery flown in winter or summer). A detailed map has been produced through the following process: 1) hand-delineation of polygons on base CIR imagery, 2) digitization of polygons, and 3) attribution of the vegetation types and overstory cover values. The map was created in a Geographic Information System (GIS) digital format, as was the database of field surveys. The dataset was produced through an on-screen photo interpretation procedure using three sets of geo-referenced imagery. The data is classified to a floristic classification derived through clustering analysis procedures based on species dominance and significance. The classification is based on the MCV (Manual of California Vegetation) in which 103 alliances and 169 floristic associations have been defined for the study area. Over 3300 full plot and reconnaissance points have been used in helping classify the mapped polygons. Mapped polygons are classified to either an association, alliance or mapping unit which may be an aggregation of associations or alliances. The dataset encompasses the western portions of Riverside County from the county boundary on the west eastward to the summit of the San Jacinto Mountains and Anza valley.

Download .zipA potentiometric surface map is a contour map that represents the top of the ground water surface in an aquifer. The contour lines illustrate the potentiometric surface much like the contour lines of a topographic map represent a visual model of the ground surface. A potentiometric surface map is very similar to a water table map in that both show the horizontal direction and gradient of ground water flow.Contact Information:GIS Support, ODNR GIS ServicesOhio Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Geological Survey2045 Morse Rd, Bldg I-2Columbus, OH, 43229Telephone: 614-265-6693Email: gis.support@dnr.ohio.gov

Dataset created and maintained by the Summit County Engineer showing school signals within the Engineer's jurisdiction.

New 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping along the Interstate-70 urban corridor in western Colorado, in support of the USGS Central Region State/USGS Cooperative Geologic Mapping Project, is contributing to a more complete understanding of the stratigraphy, structure, tectonic evolution, and hazard potential of this rapidly developing region. The 1:24,000-scale Frisco quadrangle is near the headwaters of the Blue River and straddles features of the Blue River graben (Kellogg, K.S., 1999, Neogene basins of the northern Rio Grande rift—partitioning and asymmetry inherited from Laramide and older uplifts: Tectonophysics, v. 305, p. 141-152.), part of the northernmost reaches of the Rio Grande rift, a major late Oligocene to recent zone of extension that extends from Colorado to Mexico. The Williams Range thrust fault, the western structural margin of the Colorado Front Range, cuts the northeastern corner of the quadrangle. The oldest rocks in the quadrangle underlie the Tenmile Range and include biotite-sillimanite schist and gneiss, amphibolite, and migmatite that are intruded by granite inferred to be part of the 1,667-1,750 Ma Routt Plutonic Suite (Tweto, Ogden, 1987, Rock units of the Precambrian- basement in Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1321-A, 54 p.). The oldest sedimentary unit is the Pennsylvanian Maroon Formation, a sequence of red sandstone, conglomerate, and interbedded shale. The thickest sequence of sedimentary rocks is Cretaceous in age and includes at least 500 m of the Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale. The sedimentary rocks are intruded by sills and dikes of dacite porphyry sills of Swan Mountain, dated at 44 Ma (Marvin, R.F., Mehnert, H.H., Naeser, C.W., and Zartman, R.E., 1989, U.S. Geological Survey radiometric ages, compilation “C”—Part five—Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming: Isochron/West, no. 53, p. 14-19. Simmons, E.C., and Hedge, C.E., 1978, Minor-element and Sr-isotope geochemistry of Tertiary stocks, Colorado mineral belt: Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 67, p. 379-396.). Surficial deposits include (1) an old, deeply dissected landslide deposit, possibly as old as Tertiary, on the south flank of Tenderfoot Mountain, (2) deeply weathered, very coarse gravel deposits, mostly along Gold Run and underlying Mesa Cortina; the gravels are gold bearing and were mined by hydraulic methods in the 1800's, (3) glacial deposits of both Bull Lake (middle Pleistocene) and Pinedale (late Pleistocene) that were derived from large valley glaciers that flowed down Tenmile and North Tenmile Creeks; the town of Frisco is underlain mostly by Pinedale-age glacial outwash, (4) recent landslide deposits, including one large (about 1 square kilometer) area just downslope from Lilly Pad Lake, west of I-70, and (5)extensive colluvial and alluvial deposits. The latest seismic events appear to be middle Pliestocene in age and are associated with small scarps that cut Bull Lake till but do not cut Pinedale till.

This dataset contains the urban growth simulation results of future land use in 2040 of the Wasatch Range Metropolitan Area (WRMA) .In this study, we defined the WRMA as a broad, ten-county region that surrounds the Wasatch Mountain Range east of the Great Salt Lake and Salt Lake City in Utah. This region encompasses four Wasatch Front counties west of the mountain range (Weber County, Davis County, Salt Lake County, and Utah County), three Wasatch Back counties east of the mountain range (Morgan County, Summit County, and Wasatch County), and three counties neighboring the Wasatch Front (Cache County, Box Elder County, and Tooele County).

SLEUTH-3r urban growth simulation model is used to generate this dataset. Detailed SLEUTH model protocol can be found at: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/gig/index.html. The data used to run the SLEUTH-3r model include National Land Cover Database 2001, 2006, and 2011, US Census TIGER/Line shapefile for 2000 and 2011, United States Geological Survey 7.5 min elevation model, and Utah Landownership map from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center.

Three alternative scenarios were developed to explore how conserving Utah’s agriculturale land and maintaining healthy watersheds would affect the patterns and trajectories of urban development: 1) The first scenario is a “Business as Usual” scenario. In this scenario, federal, state, and local parks, conservation easement areas, and surface water bodies, were completely excluded (value = 100) from development, and all the remaining lands are were naively assumed as developable (value = 0). This is the same excluded layer that was also used during model calibration. Under this scenario, we hypothesized that future urban grow will occur following the historical growth behaviors and trajectories and no changes in land designation or policies to restrict future growth will be implemented. 2) The second scenario is an “Agricultural Conservation” scenario. Within the developable areas that we identified earlier, we then identified places that are classified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, prime farmland if irrigated, and prime farmland if irrigated and drained. Each of these classes were assigned with an exclusion value from urban development of 100, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40 respectively. These exclusion values reflect the relative importance of each farmland classification and preservation priorities. By doing so, the model discourages but does not totally eliminate growth from occurring on agricultural lands, which reflects a general policy position to conserve agricultural landscapes while respecting landowners’ rights to sell private property. 3) A “Healthy Watershed” scenario aims to direct urban growth away from areas prone to flooding and areas critical for maintaining healthy watersheds. First, we made a 200-meter buffer around existing surface water bodies and wetlands and assigned these areas an exclusion value of 100 to keep growth from occurring there. In addition, we assigned areas that have frequent, occasional, rare and no-recorded flooding events with exclusion values of 100, 70, 40 and 0 accordingly. We also incorporated the critical watershed restoration areas identified by the Watershed Restoration Initiative of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (https://wri.utah.gov/wri/) into this scenario. These watershed restoration areas are priority places for improving water quality and yield, reducing catastrophic wildfires, restoring the structure and function of watersheds following wildfire, and increasing habitat for wildlife populations and forage for sustainable agriculture. However, there are not yet legal provisions for protecting them from urbanization, so we assigned these areas a value of 70 to explore the potential urban expansion outcomes if growth were encouraged elsewhere.

Future land use projections of 2040 are in GIF format, which can be reprojected and georeferenced in ArcGIS or QGIS, or be read directly as a picture.

Boundary layer showing the areas the Summit County Division of Planning/GIS administers addresses for.

Summit County School Signals for the Summit County Engineer's Office

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

Download .zipThis theme shows the geographic suitability for sanitary landfills. This map is designed for general planning purposes and should not be used to replace a detailed site analysis.

This coverage was digitized from a paper county map with a scale of 1:63360. Digitizing utilized a run length encoding technique sampling along horizontal lines which represented the midline of cells with a height of 250 ft. The measurement increment along these horizontal lines was one decafoot (10 feet). The coverage was subsequently converted to ARC/INFO vector format.

Additional details on the digitizing process are available on request.

Original coverage data was converted from the .e00 file to a more standard ESRI shapefile(s) in November 2014.Contact Information:GIS Support, ODNR GIS ServicesOhio Department of Natural ResourcesReal Estate & Land ManagementReal Estate and Lands Management2045 Morse Rd, Bldg I-2Columbus, OH, 43229Telephone: 614-265-6462Email: gis.support@dnr.ohio.gov

House Mountain is in the southwest part of the Sedona, Arizona 7.5 minute quadrangle,approximately 12 km southwest of the city of Sedona (Fig. 1). The summit area is a nearly circularerosional caldera 2.2 km in diameter that is breached on the northwest side by a narrow canyonthrough which an intermittent creek flows to join Oak Creek. Relief in the caldera is 270 m. Themountain is surrounded on 4 sides by US-89A, AZ-279, 1-17, and AZ-179.In constructing the map, all geologic contacts were traced in the field. Map units weredefined on the bases of lithology and stratigraphy; stratigraphic relationships were determined inthe field by using traditional geologic principles such as superposition and cross-cuttingrelationships.

Sanitary manholes. Includes the manhole name/ID and information about location, downstream manhole name/ID, and invert elevations. Includes the associated engineering drawing number.The location accuracy of sanitary manholes are under continuous improvement through the use of GPS for locating all sanitary manholes owned and maintained by the County of Summit.Coordinate System:NAD_1983_NSRS2007_StatePlane_Ohio_North_FIPS_3401_Ft_US

A map used in the Residential Comp Finder application to find comparable sales and related property information.