CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: Joel Dudas, Description: The original topographic maps containing the drawn delta border were scanned from the Department of Water Resources. Images were registered to 1:24,000 USGS DRG's in ArcView (ESRI) utilizing imagewarp extension. The Delta boundary was digitized from the registered images. Accuracy within acceptable 7.5 Minute USGS map accuracy standards (1:24000 scale). Delineates the legal Delta established under the Delta Protection Act (Section 12220 of the Water Code) passed in 1959.

This applications hosts an interactive map developed by the Delta Stewardship Council, a California state agency, as a reference for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). It illustrates select boundaries, reference layers, and Delta Stewardship Council regulatory policies with a geographic component. The Delta Plan policies shown here are provided for reference only, are not survey grade, and do not replace approved regulatory text in the Water Code, California Code of Regulations, or Public Resources Code. For more information, please contact the Delta Stewardship Council.Some layers shown on this map are maintained by other entities.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), Geodetic Branch, Cadastral Surveys reviewed this boundary in July, 2009, and agreed with the linework along with the description below as produced by Joel Dudas in 2002. This boundary was originally produced under the direction of Ray Irving, LS 3278 in August, 1993 (then Chief of the Geodetic Branch) at the request of Margit Aramburu with the Delta Protection Commission. The boundary, at that time, was paper form. The details of how it was prepared are described in the Memorandum dated July 29, 1994, along with additional correspondence between Ray Irving and Margit Aramburu on comments, changes & revisions during the process and are on file at Cadastral Surveys, DWR. (End 2009)***

Delta boundary version 2002.4 Delineates the legal Delta established under the Delta Protection Act (Section 12220 of the Water Code) passed in 1959. This boundary file has been reviewed by a variety of relevant professionals and is considered to be accurate. The exact accuracy is somewhat uncertain, but can be considered acceptable for mapping at 1:24000. The original topographic maps containing the drawn delta border were scanned from the Department of Water Resources. Images were registered to 1:24,000 USGS DRG's in ArcView (ESRI) utilizing imagewarp extension. The Delta boundary was digitized from the registered images. Accuracy within acceptable 7.5 Minute USGS map accuracy standards (1:24000 scale). The original legal boundary maps obtained from the Delta Protection Commission were compiled by DWR Land & Right of Way sometime in the early 1980's. They were based from the legal description in section 12220 of the Water Code, with ambiguities in the Code addressed by the individuals involved in the mapping project at that time. One revision was made to the original maps in the vicinity of Point Pleasant, and is the only difference between this and the 4.2001 version of the legal Delta boundary Arc/INFO coverage.

2' elevation contours for Delta Twp., Eaton County, Michigan, USA. These are derived from a 4ft DEM built from our 2010 Lidar flight.

Delta Primary Zone Boundary The history of the primary zone boundary is as follows: the Primary Zone was defined in the 1992 Delta Flood Protection Act by referring to a map attached to the legislation, on file with the Secretary of State. See Public Resources Code section 29728. The map was submitted by the Delta Protection Commission. It is a large extent (small scale) map, with no real controls, little or no reference marks or guides of any kind, and no legal description. As such, from a mapping point of view, it leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, by law, this map defines the Primary Zone boundary. Sometime shortly after the law was passed, DWR Land & Right of Way drew the boundary on 24k topo maps which also had the precise, agreed-upon legal Delta boundary. There are some significant differences between the DWR version and the official version. In asking current DWR Land & Right of Way staff (Carrol Leong & Fred Mau), there was no readily-available explanation, and the person who originally conducted it is no longer there. That is unfortunate, because not only are these maps much more "accuracy friendly", but there may have been good reasons why the boundary was drawn as such. This is the Delta primary zone boundary. It was drawn by Joel Dudas on November 27, 2002, as described below. It was drawn at the request of Margit Arambru, Delta Protection Commission. The legal Delta/primary zone effort conducted by Chico State had raised questions about the primary zone boundary, and upon inspection of the issue it has been determined that there is no precise solution available at this time. Lori Clamurro & Margit Arambru indicated that this delineation was acceptable to them upon review (12/8/2002). METHOD: There were significant errors in the paper base map, as evidenced by errors in the locations of roads, watercourses, and the legal Delta boundary itself. Due to these significant problems posed by the errors inherent in the paper base map, the base map was used as a guide, rather than as a literal translation, to locate the primary zone boundary. Furthermore, a second significant assumption was made, namely that the intent of the Primary Zone map was to indicate that the legal boundary and the primary zone boundary are one and the same in many places, but that mapping this would not result in distinguishable lines if they were literally drawn atop each other, and they therefore were lined up adjacent to one another (on the source paper map!), with the gap being as small as possible but also being far enough apart to clearly distinguish the two lines. Therefore, for GIS purposes, the shapefile was created by tracing the legal boundary line wherever this was felt to be appropriate. The third major assumption was that, in places where the primary zone and the legal boundary are separated, the primary zone boundary was equivalent to the primary zone boundary drawn by DWR Land & Right of Way on the higher accuracy 24k maps in all places except where significant deviations obviously occurred as indicated by the official paper base map. The rationale for this is that the 24k map does a better job delineating the boundary according to actual features (watercourses, rec district boundaries, etc.) where the intended boundary was clearly the same, but where the paper map simply cannot represent this intent accurately. However, in places where the intent clearly shows a discrepancy from the "higher accuracy" line, the boundary on the paper base map was literally traced. Delta Secondary Zone Boundary The parent of this file was one of the Delta Vision Status & Trends shapefiles. Published in 4/2007. The change to the boundary near Van Sickle was made subsequent to delivery to DWR on 10/8/2009. Also, offsets versus the legal Delta boundary were corrected by DWR on 10/22/2009. At this time, unless better information becomes available, it is therefore felt that these are the best boundaries available.

Vegetation and land use are mapped for the 737,621 acres constituting the Legal Delta portion of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta area. Vegetation mapping is to alliance level when possible, otherwise it is left at group level (based on the National Vegetation Classification Standard, see http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/nvcs.html); land use is mapped to Anderson Level 2 classification (see https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0964/report.pdf). The map classification is based on a vegetation classification derived from field data collected in summer and fall of 2005 produced by the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) of the Department of Fish and Game. Membership rules for each alliance can be foud at http://vegetation.cnps.org/. 2016 National Agricultural Inventory Program (NAIP) one meter orthoimagery was the baseline imagery used. Google Earth imagery was used as supplemental imagery. Natural vegetation comprises approximately 17% of the Delta study area, 65% is agriculture and pasture, 10% is urban/other and 8% is open water.Link to download report: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=174866Link to download the dataset from BIOS: ftp://ftp.wildlife.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Public_Datasets/2800_2899/ds2855.zip

These data were automated to provide an accurate high-resolution historical shoreline of Mississippi River Delta, LA suitable as a geographic information system (GIS) data layer. These data are derived from shoreline maps that were produced by the NOAA National Ocean Service including its predecessor agencies which were based on an office interpretation of imagery and/or field survey. The N...

In the Delta Anatomy Mapping Project all levee anatomies were delineated using slope grids built from available LIDAR data points. LIDAR data points were converted to digital elevation models and subsequently into slope grids. Thresholds were identified that capture the levee crown, levee landside, levee waterside, ramps and toe ditches. Visual interpretations of slope thresholds were used in conjunction with heads-up digitizing to maintain smooth boundaries at a scale of 1:550. The delineation thresholds were derived from a combination of mapping scale, slope grid resolution and slope thresholds used for each anatomy classification. All anatomy has gone through an internal quality control process to ensure a minimum locational quality of +/- 3 feet. Anatomy was further reviewed and tested by DWR for compliance with an interpretive mapping standard of 80% accuracy. This data depicts the levee anatomy at the time of the LiDAR survey (2007) and are only accurate for that time. Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this data set was created and some parts of this data may no longer represent actual surface conditions.

This map was developed by the Delta Stewardship Council, a California state agency, as a reference for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). It illustrates select boundaries, reference layers, and Delta Stewardship Council regulatory policies with a geographic component. The Delta Plan policies shown here are provided for reference only, are not survey grade, and do not replace approved regulatory text in the Water Code, California Code of Regulations, or Public Resources Code. For more information, please contact the Delta Stewardship Council.Some layers shown on this map are maintained by other entities.Disclaimer: The Delta Stewardship Council does not acknowledge any legal responsibility for the use or misuse of this data. Data are not intended to be used for determination of applicability or consistency of a Delta Plan regulatory policy and do not represent survey-grade assessments. Data should be considered for evaluation and contextual information only. For questions related to this data and specific use cases please contact the Delta Stewardship Council at 916-445-5511 or hello@deltacouncil.ca.gov

Soil-geomorphological mapping is a reliable tool for analyzing the patterns of soil distribution in various parts of Earth’s surface. Cryogenic and watershed areas are the most dynamic landscapes with relatively rapid transformation under the influence of climate change and river activity. The soil-geomorphological map obtained by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imaging, classical soil sections, geomorphological observation, and determination of the main chemical parameters of soils are presented. Mapping of the spatial distribution was performed using QGIS 3.22, SAGA GIS 7.9.1, and ArcGIS 10.6 software. The investigation of soil cover was performed according to WRB soil classification. From the obtained data, four types of soils were identified due to their position in the relief and chemical parameters. The dominant soil type is Folic Cryosol (Siltic) (41.1%) which is formed on the periglacial landscape of wet polygons on Samoylov Island. The application of high-resolution UAV imaging to construct soil-geomorphological maps is the most relevant method for analyzing soils formed in cryogenic, watershed, and mountainous landscapes. Based on SOC distribution, it was found that the highest SOC content corresponds to Holocene terrace (Cryosol and Histosol soil types), in areas that are not subject to the flooding process. According to the analysis of the chemical composition of soils, it was found that the main elements accumulating in the soil are SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, and K2O, which have a river origin. The soil-geomorphological maps can be used to analyze the reserves and contents of organic and inorganic components with high accuracy.

Superseded

https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/san-francisco-bay-and-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-dem-for-modeling-version-4-1## A more recent version of this product appears here:

This product will continue to be distributed for archival purposes.

Domain and Product

Changes in the current bathymetry release (version 4) are limited to the region east of the Carquinez Strait (starting around Carquinez Bridge). To facilitate compatibility released by us and our partners, DWR distribute the region west as a separate companion tile and delineate the boundary of active revision in the present product in a place where its source data matches that of other Bay elevation models, e.g., the 2m seamless high-resolution bathymetric and topographic DEM of San Francisco Bay by USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center (EROS) (https://topotools.cr.usgs.gov/coned/sanfrancisco.php ), the 2010 San Francisco Bay DEM by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/metaview/page?xml=NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC/MGG/DEM/iso/xml/741.xml&view=getDataView&header=none ) or the prior (version 3) 10m digital elevation model (https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/san-francisco-bay-and-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-dem-v3 ).The 10m DEM for the Bay-Delta is based on the first on the list, i.e. EROS’ 2m DEM for the Bay

New work reported here was done at 2m resolution, although the improvements have been incorporated into the 10m products as much as possible. Relative to the previous DWR release (https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/san-francisco-bay-and-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-dem-v3), the 2m DEM product reported here consolidates work at this resolution into a small number of larger surfaces representing approximately one-third of the Delta (link to the Coverage Areas page). Laterally, the 2m models now extend over the levee crest as needed to match well with Delta LiDAR (http://www.atlas.ca.gov/download.html#/casil/imageryBaseMapsLandCover/lidar2009 ), the main terrestrial source of data used in this work. The 10m product (link to the Coverage Areas page) is based on the updated USGS DEM (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58599681e4b01224f329b484 ). In places where updated 2m models overlap the 10 meters, the 10m base elevation model was updated by resampling the new 2m model and adding levee enforcement. At the border between the 2m and 10m models, the two resolutions were locally edge-matched over a small region to maintain smoothness. For more information, please refer to the article: A Revised Continuous Surface Elevation Model for Modeling (link to Chapter 5 in the 2018 Annual Report).

Please note that by agreement with our data providers we distribute only our own integrated maps, not the original source point data.

Data Sources

https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/san-francisco-bay-and-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-dem-for-modeling-version-4/resource/981a57b5-e16f-4632-b7e0-4a533534a79c

Coverage Areas

https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/san-francisco-bay-and-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-dem-for-modeling-version-4/resource/2e3f2b6e-9f0d-4719-b32a-dff449be18af

Under contract to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Bay-Delta Region for use in conjunction with the Delta Regional Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan, CDFW created a fine-scale vegetation map of portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. CDFW conducted field reconnaissance assistance for this project, as well as accuracy assessment (AA) field data collection; and Jeff Kennedy, Kristi Lazar, Jeanne Taylor and Jahalel L. Tuil [University of California Davis Information Center for the Environment (ICE)]; Brad Burkholder, Daniel Burmester, Curtis Hagen, Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler-Wolf, to assist in the AA field data collection. CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) provided in-kind service to allocate and score the AA. The mapping study area, consists of approximately 725,600 acres, of which approximately 104,600 acres are natural vegetation, 555,100 acres agriculture and urban development, and 65,900 acres are open water or inundated lands. These acres were apart of Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Yolo counties. Work was performed on the project between 2005 and 2007. The primary purpose of the project was to further CDFW’s goal of developing fine-scale digital vegetation maps as part of the California Biodiversity Initiative Roadmap of 2018. CNPS under separate contract and in collaboration with CDFW VegCAMP developed the floristic vegetation classification used for the project. The floristic classification follows protocols compliant with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and National Vegetation Classification Standards (NVCS). The vegetation map was produced applying heads-up digitizing techniques using both the spring 2002 Stockton, Sacramento, and Delta High Resolution (1-foot) Orthoimagery and summer 2005 NAIP (1-meter) orthoimagery served as the base, in conjunction with ancillary data and imagery sources. Map polygons are assessed for Vegetation Type, Percent Cover, Exotics, Development Disturbance, and other attributes. The minimum mapping unit (MMU) is 2 acres for land use and vegetation; exceptions made for isolated land use, water, and critical vegetation types which were mapped to a 1-acre MMU. Field reconnaissance and accuracy assessment enhanced map quality. There was a total of 131 mapping classes. The overall Fuzzy Accuracy Assessment rating for the final vegetation map, at the Alliance and Group levels, is 85% percent with 9 types falling below 70%. More information can be found in the project report, which is bundled with the vegetation map published for BIOS here: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18211.

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Availability and Use Science Program study of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP), a shapefile representing seven generalized regions of the MAP extent as defined by Painter and Westerman (2018) was compiled. The generalized regions provide a framework for analysis, visualization, and regional comparisons of local data within the MAP. Regions north of the Red River were based on those described by Ackerman (1996). The Grand Prairie region includes the area north and east of the Arkansas River and south and west of the White River within the MAP. The Cache region includes the area north and east of the White River and the area generally west of Crowley’s Ridge, which lies outside of the MAP extent (Painter and Westerman, 2018), bisects the northern part of the MAP, and has elevations 100 to 250 feet (ft) higher than the MAP (Ackerman, 1996). The Delta region, which is roughly equivalent to the Yazoo River drainage, lies predomin ...

"This section identifies those areas in the Delta which because of their resource value should receive special consideration. Those areas...have been classified as Significant Resource Areas. These areas were selected based on several factors, which include significant areas of habitat, the presence of endangered plant or animal species, relative abundance of similar areas within the Delta and State, aesthetic and recreation value, concentrations of archaelogical or historical sites, level of present disturbance, and potential for future disturbance. In evaluating Delta lands to determine Significant Resource Areas, information was obtained from several data sources including consultations with individuals from various State, federal, local, and private organizations. Each area identified as having potential value was inspected using aerial photographs, in the field, or both." -this from the Delta Environmental Atlas, published 7/1979, by USACE. References to the DMRP in the attribute table refer to the Delta Master Recreation Plan. 1979 Delta Significant Resource Areas were made digital by heads up digitizing registered scanned pages from 1979 Delta atlas. About the scanned maps from the Atlas: Digital images were clipped prior to warping to reduce risk of error during processing due to excess background. Digital clipped images were registered to USGS DOQQ's in ArcView 3.x(ESRI) utilizing Imagewarp 2.x extension. 23 October, 2002, Projection: UTM meters zone 10, nad 83. Accuracy within acceptable 7.5 Minute USGS map accuracy standards (1:24000 scale). For this set, the minimum number of control points used was 10 with an average of 12 to 15 points used. The pixel size for this set is 27.0 feet per pixel

1977 Delta Habitat Types were made digital by heads up digitizing registered scanned pages from 1979 Delta Environmental Atlas, produced by USACE. "The Habitat Types & Vegetation section delineates on 1 inch to 1000 foot scale aerial photographs the habitat types found in the Delta, described according to the classification system of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Thirteen habitat types are defined in this Atlas. The system was based on a USFWS for its national wetland mapping program....The system was modified to include those terrestrial habitats, such as upland, agriculture, and urban, which were not included in the USFWS system. In addition, an open water classification was used in place of the USFWS river classification where the bottom type could not be identified." -excerpts from the 1979 USACE Delta Environmental Atlas, 7/1979. Digital images were clipped prior to warping to reduce risk of error during processing due to excess background. Digital clipped images were registered to USGS DOQQ's in ArcView 3.x(ESRI) utilizing Imagewarp 2.x extension. 23 October, 2002. Projection: UTM meters zone 10, nad 83. Accuracy within acceptable 7.5 Minute USGS map accuracy standards (1:24000 scale). For this set, the minimum number of control points used was 6 with an average of 8 to 9 points used. The pixel size for this set is 5.0 feet per pixel. User notes about the accuracy of this dataset (J Dudas, 1/24/2003): The goal of this project was to produce positionally accurate polygons which preserved the polygon areas/shapes as indicated in the Atlas plates. Chico State registered the scans to UTM Zone 10/NAD83, but it was clear that the scans had all sorts of distortions in them for a couple of fundamental reasons. The original Corps Atlas maps appear to have been produced by a fairly rough mosaicking, and as a result do not always correspond particularly well with DOQQs. Furthermore, the warping in the photos appears to get worse near the edges of the source photos, which suggests to me that the original photos were used in their entirety, rather than clipped, in effect a sidelap/overlap of 0%. As a result, the polygons were modified to reflect where some of these areas appeared in the 1993 DOQQs, for example, a channel island or a stretch of forest. In other words, the Corps Atlas polys were used to produce the shape geometry, and then the 1993 DOQQs provided the base for the actual poly locations. This will explain the positional offset seen between these polys and the scanned Atlas photos.

One foot contours developed from Delta LIDAR. LIDAR was developed under a contract between California DWR and URS Corporation (DRMS contract), with Fugro EarthData as lead LIDAR survey contractor. Flights were conducted in 2007 with 9% reflown in 2008. Final products delivered to DWR in 2009. Survey points of accuracy theoretically capable of supporting 1 foot contours. Using processed bare earth point data, Fugro EarthData generated/supplied these contours in raw and smoothed format, and the feature class here are smoothed contours. These data are public domain. Additional information can be obtained from California DWR.

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.Data Processing: Tax roll provided by the county has multiple records for each unique parcel record as many of the parcels have multiple uses. As a result many of the parcel records are duplicated.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)

A high-resolution (10-meter per pixel) digital elevation model (DEM) was created for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using both bathymetry and topography data. This DEM is the result of collaborative efforts of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The base of the DEM is from a 10-m DEM released in 2004 and updated in 2005 (Foxgrover and others, 2005) that used Environmental Systems Research Institute(ESRI), ArcGIS Topo to Raster module to interpolate grids from single beam bathymetric surveys collected by DWR, the Army Corp of Engineers (COE), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the USGS, into a continuous surface. The Topo to Raster interpolation method was specifically designed to create hydrologically correct DEMs from point, line, and polygon data (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2015). Elevation contour lines were digitized based on the single beam point data for control of chan ...

This layer illustrates the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta boundary (version 2002.4). This is a duplicate layer to one available on the CNRA Open Data website. It is provided here because the REST service for the authoritative CNRA copy is occasionally down.It delineates the legal Delta established under the Delta Protection Act (Section 12220 of the Water Code), passed in 1959. This boundary file has been reviewed by a variety of relevant professionals and can be considered acceptable for mapping at 1:24000. The original legal boundary maps obtained from the Delta Protection Commission were compiled by DWR Land & Right of Way sometime in the early 1980s, with one revision made to the original maps in the vicinity of Point Pleasant.Additional notes: The exact accuracy is somewhat uncertain, but can be considered acceptable for mapping within 7.5 Minute USGS map accuracy standards (1:24000 scale). The original topographic maps containing the drawn Delta border were scanned from the Department of Water Resources. Images were registered to 1:24000 USGS DRG's in ArcView (ESRI) utilizing imagewarp extension. The Delta boundary was digitized from the registered images. The original legal boundary maps were based on the legal description in Section 12220 of the Water Code, with ambiguities in the Code addressed by the individuals involved in the mapping project at that time. One revision was made to the original maps in the vicinity of Point Pleasant, and is the only difference between this and the 4.2001 version of the legal Delta boundary Arc/INFO coverage.Published to DWR Spatial Data Library 2/21/2003. Published as an export to geoDB feature class output. Source is DWR Delta Levees Program. These data are distributed as part of the DWR Spatial Data Library. Please advise dataset administrator of any improvements or suggestions for these data, or if additional metadata can be contributed. The State of California, the Department of Water Resources, the Programs, and the individuals working in support of any of the preceding shall have no legal responsibility for providing data to the DWR Spatial Data Library, and shall have no responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for the use or results obtained from the use of this information. User acknowledges and accepts these terms upon receipt of display of any of the contents of any of the files associated with these data. Received from Chico State by DWR Delta Levees Program 5/31/2001. Converted from shapefile into coverage format, converted from Teale Albers into Geographic/NAD83, & rebuilt topology using ArcGIS 8.2, double-precision, by Joel Dudas, DWR Delta Levees Program, 2/2003. The revision between the 4.2001 and the 4.2002 versions reflects a change in the vicinity of Point Pleasant in the east Delta, as shown on modified Delta Protection Commission maps. The line was moved south to the township boundary line, as appropriate, using ArcGIS 8.1 software. During 2001 & early 2002 every effort was made to identify any errors in the underlying data sources, including water district, reclamation district, roads, etc. boundaries. While certain features were not able to be 100% certified, this coverage can be considered to be as accurate based on all of the information available at this time. These uncertainties principally involve obscurity in some of the ancestral source data.

This application was created to support the Mapping Existing Vegetation on Cordova Ranger District Vegetation Story Map. Dominance type, tree canopy cover, tall shrub canopy cover, and tree size maps were developed for Cordova Ranger District. The Cordova Ranger District (including other federal, state, native, and private land inholdings) was mapped through a partnership between the Geospatial Technology and Applications Center (GTAC) and the Chugach National Forest. The Chugach National Forest and their partners prepared the AOI classification system, identified the desired map units (map classes) and provided general project management. GTAC provided project support and expertise in vegetation mapping. A combination of reference data was used to inform the classification models that output the final maps. Federal and Private field personnel collected plot data on the ground. Classification models were used to characterize modeling units (mapping polygons) with the following vegetation attributes: 1) dominance type; 2) tree canopy cover; 3) tree size. The minimum map feature depicted on the map is 0.25 acres. All map products were designed according to the Forest Service mid-level vegetation mapping standards in order to be stored in the Forest GIS and National databases. This map product was generated primarily using data acquired prior to or in 2021. The field data used as reference information for this mapping project was primarily collected in the summer of 2021. Therefore, the final map can be considered indicative of the existing vegetation conditions found on the Cordova Ranger District in 2021.