The September 2025 issue of the GIS Office Newsletter features updates about the GIS Office, a summary of the most recent GIS Advisory Council meeting, GIS resources, and more.

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)

GIS data is available on the Forest’s FTP site in the form of “shape files” or layers and is available free for downloading. To utilize these data layers you will need a program that uses the Geographic Information System (GIS) such as ESRI’s ArcMap, ArcView or the free map reading program ArcGIS Explorer. ArcGIS Explorer has tools that let you zoom in/out, print the map, and query data. It also has map tips to identify features, and a help menu. ArcGIS Explorer is available as a free download from the ESRI website. Included is a list of GIS data files available for the Shawnee National Forest. These GIS data files are updated on a continuing basis. It should be noted that this data may have been developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, or incomplete while being created or revised. Overall accuracy, completeness and timeliness may vary. The following geospatial information/data was prepared by the Shawnee National Forests (US Forest Service). The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS data without notification. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Geospatial Data. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/shawnee/landmanagement/gis Information about the geospatial data and a ftp link to download Forest GIS Data Shapefiles.

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 Digital Geologic-GIS Map of the Mammoth Cave Quadrangle, Kentucky 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 (macv_geology.gdb), and a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (macv_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (macv_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). 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.) a readme file (maca_abli_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (maca_abli_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 (macv_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the maca_abli_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. 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: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (macv_geology_metadata.txt or macv_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 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in 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).

Statewide Property Inventory started in 1989 per legislation 11011.15, to begin a pro-active approach to managing the State’s Real Property assets in a computerized format. Having the information in an electronic format makes it available to top level decision-makers considering options for the best use of these assets. The Statewide Property Inventory is mandated to capture detailed information on the following: land owned and leased by the state, structures owned and leased by the state, property the state leases to the private sector. Statewide Property Inventory was established in 1988 by legislative mandate. Leases were added in 2004 by executive order. Data is updated annually by the agencies. Point of Contact: Any questions should be referred to the SPIWeb@dgs.ca.gov

The geodatabase contains 13 relate tables that together provide updated and synchronized classifications to an existing vegetation map layer for each of the nine park units in the Great Lakes Network (GLKN) of the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program. The classifications include 1) vegetation types at every hierarchical level in the 2015 version of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) and 2) map classes that represent vegetation and land cover in the vegetation map layers. Furthermore, the tables provide a crosswalk between the two classifications (vegetation and map). Each park unit in GLKN has received, at different times over several years, vegetation data products from the NPS Vegetation Mapping Inventory (VMI) Program. However, the vegetation and map classifications were at different stages of development over these years. With this geodatabase product, having a series of already linked relate tables, the original vegetation map layer for each park unit can be linked to the updated and synchronized classification information for both vegetation types and map classes.

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 distributedGIS 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 maps and tables presented here represent potential variability of projected climate change across the conterminous United States during three 30-year periods in this century and emphasizes the importance of evaluating multiple signals of change across large spatial domains. Maps of growing degree days, plant hardiness zones, heat zones, and cumulative drought severity depict the potential for markedly shifting conditions and highlight regions where changes may be multifaceted across these metrics. In addition to the maps, the potential change in these climate variables are summarized in tables according to the seven regions of the fourth National Climate Assessment to provide additional regional context. Viewing these data collectively further emphasizes the potential for novel climatic space under future projections of climate change and signals the wide disparity in these conditions based on relatively near-term human decisions of curtailing (or not) greenhouse gas emissions. More information available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/rmap/rmap_nrs9.pdf. This dataset represents heat zones, or the mean number of days over 30 C, in 4 time periods (1980-2009, 2010-2039, 2040-2069, and 2070-2099), using two emissions scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5, the medium and high scenarios, respectively).

This is the current Medical Service Study Area. California Medical Service Study Areas are created by the California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI).Check the Data Dictionary for field descriptions.Search for the Medical Service Study Area data on the CHHS Open Data Portal.Checkout the California Healthcare Atlas for more Medical Service Study Area information.This is an update to the MSSA geometries and demographics to reflect the new 2020 Census tract data. The Medical Service Study Area (MSSA) polygon layer represents the best fit mapping of all new 2020 California census tract boundaries to the original 2010 census tract boundaries used in the construction of the original 2010 MSSA file. Each of the state's new 9,129 census tracts was assigned to one of the previously established medical service study areas (excluding tracts with no land area), as identified in this data layer. The MSSA Census tract data is aggregated by HCAI, to create this MSSA data layer. This represents the final re-mapping of 2020 Census tracts to the original 2010 MSSA geometries. The 2010 MSSA were based on U.S. Census 2010 data and public meetings held throughout California.Source of update: American Community Survey 5-year 2006-2010 data for poverty. For source tables refer to InfoUSA update procedural documentation. The 2010 MSSA Detail layer was developed to update fields affected by population change. The American Community Survey 5-year 2006-2010 population data pertaining to total, in households, race, ethnicity, age, and poverty was used in the update. The 2010 MSSA Census Tract Detail map layer was developed to support geographic information systems (GIS) applications, representing 2010 census tract geography that is the foundation of 2010 medical service study area (MSSA) boundaries. ***This version is the finalized MSSA reconfiguration boundaries based on the US Census Bureau 2010 Census. In 1976 Garamendi Rural Health Services Act, required the development of a geographic framework for determining which parts of the state were rural and which were urban, and for determining which parts of counties and cities had adequate health care resources and which were "medically underserved". Thus, sub-city and sub-county geographic units called "medical service study areas [MSSAs]" were developed, using combinations of census-defined geographic units, established following General Rules promulgated by a statutory commission. After each subsequent census the MSSAs were revised. In the scheduled revisions that followed the 1990 census, community meetings of stakeholders (including county officials, and representatives of hospitals and community health centers) were held in larger metropolitan areas. The meetings were designed to develop consensus as how to draw the sub-city units so as to best display health care disparities. The importance of involving stakeholders was heightened in 1992 when the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Health and Resources Administration entered a formal agreement to recognize the state-determined MSSAs as "rational service areas" for federal recognition of "health professional shortage areas" and "medically underserved areas". After the 2000 census, two innovations transformed the process, and set the stage for GIS to emerge as a major factor in health care resource planning in California. First, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development [OSHPD], which organizes the community stakeholder meetings and provides the staff to administer the MSSAs, entered into an Enterprise GIS contract. Second, OSHPD authorized at least one community meeting to be held in each of the 58 counties, a significant number of which were wholly rural or frontier counties. For populous Los Angeles County, 11 community meetings were held. As a result, health resource data in California are collected and organized by 541 geographic units. The boundaries of these units were established by community healthcare experts, with the objective of maximizing their usefulness for needs assessment purposes. The most dramatic consequence was introducing a data simultaneously displayed in a GIS format. A two-person team, incorporating healthcare policy and GIS expertise, conducted the series of meetings, and supervised the development of the 2000-census configuration of the MSSAs.MSSA Configuration Guidelines (General Rules):- Each MSSA is composed of one or more complete census tracts.- As a general rule, MSSAs are deemed to be "rational service areas [RSAs]" for purposes of designating health professional shortage areas [HPSAs], medically underserved areas [MUAs] or medically underserved populations [MUPs].- MSSAs will not cross county lines.- To the extent practicable, all census-defined places within the MSSA are within 30 minutes travel time to the largest population center within the MSSA, except in those circumstances where meeting this criterion would require splitting a census tract.- To the extent practicable, areas that, standing alone, would meet both the definition of an MSSA and a Rural MSSA, should not be a part of an Urban MSSA.- Any Urban MSSA whose population exceeds 200,000 shall be divided into two or more Urban MSSA Subdivisions.- Urban MSSA Subdivisions should be within a population range of 75,000 to 125,000, but may not be smaller than five square miles in area. If removing any census tract on the perimeter of the Urban MSSA Subdivision would cause the area to fall below five square miles in area, then the population of the Urban MSSA may exceed 125,000. - To the extent practicable, Urban MSSA Subdivisions should reflect recognized community and neighborhood boundaries and take into account such demographic information as income level and ethnicity. Rural Definitions: A rural MSSA is an MSSA adopted by the Commission, which has a population density of less than 250 persons per square mile, and which has no census defined place within the area with a population in excess of 50,000. Only the population that is located within the MSSA is counted in determining the population of the census defined place. A frontier MSSA is a rural MSSA adopted by the Commission which has a population density of less than 11 persons per square mile. Any MSSA which is not a rural or frontier MSSA is an urban MSSA. Last updated December 6th 2024.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), prepared hydro-conditioned geographic information systems (GIS) data layers for use in the updated New Jersey StreamStats 2022 application (U.S. Geological Survey, 2022). This update features improvements in base-elevation resolution from 10 meters to 10 feet and stream centerline hydrography from 1:24,000 to 1:2,400 scale. Hydro conditioning is the process of burning single-line stream centerlines at the 1:2,400 scale into a digital elevation model to produce flow direction and flow accumulation grids. This data release contains raster digital datasets for a 10-foot digital elevation model, a flow direction grid, and a flow accumulation grid for the updated New Jersey Streamstats 2022 application. The eleven 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) represented by this dataset are 02020007, 02030103, 02030104, 02030105, 02040104, 02040105, 02040201, 02040202, 02040206, 02040301, and 02040302 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016). The updated New Jersey StreamStats 2022 application provides access to spatial analytical tools that are useful for water-resources planning and management, as well as engineering and design purposes. The map-based user interface can be used to delineate drainage areas, determine basin characteristics, and estimate flow statistics, including instantaneous flood discharge, monthly flow-duration, and monthly low-flow frequency statistics for ungaged streams. References cited: U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, National Hydrography: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed February 4, 2022, at https://www.usgs.gov/national-hydrography. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022, StreamStats v4.6.2: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed February 4, 2022, at https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/.

[Metadata] TMK Parcel boundaries for the County of Kauai, including the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Lehua and Kaula as of May, 2025. Source: Kauai County. The parcel boundaries are intended to provide a visual reference only and do not represent legal or survey level accuracy. Attributes are for assessment purposes only per the Real Property Department and are subject to change at any time. NOTE: This layer is maintained by the County of Kauai. It is downloaded by the Statewide GIS Program for integration into the Statewide parcel layer, and provided to State GIS users as a convenience and on various State of Hawaii sites as a service to the public. FOR THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI PARCELS, VISIT THE COUNTY OF KAUAI OPEN DATA HUB: https://kauai-open-data-kauaigis.hub.arcgis.com/. For additional information, please refer to metadata at https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/data/niparcels.pdf or contact the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, State of Hawaii; PO Box 2359, Honolulu, Hi. 96804; (808) 587-2846; email: gis@hawaii.gov; Website: https://planning.hawaii.gov/gis.Kauai County Disclaimer:The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps and data are made available solely for informational purposes. The GIS data is not the official representation of any of the information included, and do not replace a site survey or legal document descriptions. The County of Kauai (County) makes or extends no claims, representations or warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, as to the quality, content, accuracy, currency, or completeness of the information, text, maps, graphics, links and other items contained in any of the GIS data. In no event shall the County become liable for any errors or omissions in the GIS, and will not under any circumstances be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other loss, injury or damage caused by its use or otherwise arising in connection with its use, even if specifically advised of the possibility of such loss, injury or damage. The data and or functionality on this site may change periodically and without notice. In using the GIS data, users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data. The parcel boundaries are intended to provide a visual reference only and do not represent legal or survey level accuracy. Attributes are for assessment purposes only per the Real Property Department and are subject to change at any time.

This dataset was updated May, 2025.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes: Clipping input datasets to the California boundary Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc) Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California. Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only. Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs) In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset. Data Sources: GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html Data Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overlaps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

The Australian Antarctic Data Centre's Mawson Station GIS data were originally mapped from March 1996 aerial photography. Refer to the metadata record 'Mawson Station GIS Dataset'. Since then various features have been added to this data as structures have been removed, moved or established. Some of these features have been surveyed. These surveys have metadata records from which the report describing the survey can be downloaded. However, other features have been 'eyed in' as more accurate data were not available. The eyeing in has been done based on advice from Australian Antarctic Division staff and using as a guide sources such as an aerial photograph, an Engineering plan, a map or a sketch. GPS data or measurements using a measuring tape may also have been used.

The data are included in the data available for download from a Related URL below. The data conform to the SCAR Feature Catalogue which includes data quality information. See a Related URL below. Data described by this metadata record has Dataset_id = 119. Each feature has a Qinfo number which, when entered at the 'Search datasets and quality' tab, provides data quality information for the feature.

Geographic Information System (GIS) Market Outlook

The global Geographic Information System (GIS) market size was valued at approximately USD 8.1 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach around USD 16.3 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 8.2% during the forecast period. One of the key growth factors driving this market is the increasing adoption of GIS technology across various industries such as agriculture, construction, and transportation, which is enhancing operational efficiencies and enabling better decision-making capabilities.

Several factors are contributing to the robust growth of the GIS market. Firstly, the increasing need for spatial data in urban planning, infrastructure development, and natural resource management is accelerating the demand for GIS solutions. For instance, governments and municipalities globally are increasingly relying on GIS for planning and managing urban sprawl, transportation systems, and utility networks. This growing reliance on spatial data for efficient resource allocation and policy-making is significantly propelling the GIS market.

Secondly, the advent of advanced technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and machine learning is enhancing the capabilities of GIS systems. The integration of these technologies with GIS allows for real-time data analysis and predictive analytics, making GIS solutions more powerful and valuable. For example, AI-powered GIS can predict traffic patterns and help in effective city planning, while IoT-enabled GIS can monitor and manage utilities like water and electricity in real time, thus driving market growth.

Lastly, the rising focus on disaster management and environmental monitoring is further boosting the GIS market. Natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes necessitate the need for accurate and real-time spatial data to facilitate timely response and mitigation efforts. GIS technology plays a crucial role in disaster risk assessment, emergency response, and recovery planning, thereby increasing its adoption in disaster management agencies. Moreover, environmental monitoring for issues like deforestation, pollution, and climate change is becoming increasingly vital, and GIS is instrumental in tracking and addressing these challenges.

Regionally, the North American market is expected to hold a significant share due to the widespread adoption of advanced technologies and substantial investments in infrastructure development. Asia Pacific is anticipated to witness the fastest growth, driven by rapid urbanization, industrialization, and supportive government initiatives for smart city projects. Additionally, Europe is expected to show steady growth due to stringent regulations on environmental management and urban planning.

Component Analysis

The GIS market by component is segmented into hardware, software, and services. The hardware segment includes devices like GPS, imaging sensors, and other data capture devices. These tools are critical for collecting accurate spatial data, which forms the backbone of GIS solutions. The demand for advanced hardware components is rising, as organizations seek high-precision instruments for data collection. The advent of technologies such as LiDAR and drones has further enhanced the capabilities of GIS hardware, making data collection faster and more accurate.

In the software segment, GIS platforms and applications are used to store, analyze, and visualize spatial data. GIS software has seen significant advancements, with features like 3D mapping, real-time data integration, and cloud-based collaboration becoming increasingly prevalent. Companies are investing heavily in upgrading their GIS software to leverage these advanced features, thereby driving the growth of the software segment. Open-source GIS software is also gaining traction, providing cost-effective solutions for small and medium enterprises.

The services segment encompasses various professional services such as consulting, integration, maintenance, and training. As GIS solutions become more complex and sophisticated, the need for specialized services to implement and manage these systems is growing. Consulting services assist organizations in selecting the right GIS solutions and integrating them with existing systems. Maintenance and support services ensure that GIS systems operate efficiently and remain up-to-date with the latest technological advancements. Training services are also crucial, as they help users maximize the potential of GIS technologies.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Cover classes for each year. See additional information about Land Cover in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

TIGER/Line Shapefiles contain current geographic extent and boundaries of both legal and statistical entities (which have no governmental standing) for the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island areas. Feature shapefiles represent the point, line, and polygon features in the MTDB (e.g., roads and rivers). Relationship files contain additional attribute information users can join to the shapefiles. Both the feature shapefiles and relationship files reflect updates made in the database. To see how the geographic entities, relate to one another, please see our geographic hierarchy diagrams here:https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/hierarchy.html

Catalog of high value data inventories produced by Connecticut executive branch agencies and compiled by the Office of Policy and Management. This catalog contains information on high value GIS data only. A catalog of high value non-GIS data may be found at the following link: https://data.ct.gov/Government/CT-Data-Catalog-Non-GIS-/ghmx-93jn

As required by Public Act 18-175, executive branch agencies must annually conduct a high value data inventory to capture information about the high value data that they collect.

High value data is defined as any data that the department head determines (A) is critical to the operation of an executive branch agency; (B) can increase executive branch agency accountability and responsiveness; (C) can improve public knowledge of the executive branch agency and its operations; (D) can further the core mission of the executive branch agency; (E) can create economic opportunity; (F) is frequently requested by the public; (G) responds to a need and demand as identified by the agency through public consultation; or (H) is used to satisfy any legislative or other reporting requirements.

This dataset was last updated 1/2/2019 and will continue to be updated as high value data inventories are submitted to OPM.

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)

Under contract to the Natural Communities Coalition (NCC), Aerial Information Systems (AIS) created an updated fine-scale vegetation map of portions of Orange County originally mapped in 2012-2015. AIS conducted field reconnaissance for this project in June 2023, and field verification in May 2024. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) under a separate contract with NCC was tasked to conduct the Accuracy Assessment.The mapping study area, consists of approximately 86,000 acres of open space and adjacent urban and agricultural lands, including habitat located in both the Central and Coastal Subregions of Orange County. Work was performed on the project between 2022 and 2025. The primary purpose of the project was to provide a good basis for trend analyses for long-term land management and conservation within the remaining natural lands of Orange County.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 2022 vegetation update used the same mapping classification as the 2012 project and is based on the floristic classification (AECOM, 2013), Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer et al., 2009), and the updated project floristic vegetation key (Buck-Diaz et al., 2025).The updated vegetation map was produced applying heads-up digitizing techniques using a baseline 1-meter resolution natural color digital image created in 2022 by the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), 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 1 acre for upland types and 0.5 acres for wetlands and other special types.Field reconnaissance and accuracy assessment enhanced map quality. There was a total of 100 mapping classes. The overall Accuracy Assessment score for the final vegetation map,at the Alliance and Group levels, is 85 percent. More information can be found in the project report, which is bundled with the vegetation map published for BIOS here: https://filelib.wildlife.ca.gov/Public/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Public_Datasets/3200_3299/ds3214.zip References:AECOM. 2013. Vegetation Classification Report for Orange County. Unpublished report prepared for the Nature Reserve of Orange County. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=65188Aerial Information Systems, Inc (AIS). 2025. Orange County Vegetation Mapping Update 2025, Final Vegetation Mapping Report. March 2025. Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Redlands, California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=233168Buck-Diaz, J., T. Reyes, L. Breidenthal, B. King, and J.M. Evens. 2025. Change Detection and Accuracy Assessment for the 2022 Orange County Vegetation ReMap. Report to the Natural Communities Coalition. California Native Plant Society, Vegetation Program. Sacramento, CA.CNPS. 2025. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2 FGDC-STD-005-2008 (version 2). Vegetation Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee, FGDC Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 55 pp. and Appendices.Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.