Data Background:This layer displays the general areas of capital projects along with associated project data. It is maintained in accordance with section 10.22.160 of the Tacoma Municipal Code: "The Public Works Department may develop a capital projects layer on its GIS mapping system, entitled “Capital Improvement Projects,” where it will identify its capital improvement projects. Once established, all public and private Tacoma Municipal Code (Revised 4/2018) 10-44 City Clerk’s Office utilities and operators of any communications or cable system shall identify and update their capital projects on the Capital Improvement Projects map, in accordance with Local Law. The Public Works Department, all utilities, and all communications or cable system operators are responsible for updating their capital improvement projects on no less than a calendar quarterly basis."Public Works project data is updated monthly by project managers. Recommended Symbology:"cipstatus" field valuePolygon FillHex/TransparencyPolygon OutlineHex/Transparency/WidthDrawing OrderYes#0078BD/50%#0078BD/0%/2px SolidTopNoNo Fill/100%#999999/50%/1.5px DashedBottomSome projects do not have mappable work areas because they involve work throughout the city or have otherwise indeterminate work areas. For dataset integrity purposes, these projects are mapped as a polygon encompassing the city limits of Tacoma and given a value of "No" in the field "cipstatus". Selecting individual features is difficult if these features are not hidden, transparent, or drawn first. To improve functionality while viewing mapped features, the above symbology and drawing order is recommended. Depending on your use case, you might also simply choose to filter out features with a "cipstatus" value of "No".Unique Fields: projname Official project title used in documentation

websiteurl URL for the project's individual web page (if it has one)

project_type Primary type of asset involved

project_description Overview of project scope

project_rationale Description of justification for the work

current_phase Capital projects typically progress through some or all of the following phases in order:Unfunded: Bringing a construction idea to life requires funds. Projects marked as "Unfunded" are in the process of securing funding and approval. They are not considered active yet.Planning: The project has confirmed some or all funding, and a plan needs to be made to get it moving. The Planning phase involves gathering people and resources to map out the project's future.Design: If not already fully funded by this point, the project has at least enough funding to be completely designed. An engineering team decides how the work should be done and what the final result must include.Right-of-Way (ROW): At this stage, the project team secures the project area for construction. They find potential legal issues and solve them with things like securing permits, making negotiations, or notifying property owners/businesses.Ad-Award: Project plans are advertised so potential contractors can bid on performing the work. The City awards the project contract based on cost estimates and guidelines such as equity in contracting.Construction: The project is fully funded. The City's construction team and any contractors collaborate to perform and inspect the work.Closeout: After construction is substantially complete, documentation and finances are squared away.Complete: All processes to perform the work have been completed. The project is no longer active.Work might also be paused during any phase due to unforeseen issues. This marks the project phase as On Hold.

phase_notes Brief progress update to elaborate on the current phase

construction_start Month and Year in which construction is estimated to start. Projects in early phases may not have this estimate ready.

construction_end Month and Year in which construction is estimated to be completed. Projects in early phases may not have this estimate ready.

citywide Some projects do not have precise mapped locations and are given the value "citywide". This is most often because the project is actually an ongoing project fund that continuously affects many locations every year (example: Unfit/Unsafe Sidewalk Program) or because the project's goal is to conduct a study to determine future work locations.

business_districts City of Tacoma Business Districts containing any of the project area

city_council_districts City Council Districts containing any of the project area

neighborhood_councils City of Tacoma Neighborhood Councils containing any of the project area

total_estimated_cost Estimated combined cost of the project throughout its lifetime in dollars. Might be blank or very rough estimate for early-stage projects

confirmed_funds_so_far Dollar amount that has been secured toward the total cost of the project

associated_programs_6ytip "Yes" if the project is in the 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan

associated_programs_cfp "Yes" if the project is in the Capital Facilities Plan

associated_programs_si "Yes" if the project is associated with the Tacoma Streets Initiative

lead_department Department/organization with primary ownership of the project

partners Other departments/organizations/entities that support the project, financially or otherwise

contact_name Subject Matter Expert of the project

contact_email Subject Matter Expert's email address to contact with questions about the project

contact_phone Subject Matter Expert's phone number to contact with questions about the project

cipstatus "Yes" if the precise project area is mapped; "No" if the project area is indeterminate and mapped as a city boundary polygon This is a layer view. The original dataset contains many non-viewer-friendly fields structured for HTML and Arcade functionality in various apps, maps, websites, and reports such as Capital Project Highlights, Capital Improvement Plan web app, Capital Facilities Plan documentation, and more. Omitted fields can be seen in the App View of this dataset.Data Owner:Natasha MillerAssociate Civil Engineer -- Asset Managementnmiller@cityoftacoma.org

GIS for Construction Planning Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the GIS for Construction Planning market size reached USD 6.4 billion in 2024, and it is expected to grow at a robust CAGR of 13.2% during the forecast period, reaching approximately USD 18.2 billion by 2033. This dynamic growth is primarily driven by the increasing integration of geospatial technologies in construction workflows, the rising demand for efficient project management solutions, and the global emphasis on sustainable urban development. The market is witnessing significant traction as construction firms and stakeholders recognize the value of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in optimizing site selection, resource allocation, and risk mitigation.

One of the primary growth factors for the GIS for Construction Planning market is the rapid digital transformation occurring within the construction industry. As project complexity increases and timelines become tighter, construction companies are leveraging GIS solutions to gain real-time spatial insights, enhance collaboration, and streamline operations. The adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) integrated with GIS is also playing a pivotal role, enabling more accurate planning, design, and execution of construction projects. This integration empowers stakeholders to visualize project data in a geospatial context, facilitating better decision-making and reducing costly reworks. Additionally, the proliferation of smart cities and infrastructure modernization projects worldwide is significantly boosting the demand for advanced GIS tools in construction planning.

Another significant driver is the growing regulatory emphasis on environmental sustainability and risk management in construction projects. Governments and regulatory bodies are mandating comprehensive environmental impact assessments and risk analyses before granting approvals for new developments. GIS platforms provide a robust framework for conducting these assessments by enabling spatial analysis of environmental factors, potential hazards, and socio-economic impacts. As a result, construction firms are increasingly adopting GIS to ensure compliance with regulations, minimize environmental footprints, and enhance community engagement. The ability of GIS to integrate diverse datasets and generate actionable insights is proving invaluable in navigating the complex regulatory landscape of the construction sector.

Furthermore, advancements in cloud computing, IoT, and mobile technologies are accelerating the adoption of GIS in construction planning. Cloud-based GIS solutions offer scalability, flexibility, and real-time data access, making them ideal for large-scale, multi-site construction projects. The integration of IoT devices enables continuous monitoring of construction sites, asset tracking, and predictive maintenance, all of which feed valuable data into GIS platforms. These technological innovations are not only improving project efficiency but also enabling proactive risk management and resource optimization. As construction firms increasingly embrace digital transformation, the demand for sophisticated GIS solutions is expected to surge, further propelling market growth.

From a regional perspective, North America currently dominates the GIS for Construction Planning market, accounting for the largest revenue share in 2024, followed closely by Europe and Asia Pacific. The strong presence of leading technology providers, high levels of investment in infrastructure, and early adoption of advanced digital tools have positioned North America as a key growth engine. Meanwhile, Asia Pacific is projected to witness the highest CAGR during the forecast period, driven by rapid urbanization, government-led smart city initiatives, and expanding construction activities in emerging economies such as China and India. Europe continues to demonstrate steady growth, fueled by stringent environmental regulations and a focus on sustainable development.

Component Analysis

The GIS for Cons

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are structural controls used to manage stormwater runoff. Examples include green roofs, rain gardens, and cisterns. BMPs reduce the effects of stormwater pollution and help restore the District’s waterbodies. The District’s stormwater regulations require that large construction or renovation projects install BMPs to manage stormwater runoff once construction is complete. The District also provides financial incentives for properties that install BMPs voluntarily. This dataset includes BMPs that were installed to comply with the District’s stormwater regulations, to participate in the Stormwater Retention Credit (SRC) trading program, to participate in the RiverSmart Homes program, to participate in the Green Roof Rebate program, or to participate in the RiverSmart Rewards stormwater fee discount program. These BMPs have been reviewed by the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) as part of these programs. This dataset is updated weekly with data from the District’s Stormwater Database.

[From The Landmap Project: Introduction, "http://www.landmap.ac.uk/background/intro.html"]

 A joint project to provide orthorectified satellite image mosaics of Landsat,
 SPOT and ERS radar data and a high resolution Digital Elevation Model for the
 whole of the UK. These data will be in a form which can easily be merged with
 other data, such as road networks, so that any user can quickly produce a
 precise map of their area of interest.

 Predominately aimed at the UK academic and educational sectors these data and
 software are held online at the Manchester University super computer facility
 where users can either process the data remotely or download it to their local
 network.

 Please follow the links to the left for more information about the project or
 how to obtain data or access to the radar processing system at MIMAS. Please
 also refer to the MIMAS spatial-side website,
 "http://www.mimas.ac.uk/spatial/", for related remote sensing materials.

OPEN Data View service. The Wildland Fire Risk Assessment project was developed by the National Park Service's Fire and Aviation Management program as a response to the devastating 2011 wildfire season. This project developed a consistent assessment method that has been applied to NPS units nationwide regardless of variations in climate, fuels, and topography.The assessment, based on Firewise® assessment forms, evaluates access, surrounding environment, construction design and materials, and resources available to protect facilities from wildland fire. The data collected during the assessment process can be used for:Identifying, planning, prioritizing and tracking fuels treatments at unit, regional and national levels, and Developing incident response plans for facilities and communities within NPS units.The original spatial data for the assessments comes from a variety of sources including the NPS Buildings Enterprise Dataset, WFDSS, NPMap Edits, manually digitized points using Esri basemaps as a reference at various scales, and GPS collection using a multitude of consumer and professional grade GPS devices. The facilities that have been assessed and assigned a facility risk rating have been ground-truthed and field verified. (In some rare occasions, facilities have been verified during remote assessments. Those that have been remotely assessed are marked as such). The resulting data is stored in a centralized geodatabase, and this publicly available feature layer allows the user to view that data.The NPS Facilities feature layer includes the following layers and related tables:Facility - A facility is defined by the NPS as an asset that the NPS desires to track and manage as a distinct identifiable entity. In the case of wildland fire risk assessments, a facility is most often a structure but in special instances, a park unit may wish to identify and assess other at-risk features such as a historic wooden bridge or an interpretive display. The facilities are assessed based on access, the surrounding environment, construction design, and protection resources and limitations, resulting in a numerical score and risk adjective rating for each facility. These ratings designate the likelihood of ignition during a wildland fire. The facilities are symbolized by their respective risk rating.Community - A community is a group of five or more facilities, a majority of which are within 600 feet of each other, that share common access and protection attributes. The community concept was developed to facilitate data collection and entry in areas with multiple facilities and where it made sense to apply treatments and tactics at a scale larger than individual facilities. Most of the community polygons are created using models in ArcMap, but some may have been created or edited in the field using a Trimble GPS unit. *The NPS Facilities layer is updated continually as new wildfire risk assessments are conducted and the Wildland Fire Risk Assessment project progresses. The assessment data contained here is the most current data available.*More information about the NPS Wildland Fire Risk Assessment Project, and the NPS Facilities data itself, can be found at the New Wildland Fire Risk Assessments website. This site provides information on the data collection process, additional ways to access the data, and how to conduct assessments yourself (for both NPS and non-NPS facilities).FACILITY ATTRIBUTES
Unit_ID NWCG Unit ID, Two letter state code and three letter unit abbreviation, for example UTZIP for Zion National Park in Utah.

Fire_Bldg_ID User maintained unique ID for Facility layer.

Building ID Unique Id from the NPS Enterprise Buildings dataset.

FMSS ID Unique ID for the facility in the NPS FMSS database.

Community ID Unique ID linking facility to a community

Assess Scale Indicates if the facility is part of a community/ will be included in a community assessment. Communities are pre-defined by regional GIS staff and visible in this map as a blue perimeter.
Answer "Yes" if you are adding a facility point within a predefined community.

Common Name Name of the structure. In most cases, the name comes from the NPS FMSS database.

Map Label Numerical label used for mapping purposes.

Owner Indicates who owns the structure being assessed.

Facilty Type Indicates the facility type OR if the facility has been REMOVED, DESTROYED, has NO WILDLAND RISK, is PRIVATE - NO SURVEY REQUIRED or DOES NOT REQUIRE A SURVEY (because it is planned for removal).

Facility Use What is the primary use of the facility?

Building Occupied Is the building occupied?

Community Name Name of the community the facility is located within, if any.

Field Crew Field crew completing the assessment.

Last Site Visit Date Date which the facility was visited and assessment data reviewed/updated.

Location General location within the unit – may use FMUs, watersheds, or other identifier. One location may contain multiple communities and individual facilities. Locations are used to filter data for reports and map products.

PrimaryAccess Primary method of accessing the facility.

IngressEgress Number of routes into and away from the facility.

AccessWidth Width of the road or driveway used to access the facility.

AccessCond Grade and surface material of the road or driveway used to access the facility.

BridgeCond Condition, based on load limits and construction.

Turnaround Describes how close can a fire apparatus drive to the facility and once there, whether it can turnaround.

BldgNum Is the facility clearly signed or numbered?

FuelLoad Fuel loading within 300 ft of the facility (see appendix D of the Wildfire Risk Assessment User Guide)

FuelType Predominant fuel type within 300 ft of the facility.

DefensibleSpace Amount of defensible space around the facility, see criteria for evaluating defensible space in the Wildfire Risk Assessment User Guide.

Topography Predominant slope within 300 ft of facility.

RoofMat Roofing material used on the facility.

SidingMat Siding material used on the facility.

Foundation Describes the facility’s foundation.

Fencing Indicates presence of any wooden attachments, fencing, decking, pergola, etc. and fuels clearance around those attachments.

Firewood Firewood distance from facility.

Propane Inidicates if a propane tank exists within 200 feet of a structure and if there is any fuels clearance around the propane tank(s).

Hazmat List of hazmat existing on the site.

WaterSupply Water supply available to the facility.

OverheadHaz Identifies the presence of overhead hazards that will limit aerial firefighting efforts.

SafetyZone Identifies the presence of any potential safety zones.

SZRadius Radius of any potential safety zones.

Obstacles Additional obstacles, not already included in assessment, that will limit firefighting efforts- to include items such as UXO, hazmat,etc. If there are additional obstacles, be sure to comment in Assessment Comments or Tactic descriptions where appropriate.

TriageCategory Refer to IRPG for descriptions of each category. This information will be displayed in the NIFS Structure Triage layer for incident response.

Score Sum of attribute values for all assessment elements including access, environment, structure and protection portions of the assessment.

Rating Wildland fire risk rating based on score. Ratings are No Wildland Risk, Low, Moderate and High. Rating indicates likelihood if facility igniting if a wildland fire occurs.

ProtectionLevel Inidcates structures which are priority for protection during a wildfire. For Alaska Region data, indicates identified protection level for structure. For lower 48, enter ‘Unknown’ unless specified by local unit.

ProtLevelApprovalName Name of person who designated Protection Level

ProtLevelApprovalDate Date Protection Level Designated

ResourcesOfConcern Indicates if it is necessary to contact park staff before engaging in suppression activities because special resources (natural, cultural, historic) of concern are present?

AssessComments Explain any aspects of the assessment that require extra detail.

RegionCode NPS Region Code - AKR, IMR, NER, NCR, MWR, PWR or SER

UnitCode

NPS Unit Code

ReasonIncluded Why is the point in the dataset – NPS owned, Treatment Planning, Protection Responsibility, Planning (other than treatments). Intent of the dataset is to document wildfire risk for NPS owned structures. Other structures or facilities may be included at the discretion of the unit's fire management staff.

Restriction How can the data be shared – Unrestricted, Restricted - No Third Party Release, Restricted – Originating Agency Concurrence, Restricted – Affected Cultural Group Concurrence, Restricted - No Release, Unknown. Only unrestricted data is included in this dataset.

Local_ID Field which can be used to store unique ids linking back to any local datasets.

RevisitInterval How many years will it take for the fuels to change significantly enough to change the score and rating for this facility?

IsVisited Use this field to keep track of what you have done during a field session. Filter on this field to see what has been assessed and what still needs visited during a field data collection session.

DeleteThis Users enter yes if this is this a duplicate or was no facility found.
If you know the facility was REMOVED or DESTROYED, go back to Facility Type and enter that information there.

Data_Source

FirewiseZone1 List of treatments needed to