This data set represents the geographic extent of the Great Salt Lake shoreline varying water levels.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpageunder 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, OtherSalt Lake County Tax Exempt codes below:AE - Airport - ExemptCC - Commercial Common AreaCE - Conservation EasementCM - CemeteryEC - Exempt CharitableEE - Exempt EducationER - Exempt ReligiousGB - GreenbeltHE - Homeowners Assoc ExemptIL - In LieuIR - Irrigation CompanyMC - Master CardOE - Owner ExemptPE - Part ExemptPR - Pro-RatedPT - Privilege TaxPY - Privilege Tax on a YieldSA - State AssessedSC - State and Cnty AssessedSE - Special - ExemptSU - Salt Lake - Utah CntyTD - Divided Tax DistrictUI - Undivided_Interest TAX_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. ResidentialSalt Lake County Property Class codes below:R - Residential / CondoC - CommercialI - IndustrialRE - RecreationalA - AgriculturalMH - Multi HousingMore information about the PROP_CLASS and PROP_TYPE for Salt Lake County can be found at http://slco.org/assessor/new/queryproptyp.cfmPROP_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Single Family Res.,Townhome, CondoPRIMARY_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)

Last updated: May 3, 2022This dataset was derived from the breakline features associated with the 2016 Great Salt Lake LiDAR project. To create this dataset the Lake Pond features were extracted from the GreatSaltLake_Breaklines shapefile and converted into polygons. All polygons outside of the main north and south arms of the lake were removed. The Elevation_m (elev_m) & Elevation_ft (elev_ft) values represent the elevation of the water when the LiDAR was acquired.More information can be found on the UGRC data page for this layer:https://gis.utah.gov/data/water/gsl-resources/

Shapefile giving geographic boundaries of the Great Salt Lake Basins. There are 6 features in this shapefile - The lake itself. This is at a nominal high extent as extracted from common data sources - Bear River Basin - Weber River Basin (Which includes Davis County) - Jordan/Provo River River Basin - West Desert - Strawberry

Strawberry is not topographically within the Great Salt Lake drainage, but is the area draining to Strawberry reservoir that supplies water to the GSL basin through the central Utah Project.

The west desert was delineated from digital elevation model analysis separating out the area more adjacent to the lake from a larger area that extends much further south but deemed not relevant for Great Salt Lake hydrology studies.

The original source of this data is not known. For a more precise and current basin delineation I suggest referring to the USGS watershed boundary dataset. This data is the underling data for maps in the following papers Mohammed, I. N. and D. G. Tarboton, (2012), "An examination of the sensitivity of the Great Salt Lake to changes in inputs," Water Resour. Res., 48(11): W11511, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012WR011908. Mohammed, I. N. and D. G. Tarboton, (2011), "On the Interaction between Bathymetry and Climate in the System Dynamics and Preferred Levels of the Great Salt Lake," Water Resour. Res., 47: W02525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009561.

This data set represents the meander line of the Great Salt Lake.

This dataset represents the Flood Plain Management Services Study (FPMS) ares, 100-Year Flood for the Great Salt Lake. The area included Salt Lake City, Davis, Weber, tooele and box elder County The information was collected by digitzing the quad maps (Salt Lake, Tooele, boxelder county) and plate maps (weber and Davis county). The digital data contain the zone boundary and shoreline boundary. The FPMS study was limited to the general area along the Salt Lake County shoreline of the Great Salt Lake Only the 100-year flood elevation was evaluated and included wind and wave action for the Great Salt Lake. This dataset is the most current digital information available.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

Geospatial data about Salt Lake County, Utah Roads — Private. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

UTA On Demand Salt Lake City Westside. Microtransit. HEX Code: 0083C9 - 13% transparency Provided on 3/11/2022

Geospatial data about Salt Lake City, Utah School Board Districts. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

The purpose of this project is to map wetland areas near the Great Salt Lake and display the changes that these areas have seen during drought conditions.

Local and National Historic Sites in Salt Lake City

The State of Utah, including the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, Utah Geological Survey, and the Utah Division of Emergency Management, along with local and federal partners, including Salt Lake County and local cities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have funded and collected over 8380 km² (3236 mi²) of high-resolution (0.5 or 1 meter) Lidar data across the state since 2011, in support of a diverse set of flood mapping, geologic, transportation, infrastructure, solar energy, and vegetation projects. The datasets include point cloud, first return digital surface model (DSM), and bare-earth digital terrain/elevation model (DEM) data, along with appropriate metadata (XML, project tile indexes, and area completion reports).

This 0.5-meter 2013-2014 Wasatch Front dataset includes most of the Salt Lake and Utah Valleys (Utah), and the Wasatch (Utah and Idaho), and West Valley fault zones (Utah).

Other recently acquired State of Utah data include the 2011 Utah Geological Survey Lidar dataset covering Cedar and Parowan Valleys, the east shore/wetlands of Great Salt Lake, the Hurricane fault zone, the west half of Ogden Valley, North Ogden, and part of the Wasatch Plateau in Utah.

The Address Points dataset shows Utah address points for all twenty-nine Utah counties. An address point represents a geographic location that has been assigned a US Postal Service (USPS) address by the local address authority (i.e., county or municipality) but does not necessarily receive mail. Address points may include several pieces of information about the structure or location that’s being mapped, such as:the full address (i.e., the USPS mailing address, if the address is for a physical location [rather than a PO box]);the landmark name; whether the location is a building;the type of unit;the city and ZIP code; unique code identifiers of the specific geographic location, including the Federal Information Processing Standard Publication (FIPS) county code and the US National Grid (USNG) spatial address;the address source; andthe date that the address point was loaded into the map layer.This dataset is mapping grade; it is a framework layer that receives regular updates. As with all our datasets, the Utah Geospatial Resource Center (UGRC) works to ensure the quality and accuracy of our data to the best of our abilities. Maintaining the dataset is now an ongoing effort between UGRC, counties, and municipalities. Specifically, UGRC works with each county or municipality’s Master Address List (MAL) authority to continually improve the address point data. Counties have been placed on an update schedule depending on the rate of new development and change within them. Populous counties, such as Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Washington, are more complete and are updated monthly, while rural or less populous counties may be updated quarterly or every six months.The information in the Address Points dataset was originally compiled by Utah counties and municipalities and was aggregated by UGRC for the MAL grant initiative in 2012. The purpose of this initiative was to make sure that all state entities were using the same verified, accurate county and municipal address information. Since 2012, more data has been added to the Address Points GIS data and is used for geocoding, 911 response, and analysis and planning purposes. The Address Point data is also used as reference data for the api.mapserv.utah.gov geocoding endpoint, and you can find the address points in many web mapping applications. This dataset is updated monthly and can also be found at: https://gis.utah.gov/data/location/address-data/.

These data were created for mapping usage, areas have been trimmed to the high water mark of Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake. Creates a clearer visual picture of the municipalities.

Current thru June 30, 2017

Subdivision boundaries in Salt Lake County maintained by the Salt Lake County Surveyor's Office.

The Utah Geospatial Resource Center (UGRC) services are the authoritative source for Utah cadastral data used by the BLM Utah State Office. This includes the statewide Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and the Geographic Coordinate System Database (GCDB).The GCDB dataset provides the BLM and the public with a set of geographic foundation data that accurately depicts the locations of PLSS corners. The GCDB is based on the best and most current survey records available, and uses known geographic positions of control stations within the PLSS network. The GCDB is the key component of all cadastral information.All users of PLSS datasets ought to be aware that UGRC is continually updating these data. Updates are expected annually as horizontal control positions from published sources and global positioning system (GPS) observations are added. The GCDB grid is adjusted using various methods to determine the best geographic positions of the survey points.Links to UGRC Datasets:Utah PLSS Townships GCDB - https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utah::utah-plss-townships-gcdb/about ;Utah PLSS Sections GCDB - https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utah::utah-plss-sections-gcdb/about ;Utah PLSS Quarter Sections GCDB - https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utah::utah-plss-quarter-sections-gcdb/about ;Utah PLSS Quarter Quarter Sections GCDB - https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utah::utah-plss-quarter-quarter-sections-gcdb/about ;Utah PLSS Point GCDB - https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utah::utah-plss-point-gcdb/about ;BLM Point of Contact:Calvert Norton Land Surveyor/PLSS Dataset ManagerBureau of Land Management, Utah State Office 440 W. 200 S., Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801-539-4140 Email: cnorton@blm.gov

This dataset represents the depth to groundwater in Utah, defined by areas. Original manuscript maps were provided by the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) and digitized by AGRC. The final data products were verified and approved by the UGS. Procedures_Used: Data was digitized by AGRC with ARC/INFO software from the reproduction film positive at 1:750,000 scale. After modifications. the final data products were verified and approved by the UGS. Reviews_Applied_to_Data: Possible distortion of the original manuscription (conceivably introduced through the photo-reduction process) was detected during digitizing. The digitized linework was visually compared to the source document. Differences in the base map data as depicted on this dataset are revealed when compared to other sources (eg. the shoreline of the Great Salt Lake). This disparity does not reflect the quality of the data.

Last update: April 4, 2023Added the Mammoth address system in Juab county. Additional minor edits to account for annexations in Utah (Springville, Lehi) and Box Elder (Willard, Garland) counties, April 2023.Added several address grids in Beaver county (Elk Meadows, Ponderosa, Greenville, Adamsville, Sulphurdale). Made major updates to grids in Utah, Cache, Tooele, and Box Elder Counties. Renamed 'NSL' to 'North Salt Lake' and 'East Carbon City' to 'East Carbon', December 2022. Minor adjustment to quadrants in Bluff.Added Rocky Ridge address grid in northern Juab county, August 2022.Updates were made near Elsinore/Central Valley/Monroe corners due to recent Elsinore annexation and inputs from Sevier County, September 2021.Improvements were made to Brigham City, Millville, Logan, and Providence, February 2016.Improvements were made to the Heber, Hyde Park, Logan, and Woodland address system boundaries; updated the American Fork, Fielding, Payson, and Saratoga Springs address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, January 2016Improvements were made to the Hyde Park and Logan address system boundary, November 2015Improvements were made to the Hyrum and Logan address system boundary, November 2015Updated the American Fork address system boundary to reflect recent annexations, October 2015Improvements were made to the Brigham City, Fishlake, Fremont, Garland, Loa, Lyman, Mantua, Tremonton, and Willard address system boundaries; updated the Lehi and Santa Clara address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, August 2015Improvements were made to the Price and Wellington address system boundaries; updated the Lehi and Provo address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, July 2015Improvements were made to the Layton and HAFB address system boundaries; updated the Provo and Spanish Fork address system boundaries to reflect recent annexations, June 2015Updated address system boundaries to reflect annexations in Lehi, Lewiston, and Snowville, May 2015Improvements were made to the Orderville address system boundary to match the municipal boundary, February 2015Updated address system boundaries to match annexations in American Fork, Farmington, Elk Ridge, Grantsville, Lehi, Mendon, Mount Pleasant, Payson, Provo, Spanish Fork, and Washington, January 2015 Improvements were made to the Elmo and Cleveland address system boundaries, December 2014Improvements were made to the Wellington address system boundaries, July 2014Improvements were made to the NSL (North Salt Lake) and Bountiful address system boundaries, June 2014.Changed address system name East Carbon-Sunnyside to East Carbon City, May 2014Updated address system boundaries to match annexations in northern Utah County; misc improvements in Davis County; adjusted Laketown/Garden City boundary, April 2014Merged East Carbon and Sunnyside to create the East Carbon-Sunnyside address system, February 2014.Improvements were made to the Iron County address system quadrant boundaries and topological errors were corrected statewide, January 2014. Improvements were made to Garfield County and Washington County address system quadrant boundaries, August 2013.More information can be found on the UGRC data page for this layer:https://gis.utah.gov/data/location/address-data/

Last Update: 08/29/2024The statewide roads dataset is a multi-purpose statewide roads dataset for cartography and range based-address location. This dataset is also used as the base geometry for deriving the GIS-representation of UDOT's highway linear referencing system (LRS). A network analysis dataset for route-finding can also be derived from this dataset. This dataset utilizes a data model based on Next-Generation 911 standards and the Federal Highway Administration's All Roads Network Of Linear-referenced Data (ARNOLD) reporting requirements for state DOTs. UGRC adopted this data model on September 13th, 2017.The statewide roads dataset is maintained by UGRC in partnership with local governments, the Utah 911 Committee, and UDOT. This dataset is updated monthly with Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Washington and Weber represented every month, along with additional counties based on an annual update schedule. UGRC obtains the data from the authoritative data source (typically county agencies), projects the data and attributes into the current data model, spatially assigns polygon-based fields based on the appropriate SGID boundary, and then standardizes the attribute values to ensure statewide consistency. UGRC also generates a UNIQUE_ID field based on the segment's location in the US National Grid, with the street name then tacked on. The UNIQUE_ID field is static and is UGRC's current, ad hoc solution to a persistent global id. More information about the data model can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jQ_JuRIEtzxj60F0FAGmdu5JrFpfYBbSt3YzzCjxpfI/edit#gid=811360546 More information about the data model transition can be found here: https://gis.utah.gov/major-updates-coming-to-roads-data-model/We are currently working with US Forest Service to improve the Forest Service roads in this dataset, however, for the most up-to-date and complete set of USFS roads, please visit their data portal where you can download the "National Forest System Roads" dataset.More information can be found on the UGRC data page for this layer:https://gis.utah.gov/data/transportation/roads-system/