Statewide Traffic Volume Historic and Forecast Historic traffic volume observations, future traffic volume forecasts, and adjustment factors -- are summarized using Utah's roadway planning summary segments -- for the Wasatch Front Regional Council metropolitan planning organization travel model area. This dataset can be viewed in an interactive map at: https://wfrc.org/traffic-volume-map/. This dataset provides segment level traffic volume data (historic estimates and future forecasts) within the state of Utah. Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) metropolitan planning organization's travel model boundaries (including Salt Lake, Davis, western Weber, and southern Box Elder counties' urbanized areas). Future forecasts have been developed with the support of the Wasatch Front Travel Demand Model (v8.3.1) in conjunction with the adopted 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This dataset was first released May 5th, 2020 (check the RELEASE field/column attribute for most recent update date). MAG travel model boundaries include the urbanized areas of Utah County. Cache travel model boundaries include Cache County. Dixie travel model boundaries include Washington County. Also contained within this dataset are adjustment factors, developed as part of a statewide effort led by UDOT, that can be used to scale the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes estimates and forecasts to provide more time-period specific volumes for a time period subsets (e.g. weekdays, weekends, specific months, seasons, maximum month, etc). Contact and additional information is available from https://wfrc.org/models-and-forecasting or through email contact to analytics@wfrc.org.UPDATE 12/31/2021: Highland Drive revised forecasts for SEGIDs 2082_009.0, 2082_009.6, 2082_011.5, 0152_002.5, 0152_002.8. Field names and descriptions are as follows: RELEASE (version of dataset) SEGID (Segment ID, combination of Route_ID and BMP) ROUTE_ID (Route Identification, <1000 for Interstate/State Routes, >1,000 for Federal Aid Routes) BMP (Begin Milepost, or milepost of beginning of segment) EMP (End Milepost, or milepost of ending of segment) FULLNAME (name of segment) CO_FIPS (County Federal Information Processing Standard, unique code for each county) CO_NAME (Name of county) X (Centroid of Segment, UTM Zone 12N) Y (Y Centroid of Segment, UTM Zone 12N) DISTANCE (length of segment in miles) F2050...F2024 (forecast AADT volumes for model years per 2019 RTP) CH17TO50...CH17TO19 (change in AADT volumes between model years) FNOTES (forecast notes, typically when drop or large increase in volumes) MOREINFO (url to more general information on models and forecasts) WFRC_FLG (flag value used internally by WFRC) AADT2017...AADT1981 (AADT estimates for a given year from UDOT) SUTRK2017 (Single-Unit, Box Type Truck percentage for 2017) CUTRK2017 (Combo-Unit, Semi Type Truck percentage for 2017) DOWFACFC (Day-of-Week Factor Functional Class) DOWFACAT (Day-of-Week Factor Area Type) FAC_MON...FAC_SUN (Day-of-Week factors for given days) FAC_WDAVG (Average Weekday Factor Monday-Thursday, multiply AADT by factor to get AWDT, divide AWDT by factor to get AADT) FAC_WEAVG (Average Weekend Factor Friday-Sunday) FAC_WEMAX (Max Weekend Factor Friday-Sunday) SSNGRP (Seasonal Factor Group) SSNVOLCLS (Seasonal Factor Volume Class) SSNATGROUP (Seasonal Factor Area Type Group) FAC_JAN...FAC_DEC (Month Factors, multiply AADT or AWDT get month ADT or AWDT) FAC_WIN (Winter Factor, December-February) FAC_SPR (Spring Factor, March-May) FAC_SUM (Summer Factor, June-August) FAC_FAL (Fall Factor, September-November) FAC_MAXMO (Month in which Maximum Month Factor is found) FAC_MAX (Maximum Month Factor)

AuthorityIn the 1963 general session, the Utah State Legislature charged the Division of Water Resources with the responsibility of developing a State Water Plan. This plan is to coordinate and direct the activities of state and federal agencies concerned with Utah’s water resources. As a part of this objective, the Division of Water Resources collects water-related land use data for the entire state. This data includes the types and extent of irrigated crops as well as information concerning phreatophytes, wet/open water areas, dry land agriculture and urban areas.The data produced by the water-related land use program are used for various planning purposes. Some of these include: determining cropland water use, evaluating irrigated land losses and conversion to urban uses, planning for new water development, estimating irrigated acreages for any area, and developing water budgets. Additionally, the data are used by many other state and federal agencies.Previous MethodsThe land use inventory methods used by the division in conducting water-related land use studies have varied with regard to the procedures used and the precision obtained. During the 1960s and 70s, inventories were prepared using large format vertical-aerial photographs supplemented with field surveys to label boundaries, vegetation types, and other water use information.After identifying crops and labeling photographs, the information was transferred onto a base map and then planimetered or "dot-counted" to determine the acreage. Tables for individual townships and ranges were prepared showing the amount of land in each land use category within each section. Data were then available for use in preparing water budgets.In the early 1980s, the division began updating its methodology for collecting water-related land use data to take advantage of the rapidly growing fields of Remote Sensing and computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS).For several years during the early 1980’s, the division contracted with the University of Utah Research Institute, Center for Remote Sensing and Cartography (CRSC), to prepare water-related land use inventories. During this period, water-related land use data was obtained by using high altitude color infrared photography and laboratory interpretation, with field checking.In March 1984, several division staff members visited the California Department of Water Resources to observe its methodology for collecting water-related land use data for state water planning purposes.Based on its review of the California methodology and its own experience, the division developed a water-related land use inventory program. This program included the use of 35mm slides, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps, field-mapping using base maps produced from the 35mm photography and a computerized GIS to process, store and retrieve land use data.Areas for survey were first identified from previous land use studies and any other available information. The identified areas were then photographed using an aircraft carrying a high quality 35mm single lens reflex camera mounted to focus along a vertical axis to the earth. Photos were taken between 6,000 and 6,500 feet above the ground using a 24mm lens. This procedure allowed each slide to cover a little more than one square mile with approximately 30 percent overlap on the wide side of the slide and 5 percent on the slide's narrow side.The slides were then indexed according to a flight-line number, slide number, latitude and longitude. All 35mm slides were stored in files at the division offices and cataloged according to township, range and section, and quadrangle map location.Water-related land use areas were then transferred from the slide to USGS 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps using a standard slide projector with a 100-200mm zoom lens. This step allowed the technician to project the slide onto the back of a quadrangle map. The image showing through the map was adjusted to the map scale with the zoom lens. Field boundaries and other water-use boundaries were then traced on the 7-1/2 minute quadrangle map.Next, a team was sent to use the map in the field to check the boundaries and current year land use field data on the 7-1/2 minute quadrangles.The final step was to digitize and process the field data using ARC/INFO software developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).Starting in 2000 with the land use survey of the Uintah Basin, the division further improved its land use program by using digital data for the purposes of outlining agricultural and other land cover boundaries. The division used satellite data, USGS Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs), National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), and other digital images in a heads-up digitizing mode for this process. This allowed the division to use multiple technicians for the digitizing process.Digitizing was done as line and polygon files using ArcView 3.2 with a satellite image, DOQ or NAIP image as a background with other layers added for reference. Boundary files were created in logical groups so that the process of edge-matching along quad lines was eliminated and precision increased. Subsequent inventories were digitized in the ArcMap 9.x software versions. Present MethodologyUsing the latest statewide NAIP Imagery and ArcGIS 10, all boundaries of individual agricultural fields, urban areas, and significant riparian areas are precisely digitized. 2017 marked the first year of using the CDL Method for the whole state of Utah. This method utilizes the Cropland Data Layer from the USDA's National Ag. Statistics Service which provides acreage estimates major commodities and to produce crop-specific geo-referenced products at 30m resolution. The CDL Method utilizes past line work digitized by the division and reconciles changes that may have occurred, including new crop types or ag-to-urban conversions.Once the process of boundary digitizing is done, the polygons are loaded onto tablet PCs. Field crews are then sent to field check the crop and irrigation type for each agricultural polygon and label the shapefiles accordingly. Each tablet PC is attached to a GPS unit for real-time tracking to continuously update the field crew’s location during the field labeling process. This improved process has saved the division much time and money and even greater savings will be realized as the new statewide field boundaries are completed.Once processed and quality checked, the data is filed in the State Geographic Information Database (SGID) maintained by the State Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). Once in the SGID, the data becomes available to the public. At this point, the data is also ready for use in preparing various planning studies.In conducting water-related land use inventories, the division attempts to inventory all lands or areas that consume or evaporate water other than natural precipitation. Areas not inventoried are mainly desert, rangeland and forested areas.Wet/open water areas and dry land agriculture areas are mapped if they are within or border irrigated lands. As a result, the numbers of acres of wet/open water areas and dry land agriculture reported by the division may not represent all such areas in a basin or county.During land use inventories, the division uses 11 hydrologic basins as the basic collection units. County data is obtained from the basin data. The water-related land use data collected statewide covers more than 4.3 million acres of dry and irrigated agricultural land. This represents about 8 percent of the total land area in the state.Due to changes in methodology, improvements in imagery, and upgrades in software and hardware, increasingly more refined inventories have been made in each succeeding year of the Water-Related Land Use Inventory. While this improves the data we report, it also makes comparisons to past years difficult. Making comparisons between datasets is still useful; however, increases or decreases in acres reported should not be construed to represent definite trends or total amounts of change up or down. To estimate such trends or change, more analysis is required.

The Sheeprocks (UT) was revised to resync with the UT habitat change as reflected in the Oct 2017 habitat data, creating the most up-to-date version of this dataset. Data submitted by Wyoming in February 2018 and by Montana and Oregon in May 2016 were used to update earlier versions of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding). PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat. PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH. Datasets used to create PPH and PGH: Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review. Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011). Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35). Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping. Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: Areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016 and again in October 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, the Core Area maps and data were developed as one component of the Conservation Strategy for sage-grouse. Specifically, these data provide a tool in planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. These maps will assist in making

Water use and supply data for 2016 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2016 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2016 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2016 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

Feature Classes are loaded onto tablet PCs and Field crews are sent to label the crop or land cover type and irrigation method for a subset of select fields or polygons. Each tablet PC is attached to a GPS unit for real-time tracking to continuously update the field crew’s location during the field labeling process.Digitizing is done as Geodatabase feature classes using ArcPro 3.1.0 with Sentinel imagery as a background with other layers added for reference. Updates to existing field boundaries of individual agricultural fields, urban areas and more are precisely digitized. Changes in irrigation type and land use are noted during this process.Cropland Data Layer (CDL) rasters from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are downloaded for the appropriate year. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/Zonal Statistics geoprocessing tools are used to attribute the polygons with updated crop types from the CDL. The data is then run through several stages of comparison to historical inventories and quality checking in order to determine and produce the final attributes.LUID - Unique ID number for each polygon in the final dataset, not consistent between yearly datasets.Landuse - A general land cover classification differentiating how the land is used.Agriculture: Land managed for crop or livestock purposes.Other: A broad classification of wildland.Riparian/Wetland: Wildland influenced by a high water table, often close to surface water.Urban: Developed areas, includes urban greenspace such as parks.Water: Surface water such as wet flats, streams, and lakes.CropGroup - Groupings of broader crop categories to allow easy access to or query of all orchard or grain types etc.Description - Attribute that describes/indicates the various crop types and land use types determined by the GIS process.IRR_Method - Crop Irrigation Method carried over from statewide field surveys ending in 2015 and updated based on imagery and yearly field checks.Drip: Water is applied through lines that slowly release water onto the surface or subsurface of the crop.Dry Crop: No irrigation method is applied to this agricultural land, the crop is irrigated via natural processes.Flood: Water is diverted from ditches or pipes upland from the crop in sufficient quantities to flood the irrigated plot.None: Associated with non-agricultural landSprinkler: Water is applied above the crop via sprinklers that generally move across the field.Sub-irrigated: This land does not have irrigation water applied, but due to a high water table receives more water, and is generally closely associated with a riparian area.Acres - Calculated acreage of the polygon.State - State where the polygons are found.Basin - The hydrologic basin where the polygons are found, closely related to HUC 6. These basin boundaries were created by DWRe to include portions of other basins that have inter-basin flows for management purposes.SubArea - The subarea where the polygons are found, closely related to the HUC 8. Subareas are subdivisions of the larger hydrologic basins created by DWRe.Label_Class - Combination of Label and Class_Name fields created during processing that indicates the specific crop, irrigation, and whether the CDL classified the land as a similar crop or an “Other” crop.LABEL - A shorthand descriptive label for each crop description and irrigation type.Class_Name - The majority pixel value from the USDA CDL Cropscape raster layer within the polygon, may differ from final crop determination (Description).OldLanduse - Similar to Landuse, but splits the agricultural land further depending on irrigation. Pre-2017 datasets defined this as Landuse.LU_Group - These codes represent some in-house groupings that are useful for symbology and other summarizing.Field_Check - Indicates the year the polygon was last field checked. *New for 2019SURV_YEAR - Indicates which year/growing season the data represents.

The USGS Central Region Energy Team assesses oil and gas resources of the United States. The onshore and State water areas of the United States comprise 71 provinces. Within these provinces, Total Petroleum Systems are defined and Assessment Units are defined and assessed. Each of these provinces is defined geologically, and most province boundaries are defined by major geologic changes. The Uinta-Piceance Province is located in eastern Utah and western Colorado, encompassing all or parts of Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Montrose, Ouray, Rio Blanco, and Routt Counties in Colorado and all or parts of Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Sanpete, Sevier, Uintah, Utah, and Wasatch Counties in Utah. The main population centers within the study area are Grand Junction and Rifle, Colo.; and Price and Vernal, Utah. The main highways, I-70 and U.S. 40, generally traverse the area from east to west. The Green River and Colorado River and their tributaries drain the area. For this study the Uinta-Piceance Province includes the Wasatch Plateau. The province boundary was drawn to include the geologic structures generally considered to be in or bounding the Uinta Basin and Piceance Basin.

Water use and supply data for 2018 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2018 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2018 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2018 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

Water use and supply data for 2022 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2022 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2022 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2022 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

This dataset includes 40 georeferenced images, acquired on September 25th, October 12th-13th, November 10th and December 1st, 1937 over portions of Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, in Box Elder County, Utah. This series of images were received from the refuge as large, hard copy black and white photos and scanned in the Region 6 Regional Office at 400 dpi on a large-format scanner. The image files naming convention includes the date and frame number contained on the hard copy image as well as “geo” for georeferenced files. The images were georeferenced in using Box Elder County 2014 CIR NAIP images. The reference map can be used to identify locations of the images in relation to the refuge boundary. These images provide a valuable look back in time before the major flooding which occurred in the early 1980's which the Great Salt Lake covered nearly all of the refuge. Flooding conditions remained for 5-6 years. These images allow delineation of landscape features and habitats including original infrastructure including levees and roads, distribution of emergent vegetation, etc. Change over time estimates can be made from these images using current imagery for comparison. These images, and others from 1965, are being used by refuge staff to assist in understanding and visualizing the historical content of the lands within the refuge and how they have changed over the last 80 years. These images should be used for resource-level interpretation only.

Water use and supply data for 2020 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2020 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2020 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2020 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

Water use and supply data for 2017 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2017 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2017 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2017 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.

Water use and supply data for 2015 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).

For a file geodatabase (.gdb) Click Here (includes files used to create data).For the final report, full documentation, and metadata Click Here.Feature Classes are loaded onto tablet PCs and Field crews are sent to label the crop or land cover type and irrigation method for a subset of select fields or polygons. Each tablet PC is attached to a GPS unit for real-time tracking to continuously update the field crew’s location during the field labeling process. Digitizing is done as Geodatabase feature classes using ArcPro 3.2.1 with Sentinel imagery as a background with other layers added for reference. Updates to existing field boundaries of individual agricultural fields, urban areas and more are precisely digitized. Changes in irrigation type and land use are noted during this process. Cropland Data Layer (CDL) rasters from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are downloaded for the appropriate year. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/Zonal Statistics geoprocessing tools are used to attribute the polygons with updated crop types from the CDL. The data is then run through several stages of comparison to historical inventories and quality checking in order to determine and produce the final attributes.AttributesLanduse– A general land cover classification differentiating how the land is usedAgriculture: Land managed for crop or livestock purposesOther: A broad classification of wildlandRiparian/Wetland: Wildland influenced by a high water table, often close to surface waterUrban: Developed areas, includes urban greenspace such as parks.Water: Surface water such as wet flats, streams, and lakes. CropGroup– Groupings of broader crop categories to allow easy access to or query of all orchard or grain types etc. Description– Attribute that describes/indicates the various crop types and land use types determined by the GIS process. IRR_Method– Crop Irrigation Method carried over from statewide field surveys ending in 2015 and updated based on imagery and yearly field checks.Drip: Water is applied through lines that slowly release water onto the surface or subsurface of the cropDry Crop: No irrigation method is applied to this agricultural land, the crop is irrigated via natural processes.Flood: Water is diverted from ditches or pipes upland from the crop in sufficient quantities to flood the irrigated plotNone: Associated with non-agricultural landSprinkler: Water is applied above the crop via sprinklers that generally move across the field.Sub-irrigated: This land does not have irrigation water applied, but due to a high water table receives more water, and is generally closely associated with a riparian areaAcres– Calculated acreage of the polygon. State– State where the polygons are found. County– County where the polygons are found. Basin– The hydrologic basin where the polygons are found, closely related to HUC 6. These basin boundaries were created by DWRe to include portions of other basins that have inter-basin flows for management purposes. SubArea– The subarea where the polygons are found, closely related to the HUC 8. Subareas are subdivisions of the larger hydrologic basins created by DWRe. Label_Class– Combination of Label and Class_Name fields created during processing that indicates the specific crop, irrigation, and whether the CDL classified the land as a similar crop or an “Other” crop. LABEL– A shorthand descriptive label for each crop description and irrigation type. Class_Name– The majority pixel value from the USDA CDL Cropscape raster layer within the polygon, may differ from final crop determination (Description). OldLanduse– Similar to Landuse, but splits the agricultural land further depending on irrigation. Pre-2017 datasets defined this as Landuse.LU_Group– These codes represent some in-house groupings that are useful for symbology and other summarizing.SURV_YEAR– Indicates which year/growing season the data represents.

Water use and supply data for 2022 joined to spatial boundaries. GPCD = Gallons Per Capita Day or Gallons Per Person Per Day. Supply and Use numbers are in Acre Feet Per Year (ACFT).This database contains municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial water use data gathered by the Utah Division of Water Rights for the 2022 calendar year. The Utah Division of Water Resources has analyzed water use data every five years since 1990; however, since 2015 the division uses a significantly different methodological and data accuracy system.The updated and improved methodology is based on recommendations from a 2015 Legislative Audit, 2017 Legislative Audit Update and a 2018 third party analysis of our processes. All recommendations necessary for this data release have been implemented. Changes in recommended secondary water use estimate inputs, as well as the transfer of second homes from the commercial category to the residential category, are examples of updates that impact categorical or total use estimates.While we are encouraged by the improvements, these changes make comparing the 2022 numbers to past water use data before 2015 problematic due to the significant methodology differences. As a result, we will be using the 2015 data as the new baseline for comparison and planning moving forward. The audit reports and third party recommendations can be found at: https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/municipal-and-industrial.Likewise, comparisons from region to region within Utah are problematic due to differences in climate, number of vacation homes and other factors. Comparisons between Utah’s water use numbers and data from other states have little value given there is no nationally consistent methodology standard for analyzing and reporting water use numbers.It should be noted that administrative processes were changed in 2016 to ensure community water system data corrections are updated in the Utah Division of Water Rights’ database and website. These updated processes are included in the 2022 data.Utah’s Open Water Data Portal can be found at https://dwre-utahdnr.opendata.arcgis.com/. The division believes that data accessibility and transparency is vital as water decisions become more complicated and critical.