Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

This dataset depicts the land ownership status, formal place name designations, administrative areas of responsibility for the State of Utah, primarily consistent with 1:24,000 or finer map accuracy goals. Users are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the ‘Data Content’ section below as there are several key fields that unlock multiple possible layers from this single layer.The key fields that users should review and understand are named: OWNER, OWNERAGENCY, ADMIN, DESIG and the two LABEL fields as values from these fields can be used to select subsets for display or analysis (see example layers below).Revisions are posted weekly to AGRC’s SGID’s database, services, and file-based download products.Maintenance of this data layer is performed by a cooperative federal and state effort. The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) revises this data regularly to reflect changes in State Trust Lands, other State Land and Private Land as needed.The BLM contributes updates to this data to reflect changes in Federal Land as needed. Other information is edited and updated as needed but not on a regular schedule.No warranties or certification, express or implied, are provided for the statewide Land Ownership and related GIS mapping layer. This data product has been compiled as a best effort service strictly for general purpose informational use and any interpretations made are the responsibility of the User.Updates to this layer are expected later in 2017 and forward as AGRC, SITLA and partners adopt and implement the ESRI Parcel Fabric Data Model for the Public Land Survey System. This is expected to be done county by county.Data Content:Important descriptive attribute fields listed with valid values or, a short description of features with 'name' label attributes and examples.OWNER (The physical Owner of the parcel of land)* Federal (Owned by The United States of America)* Private (Private, County, City or Town Ownership)* State (Owned by the State of Utah)* Tribal (Native American Tribal Ownership)OWNER AGENCY (The physical Agency who is responsible for the parcel ownership, OWNER AGENCY may differ from ADMIN if the agency is NOT the administrator of the parcel)* BLM (US Bureau of Land Management)* BR (US Bureau of Reclamation)* DNR (State of Utah Department of Natural Resources)* DOD (US Department of Defense)* DOE (US Department of Energy)* NPS (US National Park Service)* OS (Other State Agency, State Facilities, and others state holdings)* OF (United States Other Federal Land may include any of the following: AEC, BOM, FAA, GSA, or others)* Private (Privately held properties, including City, County and Non-Profit)* SITLA (State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration)* Tribal (Tribal Lands)* UDOT (State of Utah Department of Transportation)* USFS (US Forest Service)* USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service)ADMIN (Name of the Entity with Administrative Jurisdiction to the parcel)* BLM (US Bureau of Land Management)* BR (US Bureau of Reclamation)* DOD (US Department of Defense)* DOE (US Department of Energy)* NPS (National Park Service)* OS (State of Utah, Other holdings)* Private (Privately held properties)* SITLA (School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration)* FFSL (Utah DNR - Div. of Forestry, Fire and State Lands)* Tribal (Tribal lands)* UDWR (Utah DNR - Div. of Wildlife Resources)* UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation)* USFS (US Forest Service)* USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service)* USP (Utah DNR - State Parks)DESIG (the "type" of land use or designation – general land management designations)Describes the "Type" of Land Use or Designation. This field characterizes general land management designations for parcels of land and describes how, or for what use the land is to be managed (ex: Designated as Wilderness, National Park, State Park). This field can accommodate, if necessary, further withdrawals, leases, or permits designated by the ADMIN. E.g. If the USFS places a withdrawal on a parcel, i.e. for wilderness designation, the DESIG field can be used to account for this case. However, only a single designation can be addressed in the DESIG field; we cannot account for multiple withdrawals, leases, or permits on a parcel in this data standard. The data steward or editor must decide the most pertinent information to describe in the DESIG field.* Bankhead Jones (Federal lands (BLM and USFS) acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act)* Conservation Lands (Land that is being protected, through outright purchase or the purchase of development rights. Easements are held by private non-profit organizations, municipalities and fed or state agencies.)* Indian Reservation (Indian Reservations and/or Native American Tribal Lands)* Military (Military Reservations and Corps of Engineers)* N/A (No specified designation)* National Forest (US National Forest)* National Historic Site (US National Historic Site)* National Monument (US National Monument)* National Park (US National Park)* National Recreation Area (US National Recreation Area)* National Wildlife Refuge (US National Wildlife Refuge)* Other (Designation not specified in detail)* Parks and Recreation (Parks and Recreation Areas)* Primitive Area (US Primitive Area)* Public Water Reserve (US Public Water Reserve)* Reclamation Withdrawl (US Reclamation Withdrawl)* Repository (US Repository)* State Sovereign Land (Sovereign Land consists of the beds of Utah's navigable rivers and lakes)* State Trust Land (State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) is an independent agency of state government. It was created in 1994 by the Utah state legislature to manage lands granted to the state of Utah by the United States for the support of public schools and other beneficiary institutions.)* Wilderness (Congressionally Designated Wilderness)* Wildlife Reserve/Management Area (Federal, State, Private or Tribal Designated Wildlife Areas)LABEL_FEDERAL (Administrative names for identifying federally designated Wilderness Areas, National Parks, Monuments, Forest Service units, Primitive Areas, Tribal Lands, etc. and the Private Lands within each proclamation boundary, where applicable).This field contains label text if the feature is a:* Federal Bird Refuge* Federal Military installation* USFS National Forest (and corresponding districts)* National Historic Site* National Monument* National Park (and corresponding units)* National Recreation Area* Federal Primitive Area* Tribal Land or Reservation* Congressionally Designated Wilderness AreaExamples: Arches National Park (Klondike Bluffs), Canyonlands National Park (The Needles District), Dugway Proving Grounds US Army, Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, Grand Gulch Primitive Area, Uinta National Forest (Mount Nebo Wilderness Area), White Mesa Ute Tribal LandsLABEL_STATE (Administrative names for identifying State Lands, including State Parks, Wildlife Areas, State Trust Lands Administrative Blocks and Sovereign Lands and the Private Lands within each proclamation boundary, where applicable).This field contains label text if the feature is a:* State Fish Hatchery* School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) Block* State Park* State Wildlife AreaExamples: 9-Mile State Wildlife Area, Dead Horse Point State Park, State Trust Lands Book Cliffs Block, Whiterocks Fish HatcheryNote: Shape_area field is in square meters.

description: This data set was created to depict land tenure allocations from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed to reflect the land tenure actions (MA-LR-9 and MA-LR-10) of the final agency decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. This data set displays the decision that federal lands within priority and general habitat management areas will be retained in federal ownership, pending documentation of criteria noted in MA-LR-9 of the ROD/ARMPA. Note that further site-specific analysis of the any parcels would be required prior to disposal. The parcel data has been obtained from approved land use plans as of May 2012, and consolidated into a statewide data set. In Section 102 of FLPMA Congress declared: "it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning...it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest" (43 U.S.C. 1701 (a)(1)). While not originally mapped as retention areas in the land use plans, public lands are managed according to this Congressional direction, as well as disposal authorities in FLPMA Sections 203 and 206 and other non-FLPMA legal disposal authorities. Land tenure adjustments in Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas would also be consistent with the land use plan direction. Credits: Mary von Koch and Jean Carson Moab BLM, Premier Data Sources for Cedar City BLM, Paul Leatherbury Monticello BLM, Jason Anderson Richfield, SWCA Inc. for Vernal BLM.; abstract: This data set was created to depict land tenure allocations from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed to reflect the land tenure actions (MA-LR-9 and MA-LR-10) of the final agency decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. This data set displays the decision that federal lands within priority and general habitat management areas will be retained in federal ownership, pending documentation of criteria noted in MA-LR-9 of the ROD/ARMPA. Note that further site-specific analysis of the any parcels would be required prior to disposal. The parcel data has been obtained from approved land use plans as of May 2012, and consolidated into a statewide data set. In Section 102 of FLPMA Congress declared: "it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning...it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest" (43 U.S.C. 1701 (a)(1)). While not originally mapped as retention areas in the land use plans, public lands are managed according to this Congressional direction, as well as disposal authorities in FLPMA Sections 203 and 206 and other non-FLPMA legal disposal authorities. Land tenure adjustments in Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas would also be consistent with the land use plan direction. Credits: Mary von Koch and Jean Carson Moab BLM, Premier Data Sources for Cedar City BLM, Paul Leatherbury Monticello BLM, Jason Anderson Richfield, SWCA Inc. for Vernal BLM.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public open space and voluntarily provided, private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastral Theme (http://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html). PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural, recreational or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase maps and describes public open space and other protected areas. Most areas are public lands owned in fee; however, long-term easements, leases, and agreements or administrative designations documented in agency management plans may be included. The PAD-US database strives to be a complete “best available” inventory of protected areas (lands and waters) including data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The dataset is built in collaboration with several partners and data providers (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/stewards/). See Supplemental Information Section of this metadata record for more information on partnerships and links to major partner organizations. As this dataset is a compilation of many data sets; data completeness, accuracy, and scale may vary. Federal and state data are generally complete, while local government and private protected area coverage is about 50% complete, and depends on data management capacity in the state. For completeness estimates by state: http://www.protectedlands.net/partners. As the federal and state data are reasonably complete; focus is shifting to completing the inventory of local gov and voluntarily provided, private protected areas. The PAD-US geodatabase contains over twenty-five attributes and four feature classes to support data management, queries, web mapping services and analyses: Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Fee, Easements and Combined. The data contained in the MPA Feature class are provided directly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov ) tracking the National Marine Protected Areas System. The Easements feature class contains data provided directly from the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, http://conservationeasement.us ) The MPA and Easement feature classes contain some attributes unique to the sole source databases tracking them (e.g. Easement Holder Name from NCED, Protection Level from NOAA MPA Inventory). The "Combined" feature class integrates all fee, easement and MPA features as the best available national inventory of protected areas in the standard PAD-US framework. In addition to geographic boundaries, PAD-US describes the protection mechanism category (e.g. fee, easement, designation, other), owner and managing agency, designation type, unit name, area, public access and state name in a suite of standardized fields. An informative set of references (i.e. Aggregator Source, GIS Source, GIS Source Date) and "local" or source data fields provide a transparent link between standardized PAD-US fields and information from authoritative data sources. The areas in PAD-US are also assigned conservation measures that assess management intent to permanently protect biological diversity: the nationally relevant "GAP Status Code" and global "IUCN Category" standard. A wealth of attributes facilitates a wide variety of data analyses and creates a context for data to be used at local, regional, state, national and international scales. More information about specific updates and changes to this PAD-US version can be found in the Data Quality Information section of this metadata record as well as on the PAD-US website, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/history/.) Due to the completeness and complexity of these data, it is highly recommended to review the Supplemental Information Section of the metadata record as well as the Data Use Constraints, to better understand data partnerships as well as see tips and ideas of appropriate uses of the data and how to parse out the data that you are looking for. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/. To find more data resources as well as view example analysis performed using PAD-US data visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/resources/. The PAD-US dataset and data standard are compiled and maintained by the USGS Gap Analysis Program, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ . For more information about data standards and how the data are aggregated please review the “Standards and Methods Manual for PAD-US,” http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/standards/ .

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

This data set depicts federal lands having restrictions on access or activities -- that is, lands mangaed by the National Park Service, Defense Department, or Energy Department -- in western North America. The data set was created by reformatting and merging state- and province-based ownership data layers originally acquired from diverse sources (including state GAP programs, USBLM state offices and other sources). For each original dataset 3 additional fields, "Pub_Pvt", "CA_OWN", and "SOURCE" were added and populated based on the specific ownership information contained in the source data. The original coverages were then merged based on the "CA_OWN" field. Finally, NPS, DOD, and DOE lands were selected out of the ownership layer. All work was completed in AcMap 8.3. This product and all source data are available online from SAGEMAP: http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov.

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.

This dataset depicts the official State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration surface land ownership data. This dataset depicts the 1:24,000 scale land ownership status and areas of responsibility for the State of Utah. Revisions are posted weekly and are also available on the Utah Geospatial Resource Center (UGRC) SGID. Maintenance of this data layer is performed by a cooperative federal and state effort. The Trust Lands Administration revises this data regularly to reflect changes in State Trust Lands, Other State Lands and Private Lands as needed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) revises this data regularly to reflect changes in Federal Lands as needed. Other information is edited and updated as needed but not on a regular schedule.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

description: This data set was created to depict right-of-way management allocations from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed to reflect the right-of-way management allocations of the final agency decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. Data show areas where new ROWs will be avoided (with specific avoidance criteria and minimization measures identified in the Approved Plan Amendments), excluded from any rights-of-way, or open for consideration of new rights-of-way, consistent with other RMP management actions.; abstract: This data set was created to depict right-of-way management allocations from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed to reflect the right-of-way management allocations of the final agency decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. Data show areas where new ROWs will be avoided (with specific avoidance criteria and minimization measures identified in the Approved Plan Amendments), excluded from any rights-of-way, or open for consideration of new rights-of-way, consistent with other RMP management actions.

This dataset represents the portion of Surface and Mineral Ownership for the State of Wyoming within the Wyoming portions of the Utah Sub-Region for the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. This data was used during preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement and the record of decision to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as consideration of 6 Forest Service land use plans, including portions of two that extended into Wyoming. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. This dataset is intended to represent the ownership information on Master Title Plats (MTPs). Surface ownership will be identified by the Agency of Jurisdiction, when the surface is Federal. All other parcels will be identified as either Private or State. Private parcels do not identify the name of the individual owner.

This dataset depicts the 1:24,000 scale land ownership status and areas of responsibility for the State of Utah. Revisions are posted weekly on the AGRC SGID.Maintenance of this data layer is performed by a cooperative federal and state effort. The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) revises this data regularly to reflect changes in State Trust Lands, other State Land and Private Land as needed. The BLM revises this data regularly to reflect changes in Federal Land as needed. Other information is edited and updated as needed but not on a regular schedule.

This data set was created to depict the prioritization of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed to reflect the prioritizations of the final agency decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. The data include the identification of priority and general habitat management areas, as well as a portion occupied habitat within the planning area identified as neither priority or general. Definitions of priority and general, as well as the management associated with each, are located in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.

description: This data set was created to depict sagebrush focal areas from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed and used during preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement and the record of decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) are based on "highly important landscapes" identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a memo on October 27, 2014. The memo and associated maps provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service identify areas that represent recognized "strongholds" for greater sage-grouse that have been noted and referenced as having the highest densities of sage-grouse and other criteria important for the persistence of the species.; abstract: This data set was created to depict sagebrush focal areas from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed and used during preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement and the record of decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) are based on "highly important landscapes" identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a memo on October 27, 2014. The memo and associated maps provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service identify areas that represent recognized "strongholds" for greater sage-grouse that have been noted and referenced as having the highest densities of sage-grouse and other criteria important for the persistence of the species.