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

The data release for the geologic map of the Butte 1 degree x 2 degrees quadrangle, Montana, is a Geologic Map Schema (GeMS)-compliant version that updates the GIS files for the geologic map published in Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 363 (Lewis, 1998). The updated digital data present the attribute tables and geospatial features (points, lines and polygons) in the format that meets GeMS requirements. This data release presents the geologic map as shown on the plates and captured in geospatial data for the published map. Minor errors, such as mistakes in line decoration or differences between the digital data and the map image, are corrected in this version. The database represents the geology for the 4.4 million acre, geologically complex Butte 1 x 2 degrees quadrangle, at a publication scale of 1:250,000. The map covers parts of Deer Lodge, Granite, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli, and Silver Bow Counties. These GIS data supersede ...

This shapefile contains tax rate area (TRA) boundaries in Butte County for the specified assessment roll year. Boundary alignment is based on the 2016 county parcel map. A tax rate area (TRA) is a geographic area within the jurisdiction of a unique combination of cities, schools, and revenue districts that utilize the regular city or county assessment roll, per Government Code 54900. Each TRA is assigned a six-digit numeric identifier, referred to as a TRA number. TRA = tax rate area number

Use the app to find the downloadable area within Jackson County - 2 Foot Contour MapThe 2-foot Contour Map shows contours that were derived from several different LiDAR projects in the Rogue Valley over the last 10 years. The map can be used to both download and view the contour data. To use the map, search or zoom in to an address. When zoomed in to a specific scale, the map will change from the downloadable areas layer to 2-foot interval contour lines. The LiDAR Project Dates layer can be used to identify the date when the elevation was collected in an area. Please note that data is available only for the valley floor areas at this time.The 2ft contours were created from 1-meter pixel DEM and then cleaned to remove very small elevation changes and to create a smooth contour line. This information should not be used to create topographic surveys or other applications where the precise elevation of a location is required. For additional information on LiDAR in Oregon or to download the source data, please visit the DOGAMI Lidar Viewer.The downloadable data is a zipped ESRI Shapefile and is projected to Oregon State Plane South (Intl Feet) with NAD 1983 datum.

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legend specific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2004 Butte County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits. The land use boundaries and attributes were digitized and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District (ND). Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and ND, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Scientist. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Butte County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2004. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary data was developed using: 1. The aerial photography used for this survey was taken in June of 2004. 9”x9” color photographs were generated from an altitude of about 6,000 feet above ground to produce a 1:24,000 scale photo. 2. The 9”x9” photos were taken to the field and virtually all the areas were visited to positively identify the land use. Site visits occurred July through September 2004. Land use codes were hand written on the photos. 3. Using AUTOCAD, the land use boundaries were digitized from USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) and attributes were entered from the field photos (using a standardized digitizing process). 4. After quality control/assurance procedures were completed on each file (DWG), the data was finalized. 5. The linework and attributes from each DWG quad file were brought into ARCINFO and both quad and survey wide coverages were created, and underwent quality checks. The survey wide coverage was then converted to a shapefile using ARCVIEW. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides a digital geospatial database for the geologic map of the eastern part of the Challis National Forest and vicinity, Idaho (Wilson and Skipp, 1994). Attribute tables and geospatial features (lines and polygons) conform to the Geologic Map Schema (USGS NCGMP, 2020) and represent the geologic map as published in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2395 (Wilson and Skipp, 1994). The database represents the geology for the 2.7-million-acre map plate at a publication scale of 1:250,000. The map covers primarily Butte, Custer, Lemhi and Blaine Counties, but also includes minor parts of Clark County. References: U.S. Geological Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, 2020, GeMS (Geologic Map Schema) - A standard format for the digital publication of geologic maps: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. B10, 74 p., https://doi.org//10.3133/tm11B10. Wilson, A.B., and Skipp, Betty, 1994, Geologic map of the eastern part of the Challis National Forest and vicinity, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2395, scale 1:250,000, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_10267.htm.

This Zoning feature class is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework statewide, Zoning spatial data. This version is authorized for public use. Attributes include zoning districts that have been generalized to state classes. As of June 30, 2023, this feature class contains zoning data from 229 local jurisdictions. DLCD plans to continue adding to and updating this statewide zoning dataset as they receive zoning information from the local jurisdictions. Jurisdictions included in the latest version of the statewide zoning geodatabase: Cities: Adams, Adrian, Albany, Amity, Antelope, Ashland, Astoria, Athena, Aurora, Banks, Barlow, Bay City, Beaverton, Bend, Boardman, Bonanza, Brookings, Brownsville, Burns, Butte Falls, Canby, Cannon Beach, Carlton, Cascade Locks, Cave Junction, Central Point, Chiloquin, Coburg, Columbia City, Coos Bay, Cornelius, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Culver, Dayton, Detroit, Donald, Drain, Dufur, Dundee, Dunes City, Durham, Eagle Point, Echo, Enterprise, Estacada, Eugene, Fairview, Falls City, Florence, Forest Grove, Fossil, Garibaldi, Gaston, Gates, Gearhart, Gervais, Gladstone, Gold Beach, Gold Hill, Grants Pass, Grass Valley, Gresham, Halsey, Happy Valley, Harrisburg, Helix, Hermiston, Hillsboro, Hines, Hood River, Hubbard, Idanha, Independence, Jacksonville, Jefferson, Johnson City, Jordan Valley, Junction City, Keizer, King City, Klamath Falls, La Grande, La Pine, Lafayette, Lake Oswego, Lebanon, Lincoln City, Lowell, Lyons, Madras, Malin, Manzanita, Maupin, Maywood Park, McMinnville, Medford, Merrill, Metolius, Mill City, Millersburg, Milton-Freewater, Milwaukie, Mitchell, Molalla, Monmouth, Moro, Mosier, Mount Angel, Myrtle Creek, Myrtle Point, Nehalem, Newberg, Newport, North Bend, North Plains, Nyssa, Oakridge, Ontario, Oregon City, Pendleton, Philomath, Phoenix, Pilot Rock, Port Orford, Portland, Prescott, Prineville, Rainier, Redmond, Reedsport, Rivergrove, Rockaway Beach, Rogue River, Roseburg, Rufus, Saint Helens, Salem, Sandy, Scappoose, Scio, Scotts Mills, Seaside, Shady Cove, Shaniko, Sheridan, Sherwood, Silverton, Sisters, Sodaville, Spray, Springfield, Stanfield, Stayton, Sublimity, Sutherlin, Sweet Home, Talent, Tangent, The Dalles, Tigard, Tillamook, Toledo, Troutdale, Tualatin, Turner, Ukiah, Umatilla, Vale, Veneta, Vernonia, Warrenton, Wasco, Waterloo, West Linn, Westfir, Weston, Wheeler, Willamina, Wilsonville, Winston, Wood Village, Woodburn, Yamhill. Counties: Baker County, Benton County, Clackamas County, Clatsop County, Columbia County, Coos County, Crook County, Curry County, Deschutes County, Douglas County, Harney County, Hood River County, Jackson County, Jefferson County, Josephine County, Klamath County, Lane County, Lincoln County, Linn County, Malheur County, Marion County, Multnomah County, Polk County, Sherman County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County, Union County, Wasco County, Washington County, Wheeler County, Yamhill County. R emaining jurisdictions either chose not to share data to incorporate into the public, statewide dataset or did not respond to DLCD’s request for data. These jurisdictions’ attributes are designated “not shared” in the orZDesc field and “NS” in the orZCode field.

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process. Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2005 Yuba County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits. The land use boundaries and attributes were digitized and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District (ND). Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and ND, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Scientist. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Butte County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2004. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary date was developed using: 1. The aerial photography used for this survey was taken in June of 2005. 9”x9” color photographs were generated from an altitude of about 6,000 feet above ground to produce a 1:24,000 scale photo. 2. The 9”x9” photos were taken to the field and virtually all the areas were visited to positively identify the land use. Site visits occurred July through September 2005. Land use codes were hand written on the photos. 3. Using AUTOCAD, the land use boundaries were digitized from USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) and attributes were entered from the field photos (using a standardized digitizing process). 4. After quality control/assurance procedures were completed on each file (DWG), the data was finalized. 5. The linework and attributes from each DWG quad file were brought into ARCINFO and both quad and survey wide coverages were created, and underwent quality checks. The survey wide coverage was then converted to a shapefile using ARCVIEW. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

The 1999 Butte County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Northern District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were drawn on-screen using developed photoquads. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Water source and irrigation method information were collected for this survey, but are not present in this dataset. Contact Tito Cervantes of Northern District for more information about this data. 5. The images (photoquads) are available from Northern District. Contact Tito Cervantes of Northern District for more information about this data. 6. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey. This dataset has been re-projected into WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere from a custom Transverse Mercator projection in NAD 1927.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.4, dated September 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

The 2021 California wildfire season was one of the most intense on record, with over 8800 fires burning more than 2.5 million acres. Among them, the Dixie Fire, which ignited on July 13 in Butte County, became the largest single (non-complex) wildfire in state history, scorching 963,000 acres across five counties.The fire severely impacted Chester, California, on the northwest shore of Lake Almanor. While firefighters managed to save most of the town’s structures, the surrounding landscape was devastated. Just north of Chester, vast areas of forest were reduced to ash, stripping the region of vegetation and leaving behind a barren, charred landscape. This loss not only altered the local ecosystem but also increased erosion risks and long-term environmental damage. The Dixie Fire’s destruction left a lasting mark on Chester and the surrounding region.

Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) boundary. The boundary was mapped to correspond with statute AB 2600 (2004) and as re-defined in SB 208 (2022). Work on the boundary was completed by CalFire, GreenInfo Network, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Meets and bounds description of the area as defined in statute: PRC Section 33302 (f) defines the Sierra Nevada Region as the area lying within the Counties of Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Yuba, described as the area bounded as follows: On the east by the eastern boundary of the State of California; the crest of the White/Inyo ranges; and State Routes 395 and 14 south of Olancha; on the south by State Route 58, Tehachapi Creek, and Caliente Creek; on the west by the line of 1,250 feet above sea level from Caliente Creek to the Kern/Tulare County line; the lower level of the western slope’s blue oak woodland, from the Kern/Tulare County line to the Sacramento River near the mouth of Seven-Mile Creek north of Red Bluff; the Sacramento River from Seven-Mile Creek north to Cow Creek below Redding; Cow Creek, Little Cow Creek, Dry Creek, and up to the southern boundary of the Pit River watershed where Bear Creek Mountain Road and Dry Creek Road intersect; the southern boundary of the Pit River watershed; the western boundary of the upper Trinity watershed in the County of Trinity; on the north by the boundary of the upper Trinity watershed in the County of Trinity and the upper Sacramento, McCloud, and Pit River watersheds in the County of Siskiyou; and within the County of Modoc, the easterly boundary of the Klamath River watershed; and on the north in the County of Modoc by the northern boundary of the State of California; excluding both of the following: (1) The Lake Tahoe Region, as described in Section 6605.5 of the Government Code, where it is defined as "region" (2) The San Joaquin River Parkway, as described in Section 32510.

According to GreenInfo Network and the California Department of Fish and Game, the blue oak woodland used to define a portion of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy's western boundary was delineated using referenced vegetation and imagery data.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation contracted Geographical Information Center (GIC) to conduct vegetation sampling across multiple California State Vehicle Recreation Areas (SVRA). The purpose of this map is to characterize the vegetation in various SVRAs, which includes Alameda Tesla, Carnegie, Claypit, Heber Dunes, Hollister Hills, Hungry Valley, Oceano Dunes, Ocotillo Wells and Prairie City. The development of this vegetation map was prompted by the passage of Senate Bill 249, in which California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVRD) was charged with meeting new legislative mandates to ensure resources compliance within all SVRAs. These mandates require (among other things) that OHMVRD compile an inventory of native plant communities within each SVRA [PRC 5090.35 (c)(1)]. To meet this requirement, OHMVRD has consulted the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) to source finescale vegetation maps that cover the SVRA footprint, or, if not available, used the VegCAMP methods to develop new finescale vegetation maps. This finescale vegetation map and associated data is intended to provide an inventory of native plant communities, inform the park’s natural resource management planning including the Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (WHPP), and establish a baseline for measuring future vegetation change. About the individual SVRAs: Alameda Tesla: The finescale vegetation map for the Alameda Tesla area was created in 2021-2022 using CDFW's VegCAMP standard methods. At the time of surveying, this parcel was part of Carnegie SVRA and was sampled and analyzed together with that project, as part of informing the Carnegie SVRA Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan. However, after the legal separation of these two units in 2021, the mapping projects have also been separated. Carnegie: The finescale vegetation map for Carnegie SVRA was created in 2021-2022 for the park's Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan, using CDFW's VegCAMP standard methods. Field surveys were conducted in 2021. This mapping effort was part of a larger project within the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Division of State Parks to create updated vegetation maps and an inventory of native plant communities for each SVRA. When the project began in 2021, Carnegie SVRA and the adjacent Alameda-Tesla area were sampled and analyzed together. However, because of the legal the separation of these two units in 2021, the mapping projects were separated Clay Pit: Clay Pit SVRA is a small, 220-acre park in unincorporated Butte County, three miles southwest of Oroville. It consists of a narrow terrace surrounding a large bowl-shaped depression that was excavated for clay substrate to use in the construction of the Oroville Dam. It was a popular unofficial off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding area, and became an SVRA in 1981. The entire park is designated as open riding, except for an exclusion zone where a drainage canal flows through the park and into the Feather River oxbow. The park frequently floods from rainfall in wet months, and dries out in the summer. Because of the clay substrate, the shallow depressions formed from OHV use create vernal pools in the spring, providing habitat for native vernal pool plant species and branchiopod species. However, due to the history of disturbance and lack of original topography, many species at the park are ruderal non-natives. Heber Dunes: Heber Dunes SVRA is a small, 364-acre park in unincorporated Imperial County, seven miles northeast of Calexico, and is surrounded by agricultural fields, irrigation canals, and an undeveloped parcel owned by California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). It consists of open sand dunes, planted athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) trees, and native and exotic desert scrub vegetation. The entire park is designated as open riding for off-highway vehicles. Hollister Hills: Hollister Hills SVRA is a 6,750 acre park located in northwest San Benito County, eight miles south of the city of Hollister. It is situated within the Gabilan Range of the California Coast ranges, in an area surrounded by primarily by rangelands. Hungry Valley: Hungry Valley SVRA is a 19,800 acre park within the Transverse Mountain Ranges, just south of Tejon Pass and the town of Gorman. The park is surrounded by National Forest land and by Tejon Ranch. Before becoming a SVRA in 1980, the park had a history of homesteading, mining, and unofficial OHV use. Oceano Dunes: This finescale vegetation map for Oceano Dunes SVRA was created to inform the park's Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan, using CDFW's VegCAMP standard methods. Field surveys were conducted in May 2022 by Chico State Geographic Information Center. Linework was conducted by Chico State Geographic Information Center. State Park staff provided edits to the draft map before it was finalized in 2023. An existing finescale map of the park was completed in 2013 (field surveys done in 2012) by MIG, report available here: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=VegCAMP. Since vegetation in this park shifts frequently, and since large restoration projects have been conducted since the previous mapping effort, it was determined that an update to the map was needed. Chico State's Geographic Information Center (GIC) sampled the park in 2022 and conducted the linework to create this updated finescale vegetation map, with input from State Park staff. Vegetation was classified using a draft classification for the Santa Cruz-Santa Clara counties project, and by consulting with CDFW staff. Since GIC was also sampling and mapping other central coast State Parks in the region at the same time, the data for Pismo Beach is included here. Ocotillo Wells: This vegetation map was created in 2022-2023 to meet the above requirements and inform the Ocotillo Wells Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan. It was created by combining the existing maps from the DRECP mapping project 2016-2017 additions (Reyes et al.2021), and the Anza Borrego (1998) mapping project (See the VegCAMP website). State park staff including Melissa Patten, Leah Gardner, and Casey Paredes, conducted 25 recon surveys and additional map checks in March 2022 to groundtruth some areas, with a focus on the footprint of the older Anza Borrego project. Linework to edit the Anza Borrego project footprint area was done in 2023 using information from field surveys, and heads-up digitizing of NAIP 2020 imagery. Surveys conducted by State Parks staff in March 2022 focused on the Anza Borrego project footprint within the park, and then linework was done to update the vegetation polygons based on field surveys and 2020 NAIP aerial imagery. Prairie City: Prairie City SVRA is a 1,344 acre park located 20 miles east of Sacramento, in an ecological transition zone between the Central Valley and the Sierra foothills. Parts of the park have a history of dredge mining, and mine tailings form mounds and undulating topography in places. Other portions of the current park were formerly owned by Aerojet and used for a rocket engine program, contaminating groundwater and resulting in modern remediation and groundwater treatment efforts in the park, including monitoring and extraction wells. The imagery interpreted was NAIP 2020No accuracy assessment was done because almost all polygons were visited in the field. Minimum Mapping Units: Alameda Tesla, Carnegie, Heber Dunes, Hollister Hills, Hungry Valley, Prairie City.: The minimum mapping unit was 1 acre for upland vegetation types and ¼ acre for wetland vegetation types. Polygons were divided based on a change in cover class according to Braun-Blanquet categories (<1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75%). Breaks for the dominant overstory vegetation cover class required a 3-acre minimum mapping unit, and breaks for understory vegetation cover class required a 5-acre minimum mapping unit. Claypit: The minimum mapping unit was 1 acre, and ¼ acre for wetland or special types, which at the park includes only two small riparian stands and one patch of perennial grassland. The herbaceous stands that compose most of the park were split according to cover, but there was no maximum mapping unit size. Ocotillo Wells, Oceano Dunes: No minimum mapping unit was reported. Imagery: NAIP 2020 imagery was used for all SVRAs.

8/04/2025 - Updates to Mandan and Thompson. 4/25/2025 - Updates to Ellendale, Fargo, Kindred, Lincoln, Mandan, Rugby and Tappen.12/06/2024 - Update to Lincoln and Bismarck Corporate Boundaries based on requests from Lincoln.6/27/2024 - Update to the Valley City and Dickinson Corporate Boundary based on requests from their GIS personal.4/8/2024 - Update to the Valley City Corporate Boundary12/04/2023 - Update to Fargo City Boundary7/23/2023 - Removed Church’s Ferry due to proclamation and notice of dissolution.7/01/2023 - Changes to Binford - Ordinance 51; Lidgerwood - Ordinance 2022-1; Killdeer Golf Course annexation; Bismarck based on current City of Bismarck GIS boundary9/26/2022 - Changes to Steele boundary per Kidder County 911 coordinator.9/23/2022 - Updates to Grand Forks, Mandan and Fargo7/01/2022 - Updates to Killdeer, Mandan and Williston per State Tax Dept changes. 2/14/2022- Updates to Minot -13th ST SE/31st AVE SE, Updates to Elgin, Horace and St. John.11/16/2021 -Updates to Bismarck, Fargo and Killdeer based on city ordinances.7/2/21 – Changes were made to the City of Bismarck, Fargo and Hillsboro to include local taxing jurisdiction boundary changes from the State Tax Commissioner.5/4/21 - Updates were made to the City of Wahpeton due to an annexation.4/29/21 - Updated Minot and Makoti3/5/21 - Updated an annexation to Arnegard that was submitted to the DOT by Mackenzie's County Public Works GIS Coordinator.1/21/21 - Update to Sentinel Butte per Golden Valley 911 Coordinator7/17/20 - Updates to Bismarck, Linton and Stanley6/1/20 - Updates to Killdeer, New Town and Surrey1/17/2020 - Boundary changes have been updated for Bismarck, Bowman Fargo, Garrison, Linton, and New Salem.3/5/19 - The corporate boundary of Surrey has been updated.12/26/18 - The following corporate boundaries have been updated: Bismarck, Lincoln, Grand Forks, Horace, Casselton, Fargo, Oxbow, Tioga and Stanley.6/19/18 - City of Maza is not incorporated based on the 2011-2013 North Dakota Blue book. Removed Maza.5/14/18 - Updated Dickinson, Watford City, Berthold, Minnewauken, and Cavalier.1/31/18 - Updated Dickinson, Mandan, Minot, Tioga, Devils Lake, Belfield, Washburn, Mohall, Minnewauken, Lincoln, Bismarck and Casselton. 10/24/17 - Updated Watford City and Makoti10/16/17 - The following cities have been updated: Jamestown, Milnor, Bismarck, Carrington, Casselton, Mandan, Minot, Stanley, Larimore, Crosby, and Watford City.1/10/17 - The following cities have been updated: Lehr, Grand Forks, Langdon, Drayton, Flasher, Glen Ullin, Watford City, Zap, Lignite, Hankinson, Beach, Underwood, South Heart, Devils Lake, all cities in Ward County, Cavalier, Bismarck, Lincoln, Fargo, West Fargo, Ayr, Briarwood, Casselton, Davenport, Enderlin, Grandin, Horace, and North River.9/19/16 - Updated the following cities: Watford City, Steele, Richardton, Berthold, Carpio, Burlington, Des Lacs, Donnybrook, Douglas, Kenmare, Makoti, Ryder, Sawyer, and Surrey.6/23/16 - Updated cities are as follows: All cities in Pembina, Morton, Richland, and Williams Counties. The cities of Bismarck, West Fargo, Harwood, Oxbow, Beach, Minot, Stanley, Jamestown, Fargo, Dickinson and New Town.9/28/15 - The following cites have had annexation: Stanley, Bottineau, Minot, Casselton, Belfield and Watford City.7/24/15 - Updated Grafton, Stanley, Bismarck, Williston, Horace, Fargo, Grand Forks, Watford City, Turtle Lake, Leeds, Maxbass and Medora1/16/15 - Updated Grafton, Stanley and Bismarck.11/3/2014 - Updated Bismarck, Mandan, Minot, Stanley, and Watford City7/16/14 - Corporate limits updated include: Mandan, Towner, Fargo, West Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Bowman, Watford City, Stanley, Tioga, Kenmare, Casselton, Minot, Carrington, Kindred, and Killdeer. The corporate limit updates consisted of receiving from the cities, shape files, CADD files, scanned images of annexations or by converting pdf files into images, rectifying them within ArcGIS, then heads-up digitizing. 7/29/13 - updated Stanley, Williston, Minot, and Bismarck.4/30/13 - updated Williston, Hazen, Minot, Dickinson, Valley City, Velva, Rugby, Bismarck, and Lincoln1/28/13 - updated Valley City, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Williston, Jamestown, Harvey, Mohall, Park River, Ray, Rugby, Stanley, Tioga, Mayville and Glenfield10/9/12 - updated Williston and Dickinson6/20/12 - updated Williston via shapefile from city.3/20/12 - updated Bismarck and Minot10/3/2011 - Edited corporate limits for Bottineau, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Grafton, Fargo, West Fargo, Horace, Dickinson, Williston, Valley City and Devils Lake.2/4/11 - Removed urban areas so only corporate boundaries remain. Removed boolean field named URBAN_AREA. Updated corporate limist in Dickinson and cities with Cass county. 6/24/10 - Stanley, Lincoln, Oakes, Hankinson, Enderlin, Ellendale, Linton, Carrington, Minot, and Kulm corportate limits were changed 6/18/09 - Stanley, Wahpeton, Center, Watford City, Williston, Grand Forks, Killdeer, Beulah, Beach, Hazen, Garrison, Washburn, Bismarck and Lincoln corporate limits were changed 3/24/08 - Added Milton, Drayton, and Cavalier Boudaries updated: Park River 1/16/08 - Boundaries updated: Devils Lake, Glen Ullin, Langdon, Minnewaukan, Northwood, Thompson 2/13/07 - Boundaries updated: Amenia, Arthur, Bismarck, Bottineau, Buffalo, Casstleton, Davenport, Dickinson, Enderlin, Gardner, Grand Forks, Grandin, Harvey, Harvey, Hillsboro, Horace, Hunter, Jamestown, Kindred, Mapleton, Mayville, New Rockford, Oxbox, Page, Prairie Rose, Relies Acres, Tappen, Towner City 1/10/06 - Boundaries updated: Wishek, Fargo, Lincoln, Bottineau, Williston, Grand Forks, Granville, Velva, Stanley, urban areas in Fargo, West Fargo, Bismarck and Mandan. Deleted Larson This data came from the NDDOT's Mapping Section. The original data was digitized from hand scribed maps and registered to the 1:24000 USGS PLSS data. It was converted from a projection (NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N) to a Geographic coordinate system.