Boundaries identifying similar behavioural ecotypes and sub-populations of Grizzly bears. This dataset contains versions from multiple years. From 2018 on, NatureServe conservation concern ranking categories (e.g., Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Extreme Concern) supersede the pre-2018 population status categories (e.g., Viable, Threatened, Extirpated) contained in the field STATUS. NatureServe conservation concern ranking categories reflect population size and trend, genetic and demographic isolation, as well as threats to bears and their habitats. The NatureServe conservation concern ranking fields are named CONSERVATION_CONCERN_RANK and CONSERVATION_CONCERN_DESC. Please view the attached PDF file for a summary of changes to this dataset from 2012 onward. To download only the 2018 units, in the link below, select the "Export" tab, then select the "Provincial Layer Download" button: https://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/imap4m/?catalogLayers=7744,7745 Grizzly Bear Conservation Ranking results table is available here: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/e08876a1-3f9c-46bf-b69a-3d88de1da725 Grizzly Bear population estimates from various years are available here: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/2bf91935-9158-4f77-9c2c-4310480e6c29 Grizzly Bear reports are available here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/grizzly-bear

The Maxent modeling algorithm was used to build the species distribution model at 270 m spatial resolution using species occurrence points and environmental layers as predictors (Phillips et al. 2006). Species occurrence points were primarily obtained from CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database) and other CDFW sources, GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), PRBO (Point Blue Conservation Science) and Arctos museum databases. Vegetation, distance to water, elevation, and bioclimatic variables (Franklin et al. 2013) were used as predictor variables. The models were run at 270 m spatial resolution with five replications using cross-validation as a method of sample evaluation. Cross-validation involved the partitioning of the sample data into n subsets, fitting the models to n-1subsets, and testing the model on the one subset not used in fitting the model. Initial model runs showed that our models converged around 2,000 iterations and for this reason we ran all models with 2,500 maximum iterations. Maxent was implemented in R using the ‘dismo''package (Hijmans et al. 2011). Model evaluation was carried out using the ‘PresenceAbsence''package in R (Freeman & Moisen 2008). We used AUC as a metric to evaluate model performance. The package also computes threshold values using several accuracy metrics to translate predicted probability maps into binary suitable and unsuitable habitats. We selected the MeanProb, a threshold set based on the mean predicted probability of species occurrences. The output from Maxent are grid datasets in a multiband ‘tif''format with one band for each replication. We averaged the five replicated maps and created a mean grid for each species. The grid was then symbolized to represent low (threshold-50), medium (50-75) and high (75-100) habitat suitability, with pixel values that are below the threshold excluded. Models were reviewed by CDFW species experts; please review the use limitations.For more information see the project report at [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=85358].

The datasets used in the creation of the predicted Habitat Suitability models includes the CWHR range maps of Californias regularly-occurring vertebrates which were digitized as GIS layers to support the predictions of the CWHR System software. These vector datasets of CWHR range maps are one component of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), a comprehensive information system and predictive model for Californias wildlife. The CWHR System was developed to support habitat conservation and management, land use planning, impact assessment, education, and research involving terrestrial vertebrates in California. CWHR contains information on life history, management status, geographic distribution, and habitat relationships for wildlife species known to occur regularly in California. Range maps represent the maximum, current geographic extent of each species within California. They were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. For more information about CWHR, visit the CWHR webpage (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR). The webpage provides links to download CWHR data and user documents such as a look up table of available range maps including species code, species name, and range map revision history; a full set of CWHR GIS data; .pdf files of each range map or species life history accounts; and a User Guide.The models also used the CALFIRE-FRAP compiled "best available" land cover data known as Fveg. This compilation dataset was created as a single data layer, to support the various analyses required for the Forest and Rangeland Assessment, a legislatively mandated function. These data are being updated to support on-going analyses and to prepare for the next FRAP assessment in 2015. An accurate depiction of the spatial distribution of habitat types within California is required for a variety of legislatively-mandated government functions. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections CALFIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife VegCamp program and extensive use of USDA Forest Service Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) data, has compiled the "best available" land cover data available for California into a single comprehensive statewide data set. The data span a period from approximately 1990 to 2014. Typically the most current, detailed and consistent data were collected for various regions of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Cross-walks were used to compile the various sources into the common classification scheme, the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system.CWHR range data was used together with the FVEG vegetation maps and CWHR habitat suitability ranks to create Predicted Habitat Suitability maps for species. The Predicted Habitat Suitability maps show the mean habitat suitability score for the species, as defined in CWHR. CWHR defines habitat suitability as NO SUITABILITY (0), LOW (0.33), MEDIUM (0.66), or HIGH (1) for reproduction, cover, and feeding for each species in each habitat stage (habitat type, size, and density combination). The mean is the average of the reproduction, cover, and feeding scores, and can be interpreted as LOW (less than 0.34), MEDIUM (0.34-0.66), and HIGH (greater than 0.66) suitability. Note that habitat suitability ranks were developed based on habitat patch sizes >40 acres in size, and are best interpreted for habitat patches >200 acres in size. The CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability rasters are named according to the 4 digit alpha-numeric species CWHR ID code. The CWHR Species Lookup Table contains a record for each species including its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range map revision history (available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR).

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the data for the Big Bear Lake, CA population pyramid, which represents the Big Bear Lake population distribution across age and gender, using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. It lists the male and female population for each age group, along with the total population for those age groups. Higher numbers at the bottom of the table suggest population growth, whereas higher numbers at the top indicate declining birth rates. Furthermore, the dataset can be utilized to understand the youth dependency ratio, old-age dependency ratio, total dependency ratio, and potential support ratio.

Key observations

• Youth dependency ratio, which is the number of children aged 0-14 per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Big Bear Lake, CA, is 25.1.
• Old-age dependency ratio, which is the number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Big Bear Lake, CA, is 32.7.
• Total dependency ratio for Big Bear Lake, CA is 57.8.
• Potential support ratio, which is the number of youth (working age population) per elderly, for Big Bear Lake, CA is 3.1.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Big Bear Lake population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Big Bear Lake for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Big Bear Lake for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Total Population: The total population of the Big Bear Lake for the selected age group is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Big Bear Lake Population by Age. You can refer the same here

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships, Description: Vector datasets of CWHR range maps are one component of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), a comprehensive information system and predictive model for California's wildlife.

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: Melanie Gogol-Prokurat, Description: Predicted habitat suitability grid developed using Maxent and reviewed by CDFW staff for use in the northern Sierra Nevada foothills wildlife connectivity project.

Wildlife Key Areas (WKA) are locations used by wildlife for critical, seasonal life functions. WKAs are identified by interpreting observed locations of wildlife at key times of year, not through intensive habitat assessment. Polygons derived from interviews with locals and from GIS interpretation of wildlife/habitat surveys. GIS interpretation follows criteria specific for taxon and/or populations of taxon. Key Areas are based on observed locations of wildlife at key times of year, not on habitat assessment. With new information, boundaries and designations of Key Areas can change and additional Key Areas can be identified. Furthermore, Key Areas are not the only sites important for wildlife. Other information sources can identify other sites important for wildlife for reasons outside the scope of the WKA Inventory Program. Updates to Key Areas occur only periodically. For the most current information, please consult with the Regional Biologist for your area of interest. If you have questions or would like to contribute to the WKA database, please contact the WKA Inventory Program ( wka@yukon.ca ). Distributed from GeoYukon by the Government of Yukon . Discover more digital map data and interactive maps from Yukon's digital map data collection. For more information: geomatics.help@yukon.ca

Wildlife Key Areas (WKA) are locations used by wildlife for critical, seasonal life functions. WKAs are identified by interpreting observed locations of wildlife at key times of year, not through intensive habitat assessment. Polygons derived from interviews with locals and from GIS interpretation of wildlife/habitat surveys. GIS interpretation follows criteria specific for taxon and/or populations of taxon. Key Areas are based on observed locations of wildlife at key times of year, not on habitat assessment. With new information, boundaries and designations of Key Areas can change and additional Key Areas can be identified. Furthermore, Key Areas are not the only sites important for wildlife. Other information sources can identify other sites important for wildlife for reasons outside the scope of the WKA Inventory Program. Updates to Key Areas occur only periodically. For the most current information, please consult with the Regional Biologist for your area of interest. If you have questions or would like to contribute to the WKA database, please contact the WKA Inventory Program ( wka@yukon.ca ). Distributed from GeoYukon by the Government of Yukon . Discover more digital map data and interactive maps from Yukon's digital map data collection. For more information: geomatics.help@yukon.ca

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USFWS, Description: These data identify, in general, the areas where final critical habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley sandwort) occur. To provide the user with a general idea of areas where final critical habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley sandwort) occur.

The project leads for the collection of this data were Josh Bush and Tom Batter. Elk (8 adult females, 11 adult males) from the Bear Creek Ranch – Antelope Valley herd were captured and equipped with Lotek GPS collars (LifeCycle 800 GlobalStar, Lotek Wireless, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada), transmitting data from 2017-2022. The study area was within the Bear Valley and Cache Creek Elk Management Units, west of Route 20 south to Wilber Springs, where certain individuals appear to cross this highway. Route 20 is likely a barrier to movement to the east as this herd does not overlap with the Cortina Ridge herd on the other side of this highway. The Bear Creek Ranch – Antelope Valleyherd contains short distance, elevation-based movements likely due to seasonal habitat conditions, but this herd does not migrate between traditional summer and winter seasonal ranges. Instead, the herd displays a residential pattern, slowly moving up or down elevational gradients. Therefore, annual home ranges were modeled using year-round data to demarcate high use areas in lieu of modeling the specific winter ranges commonly seen in other ungulate analyses in California. GPS locations were fixed at 13-hour intervals in the dataset. To improve the quality of the data set as per Bjørneraas et al. (2010), the GPS data were filtered prior to analysis to remove locations which were: i) further from either the previous point or subsequent point than an individual elk is able to travel in the elapsed time, ii) forming spikes in the movement trajectory based on outgoing and incoming speeds and turning angles sharper than a predefined threshold , or iii) fixed in 2D space and visually assessed as a bad fix by the analyst. The methodology used for this analysis allowed for the mapping of the herd’s annual range based on a small sample. Brownian Bridge Movement Models (BBMMs; Sawyer et al. 2009) were constructed with GPS collar data from 17 elk in total, including 37 year-long sequences, location, date, time, and average location error as inputs in Migration Mapper to assess annual range. Annual range BBMMs were produced at a spatial resolution of 50 m using a sequential fix interval of less than 27 hours. Population-level annual range designations for this herd may expand with a larger sample, filling in some of the gaps between high-use annual range polygons in the map. Annual range is visualized as the 50th percentile contour (high use) and the 99th percentile contour of the year-round utilization distribution.