In 2012, the CPUC ordered the development of a statewide map that is designed specifically for the purpose of identifying areas where there is an increased risk for utility associated wildfires. The development of the CPUC -sponsored fire-threat map, herein "CPUC Fire-Threat Map," started in R.08-11-005 and continued in R.15-05-006.

A multistep process was used to develop the statewide CPUC Fire-Threat Map. The first step was to develop Fire Map 1 (FM 1), an agnostic map which depicts areas of California where there is an elevated hazard for the ignition and rapid spread of powerline fires due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation, and other environmental conditions. These are the environmental conditions associated with the catastrophic powerline fires that burned 334 square miles of Southern California in October 2007. FM 1 was developed by CAL FIRE and adopted by the CPUC in Decision 16-05-036.

FM 1 served as the foundation for the development of the final CPUC Fire-Threat Map. The CPUC Fire-Threat Map delineates, in part, the boundaries of a new High Fire-Threat District (HFTD) where utility infrastructure and operations will be subject to stricter fire‑safety regulations. Importantly, the CPUC Fire-Threat Map (1) incorporates the fire hazards associated with historical powerline wildfires besides the October 2007 fires in Southern California (e.g., the Butte Fire that burned 71,000 acres in Amador and Calaveras Counties in September 2015), and (2) ranks fire-threat areas based on the risks that utility-associated wildfires pose to people and property.

Primary responsibility for the development of the CPUC Fire-Threat Map was delegated to a group of utility mapping experts known as the Peer Development Panel (PDP), with oversight from a team of independent experts known as the Independent Review Team (IRT). The members of the IRT were selected by CAL FIRE and CAL FIRE served as the Chair of the IRT. The development of CPUC Fire-Threat Map includes input from many stakeholders, including investor-owned and publicly owned electric utilities, communications infrastructure providers, public interest groups, and local public safety agencies.

The PDP served a draft statewide CPUC Fire-Threat Map on July 31, 2017, which was subsequently reviewed by the IRT. On October 2 and October 5, 2017, the PDP filed an Initial CPUC Fire-Threat Map that reflected the results of the IRT's review through September 25, 2017. The final IRT-approved CPUC Fire-Threat Map was filed on November 17, 2017. On November 21, 2017, SED filed on behalf of the IRT a summary report detailing the production of the CPUC Fire-Threat Map(referenced at the time as Fire Map 2). Interested parties were provided opportunity to submit alternate maps, written comments on the IRT-approved map and alternate maps (if any), and motions for Evidentiary Hearings. No motions for Evidentiary Hearings or alternate map proposals were received. As such, on January 19, 2018 the CPUC adopted, via Safety and Enforcement Division's (SED) disposition of a Tier 1 Advice Letter, the final CPUC Fire-Threat Map.

Additional information can be found here.

On October 30, 2015 Governor Brown issued an emergency declaration requiring public agencies to identify areas of tree mortality that hold the greatest potential to result in wildfire and/or falling trees and threaten people and property in these areas. Once identified, these areas will be prioritized for removal of dead and dying trees that present a threat to public safety.

In 2012, the CPUC ordered the development of a statewide map that is designed specifically for the purpose of identifying areas where there is an increased risk for utility associated wildfires. The development of the CPUC -sponsored fire-threat map, herein "CPUC Fire-Threat Map," started in R.08-11-005 and continued in R.15-05-006.

A multistep process was used to develop the statewide CPUC Fire-Threat Map. The first step was to develop Fire Map 1 (FM 1), an agnostic map which depicts areas of California where there is an elevated hazard for the ignition and rapid spread of powerline fires due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation, and other environmental conditions. These are the environmental conditions associated with the catastrophic powerline fires that burned 334 square miles of Southern California in October 2007. FM 1 was developed by CAL FIRE and adopted by the CPUC in Decision 16-05-036.

FM 1 served as the foundation for the development of the final CPUC Fire-Threat Map. The CPUC Fire-Threat Map delineates, in part, the boundaries of a new High Fire-Threat District (HFTD) where utility infrastructure and operations will be subject to stricter fire‑safety regulations. Importantly, the CPUC Fire-Threat Map (1) incorporates the fire hazards associated with historical powerline wildfires besides the October 2007 fires in Southern California (e.g., the Butte Fire that burned 71,000 acres in Amador and Calaveras Counties in September 2015), and (2) ranks fire-threat areas based on the risks that utility-associated wildfires pose to people and property.

Primary responsibility for the development of the CPUC Fire-Threat Map was delegated to a group of utility mapping experts known as the Peer Development Panel (PDP), with oversight from a team of independent experts known as the Independent Review Team (IRT). The members of the IRT were selected by CAL FIRE and CAL FIRE served as the Chair of the IRT. The development of CPUC Fire-Threat Map includes input from many stakeholders, including investor-owned and publicly owned electric utilities, communications infrastructure providers, public interest groups, and local public safety agencies.

The PDP served a draft statewide CPUC Fire-Threat Map on July 31, 2017, which was subsequently reviewed by the IRT. On October 2 and October 5, 2017, the PDP filed an Initial CPUC Fire-Threat Map that reflected the results of the IRT's review through September 25, 2017. The final IRT-approved CPUC Fire-Threat Map was filed on November 17, 2017. On November 21, 2017, SED filed on behalf of the IRT a summary report detailing the production of the CPUC Fire-Threat Map(referenced at the time as Fire Map 2). Interested parties were provided opportunity to submit alternate maps, written comments on the IRT-approved map and alternate maps (if any), and motions for Evidentiary Hearings. No motions for Evidentiary Hearings or alternate map proposals were received. As such, on January 19, 2018 the CPUC adopted, via Safety and Enforcement Division's (SED) disposition of a Tier 1 Advice Letter, the final CPUC Fire-Threat Map.

Additional information can be found here.

In 2012, the CPUC ordered the development of a statewide map that is designed specifically for the purpose of identifying areas where there is an increased risk for utility associated wildfires. The development of the CPUC -sponsored fire-threat map, herein "CPUC Fire-Threat Map," started in R.08-11-005 and continued in R.15-05-006. A multistep process was used to develop the statewide CPUC Fire-Threat Map. The first step was to develop Fire Map 1 (FM 1), an agnostic map which depicts areas of California where there is an elevated hazard for the ignition and rapid spread of powerline fires due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation, and other environmental conditions. These are the environmental conditions associated with the catastrophic powerline fires that burned 334 square miles of Southern California in October 2007. FM 1 was developed by CAL FIRE and adopted by the CPUC in Decision 16-05-036.FM 1 served as the foundation for the development of the final CPUC Fire-Threat Map. The CPUC Fire-Threat Map delineates, in part, the boundaries of a new High Fire-Threat District (HFTD) where utility infrastructure and operations will be subject to stricter fire‑safety regulations. Importantly, the CPUC Fire-Threat Map (1) incorporates the fire hazards associated with historical powerline wildfires besides the October 2007 fires in Southern California (e.g., the Butte Fire that burned 71,000 acres in Amador and Calaveras Counties in September 2015), and (2) ranks fire-threat areas based on the risks that utility-associated wildfires pose to people and property. Primary responsibility for the development of the CPUC Fire-Threat Map was delegated to a group of utility mapping experts known as the Peer Development Panel (PDP), with oversight from a team of independent experts known as the Independent Review Team (IRT). The members of the IRT were selected by CAL FIRE and CAL FIRE served as the Chair of the IRT. The development of CPUC Fire-Threat Map includes input from many stakeholders, including investor-owned and publicly owned electric utilities, communications infrastructure providers, public interest groups, and local public safety agencies. The PDP served a draft statewide CPUC Fire-Threat Map on July 31, 2017, which was subsequently reviewed by the IRT. On October 2 and October 5, 2017, the PDP filed an Initial CPUC Fire-Threat Map that reflected the results of the IRT's review through September 25, 2017. The final IRT-approved CPUC Fire-Threat Map was filed on November 17, 2017. On November 21, 2017, SED filed on behalf of the IRT a summary report detailing the production of the CPUC Fire-Threat Map(referenced at the time as Fire Map 2). Interested parties were provided opportunity to submit alternate maps, written comments on the IRT-approved map and alternate maps (if any), and motions for Evidentiary Hearings. No motions for Evidentiary Hearings or alternate map proposals were received. As such, on January 19, 2018 the CPUC adopted, via Safety and Enforcement Division's (SED) disposition of a Tier 1 Advice Letter, the final CPUC Fire-Threat Map.Additional information can be found here.

This ESRI Service provides an in-depth view of California’s unprecedented tree mortality crisis, which escalated between 2012 and 2019 due to severe drought conditions, native bark beetle infestations, and record-high temperatures. Coordinated by CalFire and the Tree Mortality Task Force (TMTF), a collaborative group comprising multiple agencies and stakeholders, this service consolidates various data layers essential for understanding and addressing the widespread tree deaths. The dataset includes Areas of Dead Trees (ADS), High Hazard Zones (HHZ), tree removal projects, and additional layers that map the extent and impact of the crisis across the state.High Hazard Zones are a critical component of this service, categorized into Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas to prioritize efforts and resources effectively. Tier 1 HHZs focus on regions where tree mortality directly threatens vital assets such as communities, powerlines, roads, communication structures, and recreational facilities. These zones are identified based on proximity and the severity of the threat, with Tier 1 areas representing immediate risks to public safety and infrastructure. Tier 2 HHZs, on the other hand, encompass larger ecological restoration areas defined by watersheds, addressing both immediate threats and long-term forest health and fire planning needs. The service includes detailed attributes for each zone, including damaged area ID, source, damage type, tree species affected, and the number of dead trees.Regular updates to the dataset ensure that stakeholders have access to the most current information. Significant updates between 2016 and 2021 have refined the boundaries of High Hazard Zones using aerial detection surveys, incorporating new asset data from various counties and agencies and enhancing the accuracy of critical infrastructure layers. These updates reflect ongoing efforts to mitigate fire risks, support ecological restoration, and protect essential services and communities from further tree mortality impacts. Users can access historical update information to understand the evolution of hazard zone delineations and the methodologies applied over time.This data is updated as of 2018 and new data is being updated as of 2021Designed for use by private citizens, stakeholders, and emergency responders, this service fosters informed participation in wildfire prevention and preparedness initiatives. By visualizing areas of greatest impact and providing comprehensive data on tree mortality and hazard zones, the service enables effective decision-making and resource allocation. Access to the service is regulated to ensure data integrity and reliability, with disclaimers highlighting the limitations and liabilities associated with data use. For further information, assistance with application tools, or to review the terms of use, users are encouraged to visit the help page or contact CalFire directly at calfire.egis@fire.ca.gov. Additional resources on wildfire prevention and preparedness are available at www.readyforwildfire.org.The source data can be seen in the CalFire FRAP High Hazards viewer is hosted here with open data page at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/california-tree-mortality-viewer

UPPER TIER - An upper-tier municipality means a municipality of which two or more lower-tier municipalities form part for municipalities purposes. Municipal responsibilities set out under the Municipal Act and other Provincial legislation are split between the upper tier and lower tier municipalities.
DISTRICT - Territorial district means a geographic area in northern Ontario, which is described in the Territorial Division Act and is composed of municipalities, geographic townships, and unsurveyed territory. Additional Time Period Information: Updates are done as required. Changes may occur as a result of correction of errors or improvement in positional accuracy, at any time.

Additional Documentation

Municipal Boundary - Upper Tier and District - Data Description (PDF) (Document Update in Progress) Municipal Boundary - Upper Tier and District - Documentation (Word)

Status
On going: data is being continually updated

Maintenance and Update Frequency Annually: data is updated every year

Contact Paul McKenzie, Community Services I&IT Cluster, Paul.McKenzie@ontario.ca

Contains 2 datasets: * lower and single tier municipalities * upper tier municipalities and districts.

description: Features represent vegetation mapping for the Cow Creek Riparian Corridor, as specified for the Project Area designated in the contract between Stillwater Sciences and USFWS (USFWS Agreement No. 81330AJ365). Original mapping was performed by AIS, using 2010 NAIP imagery (1-m resolution). Stillwater performed an accuracy assessment in the field, and updated the vegetation mapping based on the observed conditions (Summer, 2013). Updates to the original file were made based on two sets of field data: 1) AA plot: the more complete field data collected at AA field plots using a modified version of the CNPS Rapid Assessment Protocol and randomly selected from stratified population of polygons in each reach, and based on land owner access agreements; and 2) map annotation: made on field maps in the field based on observed dominant species within the polygon.The data is mapped in the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) to the Alliance level, as depicted in the second edition of the Manual of California Vegetation.The data steward for this map is Trisha Parker, USFWS.AttributeDescriptionUIDUnique identification number assigned to each polygonAIS_VegTypOriginal vegetation classification based on AIS typingSWS_VegTypStillwater Science vegetation classification based on fieldworkSWS_noteStillwater Sciences note about vegetationAA_ScoreAccuracy assessment score of AIS type assigned based on field observation using 5 tier scoring per CDFW protocolObsTypeObservation source (AIS: original observation using aerial imagery; field assessed: SWS AA plot assessed; map annotation: based on SWS notes on fieldmaps, but not detailed sample plot); abstract: Features represent vegetation mapping for the Cow Creek Riparian Corridor, as specified for the Project Area designated in the contract between Stillwater Sciences and USFWS (USFWS Agreement No. 81330AJ365). Original mapping was performed by AIS, using 2010 NAIP imagery (1-m resolution). Stillwater performed an accuracy assessment in the field, and updated the vegetation mapping based on the observed conditions (Summer, 2013). Updates to the original file were made based on two sets of field data: 1) AA plot: the more complete field data collected at AA field plots using a modified version of the CNPS Rapid Assessment Protocol and randomly selected from stratified population of polygons in each reach, and based on land owner access agreements; and 2) map annotation: made on field maps in the field based on observed dominant species within the polygon.The data is mapped in the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) to the Alliance level, as depicted in the second edition of the Manual of California Vegetation.The data steward for this map is Trisha Parker, USFWS.AttributeDescriptionUIDUnique identification number assigned to each polygonAIS_VegTypOriginal vegetation classification based on AIS typingSWS_VegTypStillwater Science vegetation classification based on fieldworkSWS_noteStillwater Sciences note about vegetationAA_ScoreAccuracy assessment score of AIS type assigned based on field observation using 5 tier scoring per CDFW protocolObsTypeObservation source (AIS: original observation using aerial imagery; field assessed: SWS AA plot assessed; map annotation: based on SWS notes on fieldmaps, but not detailed sample plot)

Upper Tier Municipality Boundaries

On September 3, 2024, the Region's new Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in part, with modifications. This Plan replaces the former Official Plan, which was approved in 1993.The new Regional Official Plan provides policies and strategic directions that guide future growth, infrastructure and service delivery, land use planning and development-related matters to ensure an improved quality of life – to nurture a healthy, safe, convenient and active, present and future for Durham residents.The Regional Official Plan contains policies and maps, which guide the type and location of land uses in the Region to 2051. Land use categories are displayed on the maps, while the policies describe the Region's goals and objectives for these categories, and the type of information the Region requires to evaluate land uses changes. This regional policy framework is further detailed through the official plans of each of the Region's eight area municipalities.As of January 1st, 2025, the Regional Municipality of Durham no longer has carriage of the Regional Official Plan. As of January 1st, it became the official plan of the lower tier municipalities. Should you have any questions on how to read or interpret any aspect of this Plan, please contact the Planning Department of the lower tier municipality in which your lands are located.

description: Features represent vegetation mapping for the Mill Creek Riparian Corridor, as specified for the Project Area designated in the contract between Stillwater Sciences and USFWS (USFWS Agreement No. 81330AJ365).Original mapping was performed by AIS, using 2010 NAIP imagery (1-m resolution). Stillwater performed an accuracy assessment in the field, and updated the vegetation mapping based on the observed conditions (Summer, 2013). Updates to the original file were made based on two sets of field data: 1) AA plot: the more complete field data collected at AA field plots using a modified version of the CNPS Rapid Assessment Protocol and randomly selected from stratified population of polygons in each reach, and based on land owner access agreements; and 2) map annotation: made on field maps in the field based on observed dominant species within the polygon.The data is mapped in the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) to the Alliance level, as depicted in the second edition of the Manual of California Vegetation, whenever possible. A separate classification system (USDA - Meadow Hydrogeomorphic Types for the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges) was incorporated into the effort for classifying higher elevation meadows above 4500 ft in the upper reaches of the Mill Creek watershed. The data steward for this map is Trisha Parker, USFWS.AttributeDescriptionUIDUnique identification number assigned to each polygonAIS_VegTypOriginal vegetation classification based on AIS typingSWS_VegTypStillwater Science vegetation classification based on fieldworkSWS_noteStillwater Sciences note about vegetationAA_ScoreAccuracy assessment score of AIS type assigned based on field observation using 5 tier scoring per CDFW protocolObsTypeObservation source (AIS: original observation using aerial imagery; field assessed: SWS AA plot assessed; map annotation: based on SWS notes on fieldmaps, but not detailed sample plot); abstract: Features represent vegetation mapping for the Mill Creek Riparian Corridor, as specified for the Project Area designated in the contract between Stillwater Sciences and USFWS (USFWS Agreement No. 81330AJ365).Original mapping was performed by AIS, using 2010 NAIP imagery (1-m resolution). Stillwater performed an accuracy assessment in the field, and updated the vegetation mapping based on the observed conditions (Summer, 2013). Updates to the original file were made based on two sets of field data: 1) AA plot: the more complete field data collected at AA field plots using a modified version of the CNPS Rapid Assessment Protocol and randomly selected from stratified population of polygons in each reach, and based on land owner access agreements; and 2) map annotation: made on field maps in the field based on observed dominant species within the polygon.The data is mapped in the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) to the Alliance level, as depicted in the second edition of the Manual of California Vegetation, whenever possible. A separate classification system (USDA - Meadow Hydrogeomorphic Types for the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges) was incorporated into the effort for classifying higher elevation meadows above 4500 ft in the upper reaches of the Mill Creek watershed. The data steward for this map is Trisha Parker, USFWS.AttributeDescriptionUIDUnique identification number assigned to each polygonAIS_VegTypOriginal vegetation classification based on AIS typingSWS_VegTypStillwater Science vegetation classification based on fieldworkSWS_noteStillwater Sciences note about vegetationAA_ScoreAccuracy assessment score of AIS type assigned based on field observation using 5 tier scoring per CDFW protocolObsTypeObservation source (AIS: original observation using aerial imagery; field assessed: SWS AA plot assessed; map annotation: based on SWS notes on fieldmaps, but not detailed sample plot)

On September 3, 2024, the Region's new Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in part, with modifications. This Plan replaces the former Official Plan, which was approved in 1993.The new Regional Official Plan provides policies and strategic directions that guide future growth, infrastructure and service delivery, land use planning and development-related matters to ensure an improved quality of life – to nurture a healthy, safe, convenient and active, present and future for Durham residents.The Regional Official Plan contains policies and maps, which guide the type and location of land uses in the Region to 2051. Land use categories are displayed on the maps, while the policies describe the Region's goals and objectives for these categories, and the type of information the Region requires to evaluate land uses changes. This regional policy framework is further detailed through the official plans of each of the Region's eight area municipalities.As of January 1st, 2025, the Regional Municipality of Durham no longer has carriage of the Regional Official Plan. As of January 1st, it became the official plan of the lower tier municipalities. Should you have any questions on how to read or interpret any aspect of this Plan, please contact the Planning Department of the lower tier municipality in which your lands are located.

On September 3, 2024, the Region's new Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in part, with modifications. This Plan replaces the former Official Plan, which was approved in 1993.The new Regional Official Plan provides policies and strategic directions that guide future growth, infrastructure and service delivery, land use planning and development-related matters to ensure an improved quality of life – to nurture a healthy, safe, convenient and active, present and future for Durham residents.The Regional Official Plan contains policies and maps, which guide the type and location of land uses in the Region to 2051. Land use categories are displayed on the maps, while the policies describe the Region's goals and objectives for these categories, and the type of information the Region requires to evaluate land uses changes. This regional policy framework is further detailed through the official plans of each of the Region's eight area municipalities.As of January 1st, 2025, the Regional Municipality of Durham no longer has carriage of the Regional Official Plan. As of January 1st, it became the official plan of the lower tier municipalities. Should you have any questions on how to read or interpret any aspect of this Plan, please contact the Planning Department of the lower tier municipality in which your lands are located.

Lower Tier Municipality boundaries

This spatial data set contains polygons representing the municipal boundaries for each municipality within Niagara Region. Attributes include name, type, area and length in metres.

This map shows result from CalGEM’s orphan well screening and prioritization methodology for the phase 1 final: initial technical screening phase. This result will help to prioritize plug and abandonment of likely orphan and deserted wells in California, as part the Federal and State abandonment project.

This data maps 5,296 wells using their coordinates recorded in WellSTAR. Though there are a total of 5,338 wells identified on the screening and prioritization inventory, 42 of these do not have known surface locations and cannot be mapped. Data is static, last updated February 2023. Based on public feedback received, CalGEM constructed its final screening methodology by building on and making important modifications to Scenario 2, which focused on minimizing risk to communities and sensitive environments rather than a focus solely on disadvantaged communities (scenario 1) or well integrity and safety (scenario 3). Wells are informed by the regulatory criteria found in California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 1772.4, and data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities information.Wells are categorized into five tiers 1-5. Tiers representing five segments under the normal distribution, with tier 1 representing the highest risk wells. In additions, for those 1460 wells for which CalGEM field staff were deployed to locate the well, and the well was determined to be inaccessible, they are categorized as “Inaccessible”. CalGEM will assess the reason for the well inaccessibility, whether any monitoring is needed of the well, and a plan for abandoning the well should it become accessible. There are 45 wells that have changed status to “plugged and abandoned” in 2023, some by operators, some by CalGEM, and with the use of Federal Infrastructure grant funding.

More detail about the points associated with each criterion is in a Screening Prioritization Methodology document that will be available on CalGEM's website.Additional resources: Contact CalGEMOrphanWells@conservation.ca.gov for further questions.

Areas with elevated tree mortality and high fire threat that are a hazard to public safety, community assets, and related infrastructure represent the primary focus of these zones. CAL FIRE mapped Tier Two High Hazard Zones through a risk assessment model that scored watersheds based on amont of risk (hazard) and the amount of asset to be protected. We used the National Hydrography Dataset Watershed Boundaries (WBD) hydrologic unit code (HUC) 12 watersheds. These are the smallest consistently delineated watersheds in California and the average around 24,000 acres.In this model, the hazards were: number of dead trees (take from the USFS Aerial Detection Survey, 2015), acres of Tier One High Hazard Zones, and fire threat -- represented in the Sierra Nevada by WHRTYPE and fire return interval departure (USFS FRID, 2014) and in other areas of the state by CAL FIRE's Firethreat layer (FRAP, 2005). The assets to be protected were: amount of Critical Infrastructure, represented by roads, communities, recreation facilities, communications); water related natural resources (represented statewide by acres of riparian and in the Sierra Nevada by acres of riparian and montane meadows); and amount of water infrastructure, represented by water conveyances, and water storage facilities. Each hazard and each asset was scored individually, and an overall composite score was achieved. The overall scores for hazard and assets were ranked and then also combined for an overall score. For more information on the datasets used and the scoring methodology, please contact kelly.larvie@fire.ca.gov. Field review and revision is needed to refine and finalize HHZ areas. These zones will be periodically updated to relfect new mortality or infrastructure assets at risk.