Annotation created from Indian Lands and Native Entities.

This polygon feature class contains exterior reservation boundaries of Native American Indian Reservations and Rancherias in U.S. EPA Region 9. The primary data is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Pacific Region Office and the AZ/NV BLM Surface Management office. Within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), BIA provides the list of federally recognized tribes and only provides legal boundary information when the tribes need supporting records, if a boundary is based on treaty or another document that is historical or open to legal interpretation, or when another tribal, state, or local government challenges the depiction of a reservation or off-reservation trust land.

The BIA/BLM data has been appended by the addition of office locations for tribal consortia and landless tribes. Attributes derive from the Indian Nations Database maintained by the EPA Region 9 Tribal, Intergovernmental and Policy Division.

This dataset was updated April, 2024.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes: Clipping input datasets to the California boundary Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc) Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California. Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only. Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs) In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset.Data Sources: GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.htmlData Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

Original Product: These are Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data for the USGS Yurok Tribe Ancestral Lands 3DEP LiDAR project. Class 2 (ground) lidar points in conjunction with the hydro breaklines were used to create a hydro-flattened DEM using LP360 2024.1.30.2.

Original Geographic Extent: This dataset and derived products encompass an area covering approximately 1,320 Square Kilometers of No...

This dataset contains the boundaries for the Native American Reservations in the six counties in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.

This map shows the 2022 disadvantaged communities designated by CalEPA for the purpose of SB 535. These areas represent: Highest scoring 25% of census tracts from CalEnviroScreen 4.0, along with census tracts scoring in the top 5% of the Pollution Burden indicator but without an overall CalEnviroScreen score due to due to unavailable or unreliable Population Characteristics indicator data and score.All census tracts currently identified as disadvantaged but not in the highest scoring 25% census tracts in version 4.0 (i.e., the highest scoring 25% of census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 3.0 along with the census tracts with the highest 5% Pollution Burden scores, but without an overall CalEnviroScreen score). See the Disadvantaged Communities 2017 map here.Federally recognized tribal areas as identified by the Census in the 2021 American Indian Areas Related National Geodatabase. A Tribe may establish that a particular area of land is under its control, for purposes of this designation, by requesting a consultation with the CalEPA Deputy Secretary for Environmental Justice, Tribal Affairs and Border Relations at TribalAffairs@calepa.ca.gov. This map was last updated in May 2024 with additional tribal lands based on consultations that occurred in 2023 and 2024. Please see CalEPA's Draft Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535 document as well as CalEPA's California Climate Investments to Benefit Disadvantaged Communities page.

Native or indigenous people in the United States are often referred to as American Indian, Indian, or Native American. This text uses Native American as we are discussing many different peoples. Everyone has preferences on how they would like to be addressed regardless of ethnicity and it is always best to ask their preferences.Before Europeans wondered into the Americas, it was home to millions of people. These people had their own cultures, customs, languages, and religions. First contact with Europeans may have been peaceful, but Native American’s immune systems were not prepared for the biological attack of germs carried by the colonizers. In the decades that followed, infectious diseases, such as the flu, measles, and smallpox, killed an estimated 70 percent or more Native Americans.Overtime, as more and more European’s colonized North America, they needed more land and resources. This put them into conflict with the Native Americans. Some of these conflicts became violent and others resulted in treaties, where the colonizers promised to give the Native Americans things in exchange for their land, pushing them further and further west.On March 28, 1830, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Andrew Jackson signed, the Indian Removal Act. This act authorized the president of the United States to grant desirable tribal land to white colonizers and remove Native Americans east of the Mississippi River to land deemed undesirable to the west by force. The Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek peoples adopted some of the customs of the colonizers to coexist peacefully and retain their land. Some groups tried legal actions going all the way to the Supreme Court to combat legislation designed to steal their land. The Cherokee won one such challenge. However, state officials and President Andrew Jackson refused to uphold the Supreme Court’s ruling. When this and other non-violent tactics failed, some groups went to war to protect their homelands. The U.S. military eventually forced more than 100,000 Native Americans to march, some in chains, to the designated “Indian Territory” or reservation land. Many died on what is today referred to as the Trail of Tears.Nearly sixty years later, the Dawes Act (also called the Dawes Severalty Act or the General Allotment Act) was passed in 1887 and signed into law by President Grover Cleveland. This act broke up tribal lands into individual parcels awarded to the head of each family and required Native Americans to register with the Office of Indian Affairs. The Office of Indian Affairs was renamed the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1947. The United States government wanted Native Americans to assimilate with the culture of the colonizers. In exchange for accepting this plan Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship. Up to this point the original residents of the land occupied by the United States, had not been considered citizens of the country. This act further reduced the amount of held by Native Americans as each family was only eligible to receive 160 acres of farmland or 320 acres of grazing land. However, much of the land awarded was suitable for neither farming nor grazing. Before the Dawes Act, Native Americans controlled about 150 million acres or land but after they only had approximately 90 million acres.Then during the Great Depression and the New Deal era, the Indian Reorganization Act—or the Wheeler-Howard Act—was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 18, 1934. This law was passes with the intent to correct the damage done to Native American communities by the assimilation dictates of the Dawes Act. Passed during the New Deal era, the act ended the allotment of tribal land and in some cases returned land to the Native Americans, recognized the right of Native Americans to self-govern, created loan programs for the creation of businesses by individuals, and added a hiring preference in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This act initially did not apply to peoples in Alaska but that was corrected with the passing of an amendment in 1936.This map layer was created using data from the United States Census Bureau. It depicts the Federal American Indian reservations. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs a “reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.” Not every federally recognized Native American group has a reservation. The largest reservation (16 million acres) is the Navajo Nation Reservation in the state of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and the smallest reservation (1.32 acres) is the Pit River Tribe’s cemetery in California.

ObjectivesTo describe the food environments experienced by American Indians living on tribal lands in California.MethodsGeocoded statewide food business data were used to define and categorize existing food vendors into healthy, unhealthy, and intermediate composite categories. Distance to and density of each of the composite food vendor categories for tribal lands and nontribal lands were compared using multivariate linear regression. Quantitative results were concurrently triangulated with qualitative data from in-depth interviews with tribal members (n = 24).ResultsAfter adjusting for census tract-level urbanicity and per capita income, results indicate there were significantly fewer healthy food outlets per square mile for tribal areas compared to non-tribal areas. Density of unhealthy outlets was not significantly different for tribal versus non-tribal areas. Tribal members perceived their food environment negatively and reported barriers to the acquisition of healthy food.ConclusionsUrbanicity and per capita income do not completely account for disparities in food environments among American Indians tribal lands compared to nontribal lands. This disparity in access to healthy food may present a barrier to acting on the intention to consume healthy food.

Graph and download economic data for Value of Exports to British Indian Ocean Territory from California (CAIOTA052SCEN) from 2005 to 2022 about British Indian Ocean Territory, exports, and CA.

Critical habitat in bays and estuaries includes tidally influenced areas as defined by the elevation of mean higher high water (MHHW). The boundary between coastal marine areas and bays and estuaries is delineated by the COLREGS lines (33 CFR 80). Critical habitat in coastal marine areas is defined by the zone between the 60 fathom (fm) depth bathymetry line and the line on shore reached by mean lower low water (MLLW), or to the COLREGS lines.No areas were deemed ineligible for designation. No unoccupied areas were designated. 14 areas based on economic impacts and 5 areas based on national security impacts were excluded from this critical habitat designation and clipped out of the data. The following tribal lands were excluded from this designation, but were not clipped out of the data:(1) Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community, California(2) Cher-Ae Heights Trinidad Rancheria, California(3) Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, Oregon(4) Coquille Indian Tribe, Oregon(5) Hoh Tribe, Washington(6) Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington(7) Lower Elwha Tribe, Washington(8) Makah Tribe, Washington(9) Quileute Tribe, Washington(10) Quinault Tribe, Washington(11) Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Washington(12) Wiyot Tribe, California(13) Yurok Tribe, California

Shapefile contains census tracts and polygons of Tribal Lands identified as Disadvantaged Communities per SB 535 for the five counties that are included in the Bay Area Regional Climate Action Planning Initiative Frontline Communities Map.

The original shapefile was downloaded from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities webpage. The “Clip” tool in ArcMap was used to select only those features which are located within the boundaries of the five Bay Area counties included in the Frontline Communities Map. No display filters were used to visualize the features in the final map. To learn more about the methodology behind the original dataset, please visit: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535

The Frontline Communities Map is meant to help identify communities that are considered frontline communities for the purpose of the USEPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) program’s planning effort, which is a five-county climate action planning process led by the Air District. USEPA refers to these communities as low-income and disadvantaged communities (LIDACs).

Senate Bill (SB) 535 (De León) mandates that California use certain Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds to fund investments in “disadvantaged communities” (DACs). It charges the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) with the responsibility to designate DACs.

In issuing previous designations, CalEPA relied upon the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), a mapping tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). On October 13, 2021, OEHHA released a new final version of CalEnviroScreen, Version 4.0. CalEPA determined that the improvements and updates in Version 4.0 were sufficiently material to warrant new designations of disadvantaged communities, pursuant to SB 535 (DAC designations).

After receiving public input at workshops and in written comments, in May 2022, CalEPA released its updated designation of disadvantaged communities for the purpose of SB 535. In this designation, CalEPA formally designated four categories of geographic areas as disadvantaged: 1. Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (1,984 tracts). 2. Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores (19 tracts). 3. Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (307 tracts). 4. Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes.

Critical habitat in freshwater riverine areas includes the stream channels and a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high-water line (33 CFR 329.11). In areas for which the ordinary high-water line has not been defined pursuant to 33 CFR 329.11, the lateral extent is defined by the bankfull elevation. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series. Critical habitat in bays and estuaries includes tidally influenced areas as defined by the elevation of mean higher high water (MHHW).No areas were deemed ineligible for designation. No unoccupied areas were designated. 14 areas based on economic impacts and 5 areas based on national security impacts were excluded from this critical habitat designation and clipped out of the data. The following tribal lands were excluded from this designation, but were not clipped out of the data:(1) Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community, California(2) Cher-Ae Heights Trinidad Rancheria, California(3) Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, Oregon(4) Coquille Indian Tribe, Oregon(5) Hoh Tribe, Washington(6) Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington(7) Lower Elwha Tribe, Washington(8) Makah Tribe, Washington(9) Quileute Tribe, Washington(10) Quinault Tribe, Washington(11) Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Washington(12) Wiyot Tribe, California(13) Yurok Tribe, California

This Atlas has folders with resources by and for Native communities in Southern California, including designations of tribal lands, Indigenous environmental and climate justice, educational resources, historical and contemporary ecological resources, and additional layers associated with specific tribal groups.

Graph and download economic data for Number of Identified Exporters to British Indian Ocean Territory from California (CAIOTA475SCEN) from 1997 to 2022 about British Indian Ocean Territory, exports, business, and CA.

This map shows the 2022 disadvantaged communities designated by CalEPA for the purpose of SB 535. These areas represent:

• Highest scoring 25% of census tracts from CalEnviroScreen 4.0, along with census tracts scoring in the top 5% of the Pollution Burden indicator but without an overall CalEnviroScreen score due to due to unavailable or unreliable Population Characteristics indicator data and score.
• All census tracts currently identified as disadvantaged but not in the highest scoring 25% census tracts in version 4.0 (i.e., the highest scoring 25% of census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 3.0 along with the census tracts with the highest 5% Pollution Burden scores, but without an overall CalEnviroScreen score). See the Disadvantaged Communities 2017 map here.
• Federally recognized tribal areas as identified by the Census in the 2021 American Indian Areas Related National Geodatabase. A Tribe may establish that a particular area of land is under its control, for purposes of this designation, by requesting a consultation with the CalEPA Deputy Secretary for Environmental Justice, Tribal Affairs and Border Relations at TribalAffairs@calepa.ca.gov

This data publication contains tabular data of overstory and understory vegetation composition collected from the mid-1950s to early 2000s in relatively undisturbed, mostly mature stands across forested federal lands of Oregon, Washington, and California. Most plots are on National Forest System lands, with some on Bureau of Land Management or Tribal land. Plots were distributed to represent the diversity of vegetation types across each National Forest or other management unit. These Ecology plots are not, and were never intended to be, permanent plots. Data include vegetation cover data such as lifeform, scientific name, and species cover for 38,560 plots. The longitude, latitude, and Regional ID number are also provided for each plot, with a supplemental file relating Regional IDs to land management units.These data were used to create typologies of potential vegetation ("Plant Associations") or ecological types (plant communities) that would allow forest managers to infer site conditions (topographic, climatic, edaphic, etc.) from the existing overstory and understory composition. Plant Association or Ecological Type (Plant Community) Guides were developed for groups of National Forests and adjacent lands across Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. Supplemental information includes a list of citations of these Plant Association and Ecological Type Guides, most of which were developed based on these plot data.

This dataset tracks annual american indian student percentage from 1991 to 2023 for William Land Elementary School vs. California and Sacramento City Unified School District

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that 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) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. A tribal census tract is a relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a federally recognized American Indian reservation and/or off-reservation trust land, delineated by the American Indian tribal government and/or the Census Bureau for the purpose of presenting demographic data. For the 2010 Census, tribal census tracts groups are defined independently of the standard county-based block group delineation. For federally recognized American Indian Tribes with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population less than 2,400, a single tribal census tract is defined. Qualifying areas with a population greater than 2,400 could define additional tribal census tracts within their area. The tribal census tract codes for the 2010 Census are six characters long with a leading "T" alphabetic character followed by a five-digit numeric code, for example, T01000, which translates as tribal census tract 10. Tribal block groups nest within tribal census tract. Since individual tabulation blocks are defined within the standard State-county-census tract geographic hierarchy, a tribal census tract can contain seemingly duplicate block numbers, thus tribal census tracts cannot be used to uniquely identify census tabulation blocks for the 2010 Census. For the 2010 Census, tribal block groups and tribal census tracts were delineated through the Tribal Statistical Areas Program (TSAP).

This layer represents the geographic areas 1-3 below. Category 4, tribal lands, are in the other layer.In this designation, CalEPA formally designated four categories of geographic areas as disadvantaged:1. Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (1,984 tracts).2. Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores (19 tracts).3. Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (307 tracts).4. Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes. For purposes of this designation, a Tribe may establish that a particular area of land is under its control even if not represented as such on CalEPA’s DAC map and therefore should be considered a DAC by requesting a consultation with the CalEPA Deputy Secretary for Environmental Justice, Tribal Affairs and Border Relations at TribalAffairs@calepa.ca.gov.