California - Census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA)This data is a subset of the National ZCTA data from the US Census Bureau. This layer was created by using the Select by Layer tool in ArcGIS Pro. First, the polygon for the California was selected from the United State County Borders, then the features from the ZCTA layer within the CA polygon were selected to create a new California only ZCTA layer.Census ZIP Code Tabulation AreasThis feature layer, utilizing National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) data from the U.S. Census Bureau, displays ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. Per the USCB, “ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) are approximate area representations of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ZIP Code service areas that the Census Bureau creates to present statistical data for each decennial census. Data users should not use ZCTAs to identify the official USPS ZIP Code for mail delivery. The USPS makes periodic changes to ZIP Codes to support more efficient mail delivery.”Tabulation Area: 90069NGDAID: 58 (Series Information for 2020 Census 5-Digit ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA5) National TIGER/Line Shapefiles, Current)OGC API Features Link: (Census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas - OGC Features) copy this link to embed it in OGC Compliant viewersFor more information, please visit: ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs)For feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.comNGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Governmental Units, and Administrative and Statistical Boundaries Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), this theme is defined as the "boundaries that delineate geographic areas for uses such as governance and the general provision of services (e.g., states, American Indian reservations, counties, cities, towns, etc.), administration and/or for a specific purpose (e.g., congressional districts, school districts, fire districts, Alaska Native Regional Corporations, etc.), and/or provision of statistical data (census tracts, census blocks, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, etc.). Boundaries for these various types of geographic areas are either defined through a documented legal description or through criteria and guidelines. Other boundaries may include international limits, those of federal land ownership, the extent of administrative regions for various federal agencies, as well as the jurisdictional offshore limits of U.S. sovereignty. Boundaries associated solely with natural resources and/or cultural entities are excluded from this theme and are included in the appropriate subject themes."For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

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) Database (MTDB). The MTDB 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. ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) are approximate area representations of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ZIP Code service areas that the Census Bureau creates to present statistical data for each decennial census. The Census Bureau delineates ZCTA boundaries for the United States, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands once each decade following the decennial census. Data users should not use ZCTAs to identify the official USPS ZIP Code for mail delivery. The USPS makes periodic changes to ZIP Codes to support more efficient mail delivery. The Census Bureau uses tabulation blocks as the basis for defining each ZCTA. Tabulation blocks are assigned to a ZCTA based on the most frequently occurring ZIP Code for the addresses contained within that block. The most frequently occurring ZIP Code also becomes the five-digit numeric code of the ZCTA. These codes may contain leading zeros. Blocks that do not contain addresses but are surrounded by a single ZCTA (enclaves) are assigned to the surrounding ZCTA. Because the Census Bureau only uses the most frequently occurring ZIP Code to assign blocks, a ZCTA may not exist for every USPS ZIP Code. Some ZIP Codes may not have a matching ZCTA because too few addresses were associated with the specific ZIP Code or the ZIP Code was not the most frequently occurring ZIP Code within any of the blocks where it exists. The ZCTA boundaries in this release are those delineated following the 2010 Census.

In this dataset we present two maps that estimate the location and population served by domestic wells in the contiguous United States. The first methodology, called the “Block Group Method” or BGM, builds upon the original block-group data from the 1990 census (the last time the U.S. Census queried the population regarding their source of water) by incorporating higher resolution census block data. The second methodology, called the “Road-Enhanced Method” or REM, refines the locations by using a buffer expansion and shrinkage technique along roadways to define areas where domestic wells exist. The fundamental assumption with this method is that houses (and therefore domestic wells) are located near a named road. The results are presented as two nationally consistent domestic-well population datasets. While both methods can be considered valid, the REM map is more precise in locating domestic wells; the REM map had a smaller amount of spatial bias (nearly equal vs biased in type 1 error), total error (10.9% vs 23.7%,), and distance error (2.0 km vs 2.7 km), when comparing the REM and BGM maps to a California calibration map. However, the BGM map is more inclusive of all potential locations for domestic wells. The primary difference in the BGM and the REM is the mapping of low density areas. The REM has a 57% reduction in areas mapped as low density (populations greater than 0 but less than 1 person per km), concentrating populations into denser regions. Therefore, if one is trying to capture all of the potential areas of domestic-well usage, then the BGM map may be more applicable. If location is more imperative, then the REM map is better at identifying areas of the landscape with the highest probability of finding a domestic well. Depending on the purpose of a study, a combination of both maps can be used. For space concerns, the datasets have been divided into two separate geodatabases. The BGM map geodatabase and the REM map database.

In this dataset we present two maps that estimate the _location and population served by domestic wells in the contiguous United States. The first methodology, called the “Block Group Method” or BGM, builds upon the original block-group data from the 1990 census (the last time the U.S. Census queried the population regarding their source of water) by incorporating higher resolution census block data. The second methodology, called the “Road-Enhanced Method” or REM, refines the locations by using a buffer expansion and shrinkage technique along roadways to define areas where domestic wells exist. The fundamental assumption with this method is that houses (and therefore domestic wells) are located near a named road. The results are presented as two nationally consistent domestic-well population datasets. While both methods can be considered valid, the REM map is more precise in locating domestic wells; the REM map had a smaller amount of spatial bias (nearly equal vs biased in type 1 error), total error (10.9% vs 23.7%,), and distance error (2.0 km vs 2.7 km), when comparing the REM and BGM maps to a California calibration map. However, the BGM map is more inclusive of all potential locations for domestic wells. The primary difference in the BGM and the REM is the mapping of low density areas. The REM has a 57% reduction in areas mapped as low density (populations greater than 0 but less than 1 person per km), concentrating populations into denser regions. Therefore, if one is trying to capture all of the potential areas of domestic-well usage, then the BGM map may be more applicable. If _location is more imperative, then the REM map is better at identifying areas of the landscape with the highest probability of finding a domestic well. Depending on the purpose of a study, a combination of both maps can be used. For space concerns, the datasets have been divided into two separate geodatabases. The BGM map geodatabase and the REM map database.

This raster represents a continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI, created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) values for Nevada during spring, which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Summer included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated using R Software (v 3.13) for each subregion and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2014, 5-year estimates of the key demographic characteristics of Block Groups geographic level in Orange County, California. The data contains 105 fields for the variable groups D01: Sex and age (universe: total population, table X1, 49 fields); D02: Median age by sex and race (universe: total population, table X1, 12 fields); D03: Race (universe: total population, table X2, 8 fields); D04: Race alone or in combination with one or more other races (universe: total population, table X2, 7 fields); D05: Hispanic or Latino and race (universe: total population, table X3, 21 fields), and; D06: Citizen voting age population (universe: citizen, 18 and over, table X5, 8 fields). The US Census geodemographic data are based on the 2014 TigerLines across multiple geographies. The spatial geographies were merged with ACS data tables. See full documentation at the OCACS project github page (https://github.com/ktalexan/OCACS-Geodemographics).