Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:

• A CDC data team reviews and validates the information obtained from jurisdictions’ state and local websites via an overnight data review process.
• If more than one official county data source exists, CDC uses a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source, and takes the highest case and death counts respectively, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• CDC compiles these data and posts the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data is aggregated to obtain state and territory specific totals.

This process is collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provide the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. CDC may retrospectively update counts to correct data quality issues.

Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:

• Source: The current Weekly-Updated Version is based on county-level aggregate count data, while the Archived Version is based on State-level aggregate count data.
• Confirmed/Probable Cases/Death breakdown:  While the probable cases and deaths are included in the total case and total death counts in both versions (if applicable), they were reported separately from the confirmed cases and deaths by jurisdiction in the Archived Version.  In the current Weekly-Updated Version, the counts by jurisdiction are not reported by confirmed or probable status (See Confirmed and Probable Counts section for more detail).
• Time Series Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version contains weekly time series data (i.e., one record per week per jurisdiction), while the Archived Version contains daily time series data (i.e., one record per day per jurisdiction).
• Update Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version is updated weekly, while the Archived Version was updated twice daily up to October 20, 2022.

Important note: The counts reflected during a given time period in this dataset may not match the counts reflected for the same time period in the archived dataset noted above. Discrepancies may exist due to differences between county and state COVID-19 case surveillance and reconciliation efforts.

Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).

Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.

CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html

Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.

Archived Data Notes:

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths. 

November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.

February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.

February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.

February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.

February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

This archived public use dataset contains historical case and percent positivity data updated weekly for all available counties and jurisdictions. Each week, the dataset was refreshed to capture any historical updates. Please note, percent positivity data may be incomplete for the most recent time period.

Related data CDC provides the public with two active versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with historical case and percent positivity data for each county from January 22, 2020 (Weekly Historical Changes dataset) and a dataset with the levels as originally posted (Weekly Originally Posted dataset) since October 20, 2022. Please navigate to the Weekly Originally Posted dataset for the Community Transmission Levels published weekly on Thursdays.

Methods for calculating county level of community transmission indicator The County Level of Community Transmission indicator uses two metrics: (1) total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 persons in the last 7 days and (2) percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the last 7 days. For each of these metrics, CDC classifies transmission values as low, moderate, substantial, or high (below and here). If the values for each of these two metrics differ (e.g., one indicates moderate and the other low), then the higher of the two should be used for decision-making.

CDC core metrics of and thresholds for community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2 Total New Case Rate Metric: "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is calculated by adding the number of new cases in the county (or other administrative level) in the last 7 days divided by the population in the county (or other administrative level) and multiplying by 100,000. "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (0-9.99); Moderate (10.00-49.99); Substantial (50.00-99.99); and High (greater than or equal to 100.00).

Test Percent Positivity Metric: "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is calculated by dividing the number of positive tests in the county (or other administrative level) during the last 7 days by the total number of tests resulted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (less than 5.00); Moderate (5.00-7.99); Substantial (8.00-9.99); and High (greater than or equal to 10.00).

The data in this dataset are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.

This dataset is created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access.

Archived data CDC has archived two prior versions of these datasets. Both versions contain the same 7 data elements reflecting community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions; however, the datasets updated daily. The archived datasets can be found here:

Archived Originally Posted dataset

Archived Historical Changes dataset

Archived Data Notes:

October 27, 2022: Due to a processing issue this dataset will not be posted this week. CDC is currently working to address the issue and will publish the data when able.

November 10, 2022: As of 11/10/2022, this dataset will continue to incorporate historical updates made to case and percent positivity data; however, community transmission level will only be published in the corresponding Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission as Originally Posted dataset (Weekly Originally Posted dataset).

Note:

October 20, 2022: Due to a data reporting error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania is lower than expected in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on October 20, 2022. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level for Philadelphia County being underestimated; therefore, it should be interpreted with caution.

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Missouri counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases. 

November 10, 2022: In the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, multiple municipalities in Puerto Rico are reporting higher than expected increases in case counts. CDC is working with territory officials to verify the data submitted. 

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on December 1, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. 

December 22, 2022: Due to an internal revision process, case rates for some Tennessee counties may appear higher than expected in the December 22, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for some Tennessee counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

December 22, 2022: Due to reporting of a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for some Louisiana counties will appear higher than expected in the December 22, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for some Louisiana counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

December 29, 2022: Due to technical difficulties, county data from Alabama could not be incorporated via standard practices. As a result, case and death metrics will be reported as 0 in the December 29, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties will be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 5, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for all Alabama counties will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level information released on January 5, 2023, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of case count data. Therefore, the weekly case rates will be overestimated, which could affect counties’ COVID-19 Community Transmission Level classification and should be interpreted with caution.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release. COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case data will be reported as 0. As a result, case metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release. COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. 

January 13, 2023: Aggregate case data released for Los Angeles County, California for the week of December 22nd, 2022, and December 29th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release. Therefore, COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties

As of March 10, 2023, the state with the highest rate of COVID-19 cases was Rhode Island followed by Alaska. Around 103.9 million cases have been reported across the United States, with the states of California, Texas, and Florida reporting the highest numbers of infections.

From an epidemic to a pandemic The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The term pandemic refers to multiple outbreaks of an infectious illness threatening multiple parts of the world at the same time; when the transmission is this widespread, it can no longer be traced back to the country where it originated. The number of COVID-19 cases worldwide is roughly 683 million, and it has affected almost every country in the world.

The symptoms and those who are most at risk Most people who contract the virus will suffer only mild symptoms, such as a cough, a cold, or a high temperature. However, in more severe cases, the infection can cause breathing difficulties and even pneumonia. Those at higher risk include older persons and people with pre-existing medical conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. Those aged 85 years and older have accounted for around 27 percent of all COVID deaths in the United States, although this age group makes up just two percent of the total population

Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board - Trials and Hearings De Novo Held

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. Linear water features include single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent features and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of hydrographic features.

Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board - Motions Hearings Held

This web site is designed to help you obtain basic information about complaints filed regarding companies that do business in Hawaii. The web site provides access to selected complaints that were filed with or initiated by RICO. Case numbers reflected in this web site relate to RICO cases. The information contained in this web site DOES NOT comprise all information from official RICO records available to the public. For more detailed information about how cases are processed in RICO, go to http://hawaii.gov/dcca/rico/about. Legal Actions that were filed by RICO before 1986 may not be reflected on this site.

This web site is designed to help you obtain basic information about complaints filed regarding companies that do business in Hawaii. The web site provides access to complaints that were filed with or initiated by OCP. Case numbers reflected in this web site relate to OCP cases. The information contained in this web site DOES NOT comprise all information from official OCP records available to the public. For more detailed information about how cases are processed in OCP, go to http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/about. Legal Actions that were filed by OCP before 2001 may not be reflected on this site.

This dataset contains the digitized treatments in Plazi based on the original journal article Kawahara, Akito Y., Rubinoff, Daniel (2012): Three new species of Fancy Case caterpillars from threatened forests of Hawaii (Lepidoptera, Cosmopterigidae, Hyposmocoma). ZooKeys 170: 1-20, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.170.1428, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.170.1428

Overview

As coronavirus cases have exploded across the country, states have struggled to obtain sufficient personal protective equipment such as masks, face shields, gloves and ventilators to meet the needs of healthcare workers. FEMA began distributing PPE from the national stockpile as well as PPE obtained from private manufacturers to states in March.

Initially, FEMA distributed materials based primarily on population. By late March, Its methods changed to send more PPE to hotspot locations, and FEMA claimed these decisions were data-driven and need-based. By late spring, the agency was considering requests from states as well.

Although all U.S. states and territories have received some amount of PPE from FEMA, the amounts of PPE states have per capita and per positive COVID-19 case vary widely.

The AP used this data in a story that ran July 7.

Findings

• Overall, low population, rural states have the most PPE per positive case as of mid-June. This generally held true across types of equipment.
• The states that had the highest number of total PPE items per coronavirus case as of mid-May were, in descending order: Alaska, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, and North Dakota. The highest was Alaska with 1,579 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• The states that had the highest number of total items per case as of mid-June were largely the same states — Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. The highest was Montana with 1,125 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• Conversely, the states that had the lowest amounts of PPE per positive case in mid-May included hotspot states — Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, California, Nebraska, and Iowa. New Jersey was just a couple spots further down. The lowest was Massachusetts with 36 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• The states that had the lowest amounts of PPE per case as of mid-June were largely the same as well — Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, California, and Nebraska. The lowest was Massachusetts with 32 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• When evaluated on a per-capita basis rather than per positive coronavirus case, the picture is different. The District of Columbia received the most PPE per capita in both May and June, although the vast majority of the PPE it received was distributed as of mid-May. Vermont, Kansas, New Jersey, and North Dakota had the next highest numbers of PPE per capita as of both mid-May and mid-June.
• There is no clear pattern of FEMA distribution by party control of states.

About the data

These numbers include material distributed by FEMA and also those sold by private distributors under direction from FEMA. They include materials both delivered to and en route to states.

States have purchased PPE directly in addition to receiving PPE from FEMA or directed there by the agency, and this data only includes the latter categories.

FEMA also distributed and directed the distribution of gear to U.S. territories in addition to states, which are included in FEMA’s release linked below, but not are not included in this data.

FEMA has publicly distributed its breakdown of PPE delivery by state for May and June. FEMA did not provide comprehensive numbers for each state before May.

These numbers are cumulative, meaning that the numbers for May include items of PPE distributed prior to May 14, dating to when the agency began allocations on March 1. The June numbers include the May numbers and any new PPE distributions since then.

The population column, which was used to calculate the numbers of PPE items per state, came from data from the U.S Census Bureau. Since the Census releases annual population data, population data from 2019 was used for each state.

The numbers of coronavirus cases were pulled from the data released daily by Johns Hopkins University as of the dates that FEMA released its distribution numbers — May 14 and June 10.

Caveats

The data includes amounts of gear that had been delivered to the states or were en route as of the reporting dates.

All PPE item numbers above 1 million were rounded to the nearest hundred thousand by FEMA, but numbers lower than that were not rounded.

In some cases, gear headed to a state was rerouted because it was needed more somewhere else or a state decided it did not need it. In some instances, that resulted in states having higher numbers for certain supplies in May than in June.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Hawaii County population by race and ethnicity. The dataset can be utilized to understand the racial distribution of Hawaii County.

Content

The dataset will have the following datasets when applicable

Please note that in case when either of Hispanic or Non-Hispanic population doesnt exist, the respective dataset will not be available (as there will not be a population subset applicable for the same)

• Hawaii County, HI Population Breakdown by Race
• Hawaii County, HI Non-Hispanic Population Breakdown by Race
• Hawaii County, HI Hispanic or Latino Population Distribution by Their Ancestries

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/.

Coral health and disease assessments were conducted along 2 consecutively placed 25-m transects, as part of Rapid Ecological Assessments conducted at 17 sites at Hawaii Island in the Main Hawaiian Islands during July 27 - August 20 2006, aboard the NOAA Hi'ialakai Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (RAMP) Cruise HI0610. Within an area of 1-3m on each side of both transect lines, each colony was inspected and every diseased/afflicted coral enumerated and identified to the lowest taxonomic level. For each affected coral the following information was recorded: colony size, type of affliction, area affected, percent live/dead, and severity of the affliction (mild = 1-10%, moderate = 11-25%, marked = 26-50%, severe = 51-75%, acute = 76-100%). Coral afflictions were classified into one of six general categories (following Willis et al., 2004) including: bleaching, tissue loss, black band disease, skeletal growth anomaly, predation, and other lesions. This latter category included algal overgrowth, as well as unidentified syndromes causing deterioration of scleractinian corals. Tissue samples of selected cases were procured for histopathological analyses. These data provide the basis for computing quantitative estimates of disease incidence and prevalence. Samples and photographs provide aid in further disease characterization and description. Histological tissue samples are traditionally fixed in a formaldehyde solution prior to preparation for processing and analysis.

Forest aboveground carbon density (ACD) for the main eight Hawaiian Islands in 2015-2016. The data are in 30 meter resolution format with the units of Mg C per hectare. The file is a standard GeoTIFF.

Use of these data requires citation of this dataset plus citation of the source study as follows:

Asner, G.P., S. Sousan, D.E. Knapp, P.C. Selmants, R.E. Martin, R.F. Hughes, and C.P. Giardina. 2016. Rapid forest carbon assessments of oceanic islands: a case study of the Hawaiian archipelago. Carbon Balance and Management 11, doi:10.1186/s13021-015-0043-4

Fewer than one hundred people have been killed by eruptions in the recorded history of Hawaii, and only one death has occurred in the 20th Century. However, the lava flows are highly destructive to populated and cultivated areas. This set depicts the negative impact of lava flows on communities, vegetation, marine life, roads, and coastlines. It also illustrates the benefits of Hawaii volcanism such as the production of geothermal power, increase in land area of the islands and other benefits. More than 270,000 people have been killed directly or indirectly by volcanic activity worldwide during the past 500 years. Nearly all of the deaths have been caused by explosive eruptions of composite volcanoes along the boundaries of the Earth's tectonic plates. Hawaii's volcanoes have more fluid, less gaseous magmas and produce quieter, less hazardous eruptions. The village of Kapoho was entirely destroyed during the 1960 eruption in the lower east rift (fissure) zone of Kilauea. In the 1980s, flows from Kilauea's east rift largely destroyed Royal Gardens and Kalapana. The March-April 1984 eruption of Mauna Loa threatened Hilo, with a population of about 40,000. Advancing nearly 26 km in about 5 days, the active flows produced a bright red glow in the night sky visible from Hilo. Much to the relief of the citizens, the flows stopped about 6.5 km short of the city's outskirts. These outskirts are built in part on the pahoehoelava (smooth ropy lava) flows produced by the 1881 eruption of Mauna Loa, indicating that Hilo is well within the reach of lava flows from the volcano. Although the destructive effects of volcanism are more obvious, volcanoes also provide many benefits to mankind. They are the major contributors to the building of continents, and all oceanic islands owe their origin directly or indirectly to volcanism. Over the billions of years of Earth's existence, water has been released from its interior by volcanoes and hot springs near volcanic intrusions. Geothermal power produced by volcanism is an inexpensive alternative energy source. The Hawaiian Islands were built over millions of years by lava flows. The lava flows have provided the fertile soil in which crops such as pineapples, sugar cane, and coffee thrive, and lush tropical vegetation flourishes. The flows start to weather quickly in areas with adequate rainfall. In some cases revegetation can begin in less than one year after the eruption. The lava flows are very fertile, especially if they have been covered by ash. The fine ash particles retain water within reach of plant roots and release plant foods such as potassium. Vegetation that has been destroyed by ash falls returns in a more luxuriant form. However in the island's arid areas, it may take thousands of years to form fertile soils from erosion and breakdown of lava. Volcanic rocks provide an abundant local source of materials for landscaping, construction, and road building. The majestic mountains andbeautiful black sand beaches of Hawaii that draw thousands of tourists each year are products of volcanism. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park provides one of the few places in the world where visitors can safely view volcanic processes. The Hawaiian volcanoes are contributing to the overall understanding of volcanoes; they provide a natural laboratory for study of the eruptivephenomena. Careful research and constant observation over long periods of time are important. From these data, volcanologists are learning to interpret activity in order to advise local officials of imminent eruptions.

[Metadata] Description: Tsunami Evacuation Zones for the islands Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Kahoolawe, Molokai, Lanai, Maui and HawaiiSource: Island of Hawaii: County of Hawaii, March 2025. Island of Oahu: City and County of Honolulu, April 2025Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui: Pacific Disaster Center (PDC), 2013. Island of Kauai: County of Kauai, March 2025. Boundaries are based on peer review of the inundation models provided by UH Researchers and the operational needs of Honolulu's First Responders and the Emergency Management Community.For additional information, please refer to complete metadata at https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/data/tsunevac.pdf or contact Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, State of Hawaii; PO Box 2359, Honolulu, Hi. 96804; (808) 587-2846; email: gis@hawaii.gov; Website: https://planning.hawaii.gov/gis.

Computer model simulation of hurricane storm surge inundation around Honolulu, Hawaii using current sea level at mean higher high water (MHHW) as its baseline water level. The study area includes the urban corridor stretching from Pearl Harbor to Waikiki and Diamond Head along the south shore of the island of Oahu. The model simulates a Category 4 hurricane, similar to Hurricane Iniki which devastated the island of Kauai in 1992, with a central pressure ranging from 910 to 970 mbar and maximum sustained winds ranging from 90 to 150 mph as it tracked from open ocean to land to open ocean again. The model result shows the Maximum of the Maximum Envelope of High Water (MEOW), or MOM, providing a worst-case snapshot for a particular storm category under "perfect" storm conditions. Model results produced in 2014 by Dr. Kwok Fai Cheung of the department of Ocean and Resources Engineering (ORE) in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST) of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Supported in part by the NOAA Coastal Storms Program (CSP) and the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. While considerable effort has been made to implement all model components in a thorough, correct, and accurate manner, numerous sources of error are possible. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. These data should be used strictly as a planning reference and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes.

[Metadata] Locations of community care foster family homes in the State of Hawaii as of November 2021. Source: Created by Hawaii Statewide GIS Program from data downloaded from Hawaii State Department of Health Office of Health Care Assurance (OHCA), November 2021. As defined in Hawaii Administrative Rules, (HAR 11-800), a community care foster family home is defined as any facility providing twenty four hour living accommodations, including personal care and homemaker services, for not more than two adults at any one time, at least one of whom shall be a Medicaid recipient, who are at the nursing facility level of care, who are unrelated to the foster family, and who are receiving the services of a licensed home and community-based case management agency. (See also §321-481, HRS).For more information, please see metadata at https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/data/Comm_Care_Foster_Family_Homes.pdf or contact Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, State of Hawaii; PO Box 2359, Honolulu, Hi. 96804; (808) 587-2846; email: gis@hawaii.gov; Website: https://planning.hawaii.gov/gis.

Nearshore fisheries in the Main Hawaiian Islands encompass a diverse group of fishers using a wide array of gears and targeting many different species. Communities in Hawai’i often rely on these fisheries for economic, social, and cultural services. However, the stress from overfishing can cause ecosystem degradation and long-term economic loss. This layer represents the estimated average annual catch of reef fish by all gear types and fishers (kg/ha). It is the summed total of the other OTP fishing layers (Commercial Total, Non-Commercial Shore-based Total, and Non-Commercial Boat-based Total). Commercial catch data comes from Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources. Non-commercial catch data was estimated from Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) combined fisher intercept and phone survey data, see McCoy (2015) and McCoy et al. (in prep) for more details.McCoy K. 2015. Estimating nearshore fisheries catch for the main Hawaiian Islands. Thesis. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.McCoy, K., Friedlander, A., Kittinger, J., Ma, H., Teneva, L., Williams, I.D. In prep. Estimating nearshore fisheries catch for the main Hawaiian islands. PLoS One.

This layer was developed as part of a geospatial database of key anthropogenic pressures to coastal waters of the Main Hawaiian Islands for the Ocean Tipping Points project (http://oceantippingpoints.org/). Ocean tipping points occur when shifts in human use or environmental conditions result in large, and sometimes abrupt, impacts to marine ecosystems. The ability to predict and understand ocean tipping points can enhance ecosystem management, including critical coral reef management and policies to protect ecosystem services produced by coral reefs. The goal of the Ocean Tipping Points Hawaii case study was to gather, process and map spatial information on environmental and human-based drivers of coral reef ecosystem conditions.

This layer was developed as part of a geospatial database of key anthropogenic pressures to coastal waters of the Main Hawaiian Islands for the Ocean Tipping Points project (http://oceantippingpoints.org/). Ocean tipping points occur when shifts in human use or environmental conditions result in large, and sometimes abrupt, impacts to marine ecosystems. The ability to predict and understand ocean tipping points can enhance ecosystem management, including critical coral reef management and policies to protect ecosystem services produced by coral reefs. The goal of the Ocean Tipping Points Hawaii case study was to gather, process and map spatial information on environmental and human-based drivers of coral reef ecosystem conditions.