A dataset listing California counties by population for 2024.

Relative concentration of the estimated number of people in the Northern California region that live in a household defined as "low income." There are multiple ways to define low income. These data apply the most common standard: low income population consists of all members of households that collectively have income less than twice the federal poverty threshold that applies to their household type. Household type refers to the household's resident composition: the number of independent adults plus dependents that can be of any age, from children to elderly. For example, a household with four people ' one working adult parent and three dependent children ' has a different poverty threshold than a household comprised of four unrelated independent adults.

Due to high estimate uncertainty for many block group estimates of the number of people living in low income households, some records cannot be reliably assigned a class and class code comparable to those assigned to race/ethnicity data from the decennial Census.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region. See the "Data Units" description below for how these relative concentrations are broken into categories in this "low income" metric.

The Northern California Community Study investigated the effects of urbanism on social networks and social attitudes. To do so, the study explored the relationship between characteristics and perceptions of neighborhoods, and the acquaintance patterns, social activities, and psychological attitudes of residents of particular neighborhoods in the San Francisco area in 1977. The study focused on the nonminority population. Part 1 (Respondent File) includes information obtained in personal interviews with 1,050 persons living in 50 communities in northern California. Included in this file are two general categories of variables--those describing the respondents' experiences in their neighborhoods and locales, and those recording the respondents' psychological states and feelings of well-being. Part 2 (Name File) contains information about 19,417 persons identified by the survey respondents in Part 1 as being part of their (respondents') social networks. Variables include whether the named individuals lived in the respondents' neighborhoods, and the types of relationships, interactions, and things in common that the respondents had with the individuals they named. Part 3 (Community File) contains a data record prepared for each tract of the sampling frame. The data in the Community file are summary counts for each tract's total population, total household population, total housing units, and selected demographic information, such as the percentage of Black population, percent residing in group quarters, and mean family income. The file also contains opinions gathered from the survey respondents about each community, e.g., ratings of local services, fear of crime, and the effect of the water shortage.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

These data include egg mass counts and adult capture-mark-recapture histories for Foothill Yellow-legged frogs at two streams in northern California. Data were collected from the South Fork Eel River and its tributary, Fox Creek, from 1993-2019. Data from Hurdygurdy Creek were collected from 2002-2008.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's Asian American population. The variable ASIANALN records all individuals who select Asian as their SOLE racial identity in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the Hispanic ethnicity question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the Census questionnaire are potentially associated with the Asian race alone.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as ASIANALN alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as ASIANALN alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of ASIANALN individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then ASIANALN individuals are highly concentrated locally.

20 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2020.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents.

Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley.

How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life?

Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

These data include egg mass counts and adult capture-mark-recapture histories for Foothill Yellow-legged frogs at two streams in northern California. Data were collected from the South Fork Eel River and its tributary, Fox Creek, from 1993-2019. Data from Hurdygurdy Creek were collected from 2002-2008.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's Hispanic/Latino population. The variable HISPANIC records all individuals who select Hispanic or Latino in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the racial identity question.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as Hispanic or LatinoAmerican Indian / Alaska Native alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as Hispanic or LatinoAmerican Indian / Alaska native alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HISPANIC, the block group has twice the proportion of HISPANIC individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HISPANIC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts statistics for North Auburn CDP, California. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts statistics for North Highlands CDP, California. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts statistics for North Fair Oaks CDP, California. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: Steve Stone, Description: This dataset depicts the general boundaries of the Northern California Steelhead distinct population segment (DPS) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, as well as the historical population structure of the species.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's Hispanic/Latino population. The variable HISPANIC records all individuals who select Hispanic or Latino in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the racial identity question.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as Hispanic or LatinoAmerican Indian / Alaska Native alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as Hispanic or LatinoAmerican Indian / Alaska native alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HISPANIC, the block group has twice the proportion of HISPANIC individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HISPANIC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Abbreviations: Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2-receptor antagonists (H2-RAs), hormone replacement therapy (HRT), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)Descriptive characteristics of the esophageal and gastric cancer cases and controls from Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, 1997–2011.

Characteristics of healthy individuals referred through public health clinics in Santa Clara County, CA, USA who completed tuberculin skin test [TST], QuantiFERON-TB GOLD® interferon-γ release assay, and H. pylori serology.1152 (91%) born in Latin America; TST: tuberculin skin test, +, ≥ 10mm induration (includes 18 prior positives not retested); QFT (QuantiFERON-TB-GOLD® including M. tuberculosis antigens ESAT6 and CFP10 and M. tuberculosis antigen TB7.7; +: ≥0.35 IU/ml IFN-γ difference over unstimulated well.2Latent TB infection [LTBI]: either TST+ or QFT+ for analysis; 7 (2%) individuals reported prophylactic TB treatment 3–34 years prior to enrollment. All factors significant at p

This resource is a member of a series. 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. Census Blocks are statistical areas bounded on all sides by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and/or by nonvisible boundaries such as city, town, township, and county limits, and short line-of-sight extensions of streets and roads. Census blocks are relatively small in area; for example, a block in a city bounded by streets. However, census blocks in remote areas are often large and irregular and may even be many square miles in area. A common misunderstanding is that data users think census blocks are used geographically to build all other census geographic areas, rather all other census geographic areas are updated and then used as the primary constraints, along with roads and water features, to delineate the tabulation blocks. As a result, all 2020 Census blocks nest within every other 2020 Census geographic area, so that Census Bureau statistical data can be tabulated at the block level and aggregated up to the appropriate geographic areas. Census blocks cover all territory in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Blocks are the smallest geographic areas for which the Census Bureau publishes data from the decennial census. A block may consist of one or more faces.

New York was the most populous state in the union in the year 1900. It had the largest white population, for both native born and foreign born persons, and together these groups made up over 7.1 million of New York's 7.2 million inhabitants at this time. The United States' industrial centers to the north and northeast were one of the most important economic draws during this period, and states in these regions had the largest foreign born white populations. Ethnic minorities Immigration into the agricultural southern states was much lower than the north, and these states had the largest Black populations due to the legacy of slavery - this balance would begin to shift in the following decades as a large share of the Black population migrated to urban centers to the north during the Great Migration. The Japanese and Chinese populations at this time were more concentrated in the West, as these states were the most common point of entry for Asians into the country. The states with the largest Native American populations were to the west and southwest, due to the legacy of forced displacement - this included the Indian Territory, an unorganized and independent territory assigned to the Native American population in the early 1800s, although this was incorporated into Oklahoma when it was admitted into the union in 1907. Additionally, non-taxpaying Native Americans were historically omitted from the U.S. Census, as they usually lived in separate communities and could not vote or hold office - more of an effort was made to count all Native Americans from 1890 onward, although there are likely inaccuracies in the figures given here. Changing distribution Internal migration in the 20th century greatly changed population distribution across the country, with California and Florida now ranking among the three most populous states in the U.S. today, while they were outside the top 20 in 1900. The growth of Western states' populations was largely due to the wave of internal migration during the Great Depression, where unemployment in the east saw many emigrate to "newer" states in search of opportunity, as well as significant immigration from Latin America (especially Mexico) and Asia since the mid-1900s.

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: Steve Stone, Description: This dataset depicts the general boundaries of the Southern OR and Northern CA Coastal Chinook Salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (i.e., a distinct population segment (DPS) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act) as well as the historical population structure of the species.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's American Indian population. The variable AIANALN records all individuals who select American Indian or Alaska Native as their SOLE racial identity in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the Hispanic ethnicity question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the Census questionnaire are potentially associated with American Indian / Alaska Native race alone. IMPORTANT: this self reported ancestry and Tribal membership are distinct identities and one does not automatically imply the other. These data should not be interpreted as a distribution of "Tribal people." Numerous Rancherias in the Northern California region account for the wide distribution of very to extremely high concentrations of American Indians outside the San Francisco Bay Area.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as American Indian / Alaska Native alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as American Indian / Alaska native alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as AIANALN, the block group has twice the proportion of AIANALN individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then AIANALN individuals are highly concentrated locally.