This raster dataset depicts the population denisty of the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Region, California produced with a Dasymetric Mapping Technique, which is used to depict quantitative areal data using boundaries that divide an area into zones of relative homogeneity with the purpose of better portraying the population distribution. The source data was then adjusted in order to get convert the units to persons per acre. This dataset is an accurate representation of population distribution within census boundaries and can be used in a number of ways, including as the Conservation Suitability layer for the Marxan inputs and the watershed integrity analysis.

A. SUMMARY This dataset contains population and demographic estimates and associated margins of error obtained and derived from the US Census. The data is presented over multiple years and geographies. The data is sourced primarily from the American Community Survey.

B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED The raw data is obtained from the census API. Some estimates as published as-is and some are derived.

C. UPDATE PROCESS New estimates and years of data are appended to this dataset. To request additional census data for San Francisco, email support@datasf.org

D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET The dataset is long and contains multiple estimates, years and geographies. To use this dataset, you can filter by the overall segment which contains information about the source, years, geography, demographic category and reporting segment. For census data used in specific reports, you can filter to the reporting segment. To use a subset of the data, you can create a filtered view. More information of how to filter data and create a view can be found here

This polygon shapefile depicts a watershed integrity cluster analysis at the CalWater 2.2.1 Planning Watershed (PWS) level performed by mapping factors representing some of the most significant watershed threats. Each of the individual watershed integrity factors was individually mapped and then combined in the watershed cluster analysis. This individual threat, cultivated, was created by taking CalWater watersheds at the planning unit level (most refined) and running zonal stats, part of spatial analyst. The Calwater PWS watershed was the zone dataset (pwsname as the zone field) and Population Density as the value raster. The result gives you the mean percent population density of the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Region, California at the watershed level in a table that you can join back to the CalWater GIS layer and then symbolize as a graduated color with the mean being the value field. This analysis was done by the Conservation Lands Network Fish and Riparian Focus Team.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME
Population estimates

LAST UPDATED
February 2023

DESCRIPTION
Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCE
California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates - http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/
Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1960-1970)
Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1970-2021)
Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (1990-2010)
Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2010-2021)

Bay Area Jurisdiction Centroids (2020) - https://data.bayareametro.gov/Boundaries/Bay-Area-Jurisdiction-Centroids-2020-/56ar-t6bs
Computed using 2020 US Census TIGER boundaries

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census Population Estimates - http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm- via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University
1970-2020

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey (5-year rolling average; tract) - https://data.census.gov/
2011-2021
Form B01003

Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050) - https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/about

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
All historical data reported for Census geographies (metropolitan areas, county, city and tract) use current legal boundaries and names. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of December 2022.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970-2020) and the American Community Survey (2011-2021 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area tracts and PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970-2020) and the American Community Survey (2011-2021 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are allocated from tract-level Census population counts using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census tract lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator. Note that the population densities between PDAs reported in previous iterations of Vital Signs are mostly not comparable due to minor differences and an updated set of PDAs (previous iterations reported Plan Bay Area 2040 PDAs, whereas current iterations report Plan Bay Area 2050 PDAs).

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area:

Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside

Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville

Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Population estimates

LAST UPDATED October 2019

DESCRIPTION Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCES U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census No link available (1960-1990) http://factfinder.census.gov (2000-2010)

California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1961-1969) Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1971-1989) Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (2001-2018) Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2011-2019) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census - via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University Population Estimates (1970 - 2010) http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2011-2017) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: Intercensal Estimates Estimates of the Intercensal Population of Counties (1970-1979) Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population (1980-1989) Population Estimates (1990-1999) Annual Estimates of the Population (2000-2009) Annual Estimates of the Population (2010-2017) No link available (1970-1989) http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/1990s/tables/MA-99-03b.txt http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/metro.html https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) All legal boundaries and names for Census geography (metropolitan statistical area, county, city, and tract) are as of January 1, 2010, released beginning November 30, 2010, by the U.S. Census Bureau. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of August 2019. For more information on PDA designation see http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970 -2010) and the American Community Survey (2008-2012 5-year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970 - 2010) and the American Community Survey (2006-2010 5 year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are derived from Census population counts at the tract level for 1970-1990 and at the block group level for 2000-2017. Population from either tracts or block groups are allocated to a PDA using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census block group lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Tract-to-PDA and block group-to-PDA area ratios are calculated using gross acres. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator.

Annual population estimates for metropolitan areas outside the Bay Area are from the Census and are benchmarked to each decennial Census. The annual estimates in the 1990s were not updated to match the 2000 benchmark.

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area: Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

A log of dataset alerts open, monitored or resolved on the open data portal. Alerts can include issues as well as deprecation or discontinuation notices.

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) is an ecologically and commercially valuable forage fish in the North Pacific Ocean. However, knowledge gaps exist around the abiotic and biotic drivers behind its variable population dynamics–as well as on the ability of the species to show spatially structured trends that stabilize population portfolios in the face of environmental change. Here we examined how historical hydroclimatic variability in the San Francisco Estuary (California) has driven age-0 Pacific herring population dynamics over 35 years. First, we used wavelet analyses to examine spatio-temporal variation and synchrony in the environment, focusing on two key variables: salinity and temperature. Next, we fitted Multivariate Autoregressive State-Space models to environmental and abundance time series to test for spatial structure and to parse out abiotic (salinity and temperature) from biotic influences (spawning and density dependence). Finally, we examined the stabilizing effects of ...

California was the state with the highest resident population in the United States in 2024, with 39.43 million people. Wyoming had the lowest population with about 590,000 residents. Living the American Dream Ever since the opening of the West in the United States, California has represented the American Dream for both Americans and immigrants to the U.S. The warm weather, appeal of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, as well as cities that stick in the imagination such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, help to encourage people to move to California. Californian demographics California is an extremely diverse state, as no one ethnicity is in the majority. Additionally, it has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States. By 2040, the population of California is expected to increase by almost 10 million residents, which goes to show that its appeal, both in reality and the imagination, is going nowhere fast.

This map shows four of these densely populated areas are in California. The San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose Urban Areas rank second and third, respectively. That the New York Metropolitan area ranks fifth on this list shows that this density ranking is greatly affected by the nature of the land area designated as urban. Census Urban Areas comprise an urban core and associated suburbs. California's urban and suburban areas are more uniform in density when compared to New York's urban core and suburban periphery which have vastly different densities. Delano ranks fourth because it has a very small land area and its population is augmented by two large California State Prisons housing 10,000 inmates.

Disclaimer: These data are updated by the author and are not an official product of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.This project provides two sets of migration estimates for the major US metro areas. The first series measures net migration of people to and from the urban neighborhoods of the metro areas. The second series covers all neighborhoods but breaks down net migration to other regions by four region types: (1) high-cost metros, (2) affordable, large metros, (3) midsized metros, and (4) small metros and rural areas. These series were introduced in a Cleveland Fed District Data Brief entitled “Urban and Regional Migration Estimates: Will Your City Recover from the Pandemic?"The migration estimates in this project are created with data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York/Equifax Consumer Credit Panel (CCP). The CCP is a 5 percent random sample of the credit histories maintained by Equifax. The CCP reports the census block of residence for over 10 million individuals each quarter. Each month, Equifax receives individuals’ addresses, along with reports of debt balances and payments, from creditors (mortgage lenders, credit card issuers, student loan servicers, etc.). An algorithm maintained by Equifax considers all of the addresses reported for an individual and identifies the individual’s most likely current address. Equifax anonymizes the data before they are added to the CCP, removing names, addresses, and Social Security numbers (SSNs). In lieu of mailing addresses, the census block of the address is added to the CCP. Equifax creates a unique, anonymous identifier to enable researchers to build individuals’ panels. The panel nature of the data allows us to observe when someone has migrated and is living in a census block different from the one they lived in at the end of the preceding quarter. For more details about the CCP and its use in measuring migration, see Lee and Van der Klaauw (2010) and DeWaard, Johnson and Whitaker (2019). DefinitionsMetropolitan areaThe metropolitan areas in these data are combined statistical areas. This is the most aggregate definition of metro areas, and it combines Washington DC with Baltimore, San Jose with San Francisco, Akron with Cleveland, etc. Metro areas are combinations of counties that are tightly linked by worker commutes and other economic activity. All counties outside of metropolitan areas are tracked as parts of a rural commuting zone (CZ). CZs are also groups of counties linked by commuting, but CZ definitions cover all counties, both metropolitan and non-metropolitan. High-cost metropolitan areasHigh-cost metro areas are those where the median list price for a house was more than $200 per square foot on average between April 2017 and April 2022. These areas include San Francisco-San Jose, New York, San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Miami, Sacramento, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, and Washington-Baltimore. Other Types of RegionsMetro areas with populations above 2 million and house price averages below $200 per square foot are categorized as affordable, large metros. Metro areas with populations between 500,000 and 2 million are categorized as mid-sized metros, regardless of house prices. All remaining counties are in the small metro and rural category.To obtain a metro area's total net migration, sum the four net migration values for the the four types of regions.Urban neighborhoodCensus tracts are designated as urban if they have a population density above 7,000 people per square mile. High density neighborhoods can support walkable retail districts and high-frequency public transportation. They are more likely to have the “street life” that people associate with living in an urban rather than a suburban area. The threshold of 7,000 people per square mile was selected because it was the average density in the largest US cities in the 1930 census. Before World War II, workplaces, shopping, schools and parks had to be accessible on foot. Tracts are also designated as urban if more than half of their housing units were built before WWII and they have a population density above 2,000 people per square mile. The lower population density threshold for the pre-war neighborhoods recognizes that many urban tracts have lost population since the 1960s. While the street grids usually remain, the area also needs su

This polygon shapefile depicts the suitability layer developed for use with Marxan estimates of ecological integrity to identify areas that are best suited to conserve target species in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Region, California. Parcelization (Upland Habitat Goals), population density (USGS), and distance to paved roads (USGS) were chosen to estimate suitability because all three contribute to habitat degradation and fragmentation. Larger, intact regions are considered to be of higher ecological integrity. These three factors were summed to create the total suitability index for every hexagonal planning unit, displaying areas of low suitability (urban, close to roads, high population density) and more suitability (larger parcels, further distance to roads, lower population density). This layer was key input into the Marxan modeling process and helps encourage the model to capture large, intact landscapes and generally stay away from fragmented and converted lands.

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

San Francisco, CA, New York, NY, and Jersey City, NJ were the most pedestrian friendly cities in the United States in 2021. The source analyzed the walking routes of different locations in the 50 largest cities in the country to different amenities, as well as additional metrics, such as population density, block length, and intersection density. San Francisco, CA received 88.7 index points, while the 20th city in the ranking, St. Louis, MO, received 65.7 index points.

Abstract

The Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (GBACR), in compliance with California state law, gathers information about all cancers diagnosed or treated in a nine-county area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa...

Documentation

PHS does NOT host these data. This listing is information only.

The Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (GBACR), in compliance with California state law, gathers information about all cancers diagnosed or treated in a nine-county area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz). This information is obtained from medical records provided by hospitals, doctors\342\200\231 offices, and other related facilities.

The information, stored under secure conditions with strict regulations that protect confidentiality, helps the GBACR understand cancer occurrence and survival in the Greater Bay Area. For each patient, the information includes basic demographic facts like age, gender, and race/ethnicity, as well as cancer type, extent of disease, treatment and survival. Combined over the diverse Bay Area population, this information gives the GBACR and all users an opportunity to learn how such characteristics may be related to cancer causes, mortality, care and prevention.

In addition to its local use, information collected by the GBACR becomes part of state and federal population-based registries whose mission is to monitor cancer occurrence at the state and national levels, respectively. Data from the GBACR have contributed to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program since 1973. The nine counties are also part of the statewide California Cancer Registry (CCR), which conducts essential monitoring of cancer occurrence and survival in California.

GBACR data are of the highest quality, as recognized by national and international registry standard-setting organizations, including SEER, the National Program for Cancer Registries, and the North American Association for Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR).

The CPIC has also started collecting data on environmenal factors. These data are available in the The California Neighborhoods Data System. This a new resource for examining the impact of neighborhood characteristics on cancer incidence and outcomes in populations includes a compilation of existing geospatial and other secondary data for characterizing contextual factors

A summary and description of social and built environment data and measures in the California Neighborhoods Data System (2010) can be found here: Social and Built Environment Data and Measures

More information about this new data source can be found here: The California Neighborhoods Data System

Patient characteristics All reported cancer cases in the state of California.

Data overview Data categories Socioeconomic status Racial/ethnic composition Immigration/acculturation characteristics Racial/ethnic residential segregation Population density Urbanicity (Rural/Urban) Housing Businesses Commuting Street connectivity Parks Farmers Markets Traffic density Crime Tapestry Segmentation

Notes To apply for these data, you can see instructions here: https://www.ccrcal.org/retrieve-data/data-for-researchers/how-to-request-ccr-data/

These geographic designations were created to define geographic areas within San Francisco that have a higher density of vulnerable populations. These geographic designations will be used for the Health Care Services Master Plan and DPH's Community Health Needs Assessment. aov_fin - 1 = YES aov_fin - 0 = NO AOV's were defined using 2012-2016 ACS data at the census tract level and the following criteria: 1) Top 1/3rd for < 200% poverty or < 400% poverty & top 1/3rd for persons of color OR 2) Top 1/3rd for < 200% poverty or < 400% poverty & top 1/3rd for youth or seniors (65+) OR 3) Top 1/3rd for < 200% poverty or < 400% poverty & top 1/3rd for 2 other categories (unemployment, high school or less, limited English proficiency persons, linguistically isolated households, or disability) Tracts that had unstable data for an indicator were automatically given zero credit for that indicator. That is why two language variables are included in the bonus group, because there tend to be a high number of tracts with unstable data for language variables.

A dataset listing California counties by population for 2024.

Recent work has revealed the importance of contemporary evolution for shaping ecological outcomes. In particular, rapid evolutionary divergence between populations has been shown to impact the ecology of populations, communities, and ecosystems. While studies have focused largely on the role of adaptive divergence in generating ecologically-important variation among populations, much less is known about the role of gene flow in shaping ecological outcomes. After divergence, populations may continue to interact through gene flow, which may influence evolutionary and ecological processes. Here we investigate the role of gene flow in shaping the contemporary evolution and ecology of recently diverged populations of anadromous steelhead / resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Results show that resident rainbow trout introduced above waterfalls have diverged evolutionarily from downstream anadromous steelhead, which were the source of introductions. However, the movement of fish from above to below the waterfalls has facilitated gene flow, which has reshaped genetic and phenotypic variation in the anadromous source population. In particular, gene flow has led to an increased frequency of residency, which in turn has altered population density, size-structure, and sex ratio. This result establishes gene flow as a contemporary evolutionary process that can have important ecological outcomes. From a management perspective, anadromous steelhead are generally regarded as a higher conservation priority than resident rainbow trout, even when found within the same watershed. Our results show that anadromous and resident O. mykiss populations may be connected via gene flow, with important ecological consequences. Such eco-evolutionary processes should be considered when managing recently diverged populations connected by gene flow. Methods Our study used a historical translocation of anadromous O. mykiss above waterfalls on two tributaries of a coastal California watershed as the experimental basis for studying the effects of genetic divergence and one-way gene flow on a founding population. We integrated historical records and paired surveys above and below barriers on two tributaries to explore how variation in downstream dispersal and gene flow influence the distribution of genotypes, phenotypes, and population density and size structure. We sampled O. mykiss at a number of study sites distributed across the watershed, resulting in the datasets described in the following sections. Genetic Data We used single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data at both neutral and adaptive loci to analyze patterns of population differentiation and gene flow. Caudal fin tissue samples were extracted in 96-well plates using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit following the manufacturer's specifications with the BioRobot 3000 (Qiagen Inc. Gaithersburg, MD, USA). Individuals were genotyped using a 95-SNP panel developed for performing genetic stock identification and parentage-based analysis in O. mykiss, following the methods of Abadía-Cardoso et al. (2011, 2013) and Pearse and Garza (2015). Two negative controls were included in each array, and genotypes were called using SNP Genotyping Analysis Software (Fluidigm, South San Francisco, CA, USA). Additionally, a Y chromosome-linked sex identification assay was used to categorize individuals as male or female (Brunelli et al., 2008). Mark/Recapture Data We used mark-recapture data, including a mixture of physical capture and PIT tag antenna detection data, to monitor fish movement and explore movement patterns for genotyped fish. The initial marking of individuals occurred at each of the nine study sites, such that all captured individuals ≥ 65 mm FL were issued a 12 mm passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (Oregon RFID Inc., Portland, OR, USA) via intraperitoneal injection. Recapture information was generated year-round through a variety of life cycle monitoring efforts, including passive detection events at two stationary PIT tag antenna arrays; electrofishing surveys, estuary/lagoon seining, and downstream migrant trapping. We recorded the geographic location of each observation, and for physical recaptures, we re-measured the individual for FL and mass. Additionally, we used data generated at two stationary PIT tag antenna arrays to infer the emigration of individuals out of the watershed. Our data set includes all fish that were (1) first captured and PIT tagged at one of our 8 study sites located in the upper watershed (i.e., above the confluence of Big Creek and the Mainstem) during our 2017-19 field seasons, and (2) genotyped for Omy05 and genetic sex. We used recapture histories to identify “migrants”—defined as individuals whose final encounter occurred in the lower watershed. Fish that were (1) detected repeatedly in the lower watershed for a period of > 2 weeks (i.e., “milling”), or (2) at large for > 1.5 years between initial and final encounter (i.e., “too old”) were not considered migrants. Demographic Data We used population survey data to estimate density and population size structure over three consecutive years (2017–2019). Sampling took place within a two-week window during low (base) flow conditions (August/September) to minimize the potential for individuals to disperse among sampling sites. Environmental and hydrological conditions remained fairly constant throughout each annual sampling period. During each fish sampling event, we installed block nets (6 mm mesh) at the upstream and downstream ends of the site and collected fish from the area between the nets using a backpack electrofisher (Model LR-24; Smith-Root Inc., Vancouver, WA, USA). To quantify fish abundance and size distribution at each site, we employed multiple-pass depletion (removal) methods, completing three passes of equal effort by time in most cases. However, additional passes were completed when cumulative catch increased by more than 50% between the previous two passes. Following capture, we anesthetized O. mykiss with tricaine methanesulphonate (MS-222; Western Chemical Inc., Ferndale, WA, USA), measured for fork length (FL; ± 1.0 mm) and wet mass (± 0.1 g).

Salt marsh harvest mouse density estimates (mice/ha) and capture numbers [D(capture)] for the full dataset and subsampled datasets between 2000 and 2017.

Demographic and clinical characteristics stratified by smoking history.