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.

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.

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.

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.

Study population characteristics among 4-64-year-olds, Kaiser Permanente Northern California 2017–18.

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: Steve Stone, Description: This dataset depicts the general boundaries of the Southern OR\Northern CA Coasts Coho 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.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for North Beach, San Francisco, CA, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

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.

The Earth′s climate is warming, especially in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) breeds and haul-outs on islands and the mainland of Baja California, Mexico, and California, U.S.A. At the beginning of the 21st century, numbers of elephant seals in California are increasing, but the status of Baja California populations is unknown, and some data suggest they may be decreasing. We hypothesize that the elephant seal population of Baja California is experiencing a decline because the animals are not migrating as far south due to warming sea and air temperatures. Here we assessed population trends of the Baja California population, and climate change in the region. The numbers of northern elephant seals in Baja California colonies have been decreasing since the 1990s, and both the surface waters off Baja California and the local air temperatures have warmed during the last three decades. We propose that declining population sizes may be attributable to decreased migration towards the southern portions of the range in response to the observed temperature increases. Further research is needed to confirm our hypothesis; however, if true, it would imply that elephant seal colonies of Baja California and California are not demographically isolated which would pose challenges to environmental and management policies between Mexico and the United States.

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.

Climate change and the northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) population in Baja California, Mexico - Table 1

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Scotland, North Highlands, CA, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

The yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti inhabits much of the tropical and subtropical world and is a primary vector of dengue, Zika, and chikungunya viruses. Breeding populations of A. aegypti were first reported in California (CA) in 2013. Initial genetic analyses using 12 microsatellites on collections from Northern CA in 2013 indicated the South Central US region as the likely source of the introduction. We expanded genetic analyses of CA A. aegypti by: (a) examining additional Northern CA samples and including samples from Southern CA, (b) including more southern US populations for comparison, and (c) genotyping a subset of samples at 15,698 SNPs. Major results are: (1) Northern and Southern CA populations are distinct. (2) Northern populations are more genetically diverse than Southern CA populations. (3) Northern and Southern CA groups were likely founded by two independent introductions which came from the South Central US and Southwest US/northern Mexico regions respectively. (4) Our genetic data suggest that the founding events giving rise to the Northern CA and Southern CA populations likely occurred before the populations were first recognized in 2013 and 2014, respectively. (5) A Northern CA population analyzed at multiple time-points (two years apart) is genetically stable, consistent with permanent in situ breeding. These results expand previous work on the origin of California A. aegypti with the novel finding that this species entered California on multiple occasions, likely some years before its initial detection. This work has implications for mosquito surveillance and vector control activities not only in California but also in other regions where the distribution of this invasive mosquito is expanding.

The two factors in the final model were SEX (sex of the fisher) and POPN (population of fisher).

Cities are sometimes characterized as homogenous with species assemblages composed of abundant, generalist species having similar ecological functions. Under this assumption, rare species, or species observed infrequently, would have especially high conservation value in cities for their potential to increase functional diversity. Management to increase the number of rare species in cities could be an important conservation strategy in a rapidly urbanizing world. However, most studies of species rarity define rarity in relatively pristine environments where human management and disturbance is minimized. We know little about what species are rare, how many species are rare, and what management practices promote rare species in urban environments. Here, we identified which plants and species of birds and bees that control pests and pollinate crops are rare in urban gardens and assessed how social, biophysical factors, and cross-taxonomic comparisons influence rare species richness. We found overwhelming numbers of rare species, with over 50% of plant cultivars observed classified as rare. Our results highlight the importance of women, older individuals, and gardeners who live closer to garden sites in increasing the number of rare plants within urban areas. Fewer rare plants were found in older gardens and gardens with more bare soil. There were more rare bird species in larger gardens and more rare bee species where canopy cover was higher. We also found that in some cases, rarity begets rarity, with positive correlations found between the number of rare plants and bee species and between bee and bird species. Overall, our results suggest that urban gardens include a high number of species existing at low frequency and that social and biophysical factors promoting rare, planned biodiversity can cascade down to promote rare, associated biodiversity. Methods Study Region We worked in 18 urban community gardens in three counties (Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey) in the central coast region of California, USA. The gardens differ in local habitat (structural and compositional diversity of both crop and non-crop species) and landscape context (amount of natural, agricultural, and urban land cover in the surrounding area). All gardens have been cultivated for five to 47 years and range from 444 to 15,525 m2 in size. All of the gardens use organic management practices and prohibit the use of chemical pesticides and insecticides. Gardens were chosen because they represent sites across a gradient of urban, natural, and agricultural landscapes and were separated from each other by >2 km, the farthest distance between gardens was 90 km and the closest was 2 km (Cohen et al., 2020; Egerer et al., 2017; Philpott and Bichier, 2017). Gardener demographic data indicates that gardeners are diverse in their make-up, covering a range of family sizes, education, salary, and food insecurity levels (Egerer et al., 2017; Philpott et al., 2020). Data Collection We provide the following framework (Fig. 1) to help visualize the specific set of questions posed in this study and the data and analyses used to address them. First, we ask which gardener characteristics (Q1), and which local and landscape garden features affect the number of rare plant cultivars (Q2a) and rare bird and bee species (Q2b) in urban community gardens. We include cultivars as distinct types per (Reiss and Drinkwater 2018). Subsequently, we ask if there is an association between the number of rare plant cultivars and the number of rare bird and bee species (Q3), and if the number of rare bird and bee species are also related to one another (Q4).
The data analyzed for this research was collected in two summer field seasons (2015, 2017), from May to September, which is the peak urban garden growing season for the region. Gardener characteristics data (defined below) and gardener self-reported plant data were collected in summer 2017 to address Q1 (Fig. 1). Direct sampling of biodiversity (plants, bees, birds) and garden characteristics was done in summer 2015 to address Q2-4 (Fig. 1). Though structural equation modeling (SEMs) was considered, there is no direct way to compare data from 2017 and 2015 because of the methodological differences outlined below. Thus, separate statistical analyses are conducted for 2017 and 2015 data. We can test the relationship between gardener characteristics and number of rare plant cultivars because gardeners reported what plants they grew in our surveys. We cannot directly test how gardener characteristics influenced the number of rare bird and bee species because gardeners were not asked about these species. Instead, we infer effects of gardener characteristics on bees and birds indirectly via the overall research framework in Figure 1. We explain the specific methods for each type of data collection and the analysis below. Gardener characteristics data We surveyed gardeners from 18 urban community gardens during the 2017 summer field season. Survey questionnaires collected information on gardener demographic information as well as gardening experience and use data (Table 1). Specifically, we surveyed 185 gardeners in total, or six to 14 gardeners per garden (9.5-65% of the gardener population in a site). We only included surveys in our analysis if plant information on the survey was completed (n=162). We administered surveys in English (n=123), Spanish (n=38), and Bosnian (n=1) and either read the survey out loud in person (n=138) or via phone (n=1), and either had the gardener fill out the survey themselves (n=21) or had a gardener read the survey to another gardener (n=1). Two of the surveys did not have information on the method of survey administration. We also note that despite best efforts to surveys gardens equally, uneven gardener availability resulted in unequal gardener sampling across the 18 community gardens, requiring us to calculate the number of rare plant cultivars in gardener-reported data (2017) by gardener surveys rather than by garden as was done in direct field-based data (2015) described below. Gardener-reported plant data Gardeners were asked to identify and list the plant species and cultivars that they planted in their plots. We then classified gardener-reported plants into either crop or ornamental species. Crop species included fruits, vegetables, herbs, and other consumable plants. Ornamental species included plants grown for decorative purposes, such as flowers and non-food providing crops. Though we included plant cultivars as distinct types, gardeners varied in the level of cultivar specificity provided, which we acknowledge is a limitation to our study. We looked up scientific names for common names provided and supplemented these results with direct field-based plant data where researchers identified species and cultivars in the field using methods described in detail below. Garden characteristics data Landscape-level garden data For each garden, we measured the surrounding landscape composition within buffers surrounding gardens at the 0.5, 1, and 3 km scale. We used the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Jin et al. 2015) to calculate the percentage of urban NLCD land cover class using ArcGIS (v. 10.1) (ESRI 2011). Urban land cover was calculated by combining developed low, medium, and high intensity developed land. Urban land cover is correlated with many other land use categories (e.g., natural land), thus we chose to focus on only urban land cover in our models because we were most interested in the effects of urbanization on biodiversity; further, urban land cover has been a significant predictor of biodiversity in previous analyses of these gardens (Quistberg et al. 2016, Egerer et al. 2017). Urban cover at the 1 km scale best predicted pooled species rarity across taxa, exhibiting the lowest AIC of all the scale models (Appendix S1: Table S1), thus the 1 km spatial scale was used for all subsequent analyses. Local-level garden data To collect local-scale garden characteristics, we established a 20 x 20 m plot in the center of each garden. In this plot, we measured canopy cover using a spherical densiometer at the center and N, S, E, and W edges of the plot, counted the number and species of trees and shrubs, and counted the number of trees or shrubs in flower within the plot. We determined age and size of each garden by examining historic Google Earth images and noting the first appearance of the gardens, and then we used ground-truthed GPS points taken from each garden to calculate size. For a few of the gardens older than 35 years, we used historical information gained through community resources or discussions with farm management to determine age. We measured ground characteristics using four 1 x 1 m sub-plots within the 20 x 20 m plots. The 1 x 1 m sub-plots were randomly placed anywhere (including pathways) within the 20 x 20 m plots. Within each 1 x 1 m sub-plot, we measured the height of the tallest herbaceous vegetation and estimated ground cover composition (percent bare soil, rocks, leaf litter, grass, mulch). We repeated sampling once per month between May and September 2015 and calculated the mean value for each environmental variable for each garden at each time point. Field-based biodiversity data Field-based plant data We measured plant biodiversity using the same four 1 x 1 m sub-plots within the 20 x 20 m plots. Within each sub-plot, we identified the species and cultivars of all herbaceous plants and measured the percent cover for each species and cultivar. This was measured once per month for five sampling periods, separated by roughly 21 days. As with gardener-reported plant data, researchers classified field-based plant data into either crop or ornamental species and cultivars. Plants that did not fit crop or ornamental categories were designated weeds. Gardeners were not asked to report any weeds, thus not classified in gardener-reported plant

Comprehensive demographic dataset for North Park, San Diego, CA, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

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.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for North Highlands, CA, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

This dataset includes field and lab data for fish, vegetation, zooplankton, phytoplankton, fish diets, and stable isotopes collected during daylight hours in the Sacramento Deep Water Shipping Channel in the Northern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA. This data release includes all measured environmental parameters, animal taxa, and isotope values included in the analysis.

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.