A dataset listing California counties by population for 2024.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Population 25 years and over Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in North Shore, California by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

The features in this layer represent the five-digit ZIP Code areas that are used by the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail more effectively. This layer provides ZIP Code, postal district name, population, and area for the ZIP Code areas in California.

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.

Microsatellite genetic diversity by region.

Protected areas are one of the most widespread and accepted conservation interventions, yet their population trends are rarely compared to regional trends to gain insight into their effectiveness. Here, we leverage two long-term community science datasets to demonstrate mixed effects of protected areas on long-term bird population trends. We analyzed 31 years of bird transect data recorded by community volunteers across all major habitats of Stanford University's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve to determine the population trends for a sample of 66 species. We found that nearly a third of species experienced long-term declines, and on average, all species declined by 12%. Further, we averaged species trends by conservation status and key life history attributes to identify correlates and possible drivers of these trends. Observed increases in some cavity-nesters and declines of scrub-associated species suggest that long-term fire suppression may be a key driver, reshaping bird communities through changes in forest and chaparral structure and composition. Additionally, we compared our results to those of the North American Breeding Bird Survey's Central California Coast region (n = 55 species) to place Jasper Ridge in a broader context. Most species experienced similar directional population trends inside vs. outside of the preserve, and only eight species (14.5%) did better inside this small, protected area. Therefore, we must identify relevant management strategies for declining populations and explicitly consider how existing protected areas target and manage each species. Further, this analysis underscores the importance of local and national community science for revealing nuanced long-term bird population trends.

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) collects inpatient data from licensed hospitals in California. The dataset consists of a record for each inpatient dischared from a California licensed hospital, including general acute care, acute psychiatric, chemical dependency recovery, and psychiatric health facilities. Items recorded include type of care, demographics (some items are masked to protect privacy and confidentiality), admission details, length of stay, source(s) of payment, diagnosis, conditions and procedures. Because of the amount of data, the data is divided into three separate files; Los Angeles County, Southern California, Northern California.

Contained within the 4th Edition (1974) of the Atlas of Canada is a map that shows the distribution of population for Northern Canada in 1961. Rural populations are denoted by population and settlement types. For this map, settlements with populations of 1,000 to 5,000 and 5,000 to 10,000 are depicted as urban areas.

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.

Population 16 years and over Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in North Highlands, California by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

Butte County meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica) is an annual plant that is designated as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act and federal Endangered Species Act. Butte County meadowfoam is only found in a narrow 28-mile strip along the eastern Sacramento Valley in Butte County, and a population of Butte County meadowfoam is located at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) North Table Mountain Ecological Reserve (Reserve). Populations of Butte County meadowfoam have been subject to historic grazing practices. Grazing took place at the Reserve for many years prior to it becoming an ecological reserve, and CDFW has continued this practice to manage vegetation. The monitoring consists of three primary parts: (1) a census of Butte County meadowfoam within monitoring plots; (2) monitoring photographs; and (3) general written documentation of grazing impacts, if available. The census data is intended to to represent the total number of Butte County meadowfoam plants at the reserve, subpopulations may exist that we did not locate, and if so, our dataset does not include them. The monitoring photograph files are named with a unique identifier (e.g. "Al") followed by a date in the format YYYYMMDD.

This data and metadata were submitted by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff though the Data Management Plan (DMP) framework with the id: DMP000047. For more information, please visit https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/Sci-Data.

Population 16 years and over Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in North Auburn, California by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.