Geospatial data about West Sacramento Zoning. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about City of Sacramento Zoning. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Analysis of ‘Sacramento County Land Use Survey 2015’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/f2c1d04c-9870-4cf6-80fc-150a315f2075 on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Link to landing page referenced by identifier. Service Protocol: Link to landing page referenced by identifier. Link Function: information-- dc:identifier.

This data set is a series of polygons denoting the geologic units mapped in USGS Publication MF-1790, "Geologic Map of the Late Cenozoic Deposits of the Sacramento Valley and Northern Sierran Foothills, California" (Helley and Harwood,1985). This data set was created by scanning the five- original sheets from USGS Publication MF-1790 (Helley and Harwood, 1985), the five sheets were georeferenced individually and the geologic information was digitized using AutoCAD 2006. The accuracy of the digitized lines was deemed to be within acceptable error tolerances, with the digitized lines accurately matching the original drafted lines in USGS Publication MF-1790 (Helley and Harwood, 1985). In general, the width of the contact lines on the paper copy, accounting for scale, ranged up to about 20 meters (66 feet). During the original digitization, minor topological mistakes (such as identical rock units on both sides of a lithologic contact or unclosed polygons) and omissions (such as unidentified lithologic units) were applied according to the best available knowledge. Comparisons were made between the original mylar and colorized field sheets (as available), in addition to the Geologic Map of the Battle Creek Fault Zone, Northern Sacramento Valley, California (USGS Map MF-1298, 1981), the Geologic Map of the Chico Monocline and Northeastern Part of the Sacramento Valley, California (USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1238, 1981), the Geologic Map of the Red Bluff 30' X 60' Quadrangle, California (USGS Geologic Investigation Series Map I-2542, 1995), and the Geologic Map of the Whitmore Quadrangle, California (Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-993) . The correlation and description of geologic units were excerpted from USGS Publication MF-1790m (Helley and Harwood, 1985).

This polygon shapefile contains areas of important farmland in Sacramento County, California for 2010. Important Farmland Maps show the relationship between the quality of soils for agricultural production and the land's use for agricultural, urban, or other purposes. A biennial map update cycle and notation system employed by FMMP captures conversion to urban land while accommodating rotational cycles in agricultural use. The minimum land use mapping unit is 10 acres unless specified. Smaller units of land are incorporated into the surrounding map classifications. In order to most accurately represent the NRCS digital soil survey, soil units of one acre or larger are depicted in Important Farmland Maps. For environmental review purposes, the categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land constitute 'agricultural land' (Public Resources Code Section 21060.1). The remaining categories are used for reporting changes in land use as required for FMMP's biennial farmland conversion report. This layer is part of the 2010 California Farmland Mapping and Montoring Project.

Under contract to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Bay-Delta Region for use in conjunction with the Delta Regional Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan, CDFW created a fine-scale vegetation map of portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. CDFW conducted field reconnaissance assistance for this project, as well as accuracy assessment (AA) field data collection; and Jeff Kennedy, Kristi Lazar, Jeanne Taylor and Jahalel L. Tuil [University of California Davis Information Center for the Environment (ICE)]; Brad Burkholder, Daniel Burmester, Curtis Hagen, Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler-Wolf, to assist in the AA field data collection. CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) provided in-kind service to allocate and score the AA. The mapping study area, consists of approximately 725,600 acres, of which approximately 104,600 acres are natural vegetation, 555,100 acres agriculture and urban development, and 65,900 acres are open water or inundated lands. These acres were apart of Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Yolo counties. Work was performed on the project between 2005 and 2007. The primary purpose of the project was to further CDFW’s goal of developing fine-scale digital vegetation maps as part of the California Biodiversity Initiative Roadmap of 2018. CNPS under separate contract and in collaboration with CDFW VegCAMP developed the floristic vegetation classification used for the project. The floristic classification follows protocols compliant with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and National Vegetation Classification Standards (NVCS). The vegetation map was produced applying heads-up digitizing techniques using both the spring 2002 Stockton, Sacramento, and Delta High Resolution (1-foot) Orthoimagery and summer 2005 NAIP (1-meter) orthoimagery served as the base, in conjunction with ancillary data and imagery sources. Map polygons are assessed for Vegetation Type, Percent Cover, Exotics, Development Disturbance, and other attributes. The minimum mapping unit (MMU) is 2 acres for land use and vegetation; exceptions made for isolated land use, water, and critical vegetation types which were mapped to a 1-acre MMU. Field reconnaissance and accuracy assessment enhanced map quality. There was a total of 131 mapping classes. The overall Fuzzy Accuracy Assessment rating for the final vegetation map, at the Alliance and Group levels, is 85% percent with 9 types falling below 70%. More information can be found in the project report, which is bundled with the vegetation map published for BIOS here: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18211.

Description for i03_DAU_county_cnty2018 is as follows:Detailed Analysis Unit-(DAU) Convergence via County Boundary cnty18_1 for Cal-Fire, (See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty18_1), State of California.The existing DAU boundaries were aligned with cnty18_1 feature class.Originally a collaboration by Department of Water Resources, Region Office personnel, Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh - NCRO, Cynthia Moffett - SCRO and Robert Fastenau - SRO with the final merge of all data into a cohesive feature class to create i03_DAU_COUNTY_cnty24k09 alignment which has been updated to create i03_DAU_COUNTY_cnty18_1.This version was derived from a preexisting “dau_v2_105, 27, i03_DAU_COUNTY_cnty24k09” Detailed Analysis Unit feature class's and aligned with Cal-Fire's 2018 boundary.Manmade structures such as piers and breakers, small islands and coastal rocks have been removed from this version. Inlets waters are listed on the coast only.These features are reachable by County\DAU. This allows the county boundaries, the DAU boundaries and the State of California Boundary to match Cal-Fire cnty18_1.DAU BackgroundThe first investigation of California's water resources began in 1873 when President Ulysses S. Grant commissioned an investigation by Colonel B. S. Alexander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The state followed with its own study in 1878 when the State Engineer's office was created and filled by William Hammond Hall. The concept of a statewide water development project was first raised in 1919 by Lt. Robert B. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey.In 1931, State Engineer Edward Hyatt introduced a report identifying the facilities required and the economic means to accomplish a north-to-south water transfer. Called the "State Water Plan", the report took nine years to prepare. To implement the plan, the Legislature passed the Central Valley Act of 1933, which authorized the project. Due to lack of funds, the federal government took over the CVP as a public works project to provide jobs and its construction began in 1935.In 1945, the California Legislature authorized an investigation of statewide water resources and in 1947, the California Legislature requested that an investigation be conducted of the water resources as well as present and future water needs for all hydrologic regions in the State. Accordingly, DWR and its predecessor agencies began to collect the urban and agricultural land use and water use data that serve as the basis for the computations of current and projected water uses.The work, conducted by the Division of Water Resources (DWR’s predecessor) under the Department of Public Works, led to the publication of three important bulletins: Bulletin 1 (1951), "Water Resources of California," a collection of data on precipitation, unimpaired stream flows, flood flows and frequency, and water quality statewide; Bulletin 2 (1955), "Water Utilization and Requirements of California," estimates of water uses and forecasts of "ultimate" water needs; and Bulletin 3 (1957), "The California Water Plan," plans for full practical development of California’s water resources, both by local projects and a major State project to meet the State's ultimate needs. (See brief addendum below* “The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region”)DWR subdivided California into study areas for planning purposes. The largest study areas are the ten hydrologic regions (HR), corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. The next levels of delineation are the Planning Areas (PA), which in turn are composed of multiple detailed analysis units (DAU). The DAUs are often split by county boundaries, so are the smallest study areas used by DWR.The DAU/counties are used for estimating water demand by agricultural crops and other surfaces for water resources planning. Under current guidelines, each DAU/County has multiple crop and land-use categories. Many planning studies begin at the DAU or PA level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.Since 1950 DWR has conducted over 250 land use surveys of all or parts of California's 58 counties. Early land use surveys were recorded on paper maps of USGS 7.5' quadrangles. In 1986, DWR began to develop georeferenced digital maps of land use survey data, which are available for download. Long term goals for this program is to survey land use more frequently and efficiently using satellite imagery, high elevation digital imagery, local sources of data, and remote sensing in conjunction with field surveys.There are currently 58 counties and 278 DAUs in California.Due to some DAUs being split by county lines, the total number of DAU’s identifiable via DAU by County is 782.**ADDENDUM**The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region[Detailed Analysis Units made up of a grouping of the Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) boundaries occurred on the Eastern Foothills and Mountains within the Sacramento Region. Other DSA’s were divided into two or more DAU’s; for example, DSA 58 (Redding Basin) was divided into 3 DAU’s; 143,141, and 145. Mountain areas on both the east and west side of the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam went from ridge top to ridge top, or topographic highs. If available, boundaries were set adjacent to stream gages located at the low point of rivers and major creek drainages.Later, as the DAU’s were developed, some of the smaller watershed DSA boundaries in the foothill and mountain areas were grouped. The Pit River DSA was split so water use in the larger valleys (Alturas area, Big Valley, Fall River Valley, Hat Creek) could be analyzed. A change in the boundary of the Sacramento Region mountain area occurred at this time when Goose Lake near the Oregon State Line was included as part of the Sacramento Region.The Sacramento Valley Floor hydrologic boundary was at the edge of the alluvial soils and slightly modified to follow the water bearing sediments to a depth of 200 feet or more. Stream gages were located on incoming streams and used as an exception to the alluvial soil boundary. Another exception to the alluvial boundary was the inclusion of the foothills between Red Bluff and the Redding Basin. Modifications of the valley floor exterior boundary were made to facilitate analysis; some areas at the northern end of the valley followed section lines or other established boundaries.Valley floor boundaries, as originally shown in Bulletin 2, Water Utilization and Requirements of California, 1955 were based on physical topographic features such as ridges even if they only rise a few feet between basins and/or drainage areas. A few boundaries were based on drainage canals. The Joint DWR-USBR Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) used drainage areas where topographic highs drained into one drainage basin. Some areas were difficult to study, particularly in areas transected by major rivers. Depletion Study Drainage Areas containing large rivers were separated into two DAU’s; one on each side of the river. This made it easier to analyze water source, water supply, and water use and drainage outflow from the DAU.Many of the DAUs that consist of natural drainage basins have stream gages located at outfall gates, which provided an accurate estimate of water leaving the unit. Detailed Analysis Units based on political boundaries or other criteria are much more difficult to analyze than those units that follow natural drainage basins.]**END ADDENDUM**