CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: John Radke, Description: This modeled data represents inundation location and depth (meters) for the California Coast resulting from 1.41 m sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. This research is unique and innovative in its dynamic spatial detail and the fact that it incorporates real, time series water level data from past (near 100 year) storm events to capture the dynamic effect of storm surges in modeling inundation using 3Di.

Solar Footprints in CaliforniaThis GIS dataset consists of polygons that represent the footprints of solar powered electric generation facilities and related infrastructure in California called Solar Footprints. The location of solar footprints was identified using other existing solar footprint datasets from various sources along with imagery interpretation. CEC staff reviewed footprints identified with imagery and digitized polygons to match the visual extent of each facility. Previous datasets of existing solar footprints used to locate solar facilities include: GIS Layers: (1) California Solar Footprints, (2) UC Berkeley Solar Points, (3) Kruitwagen et al. 2021, (4) BLM Renewable Project Facilities, (5) Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report (QFER)Imagery Datasets: Esri World Imagery, USGS National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2020 SENTINEL 2 Satellite Imagery, 2023Solar facilities with large footprints such as parking lot solar, large rooftop solar, and ground solar were included in the solar footprint dataset. Small scale solar (approximately less than 0.5 acre) and residential footprints were not included. No other data was used in the production of these shapes. Definitions for the solar facilities identified via imagery are subjective and described as follows: Rooftop Solar: Solar arrays located on rooftops of large buildings. Parking lot Solar: Solar panels on parking lots roughly larger than 1 acre, or clusters of solar panels in adjacent parking lots. Ground Solar: Solar panels located on ground roughly larger than 1 acre, or large clusters of smaller scale footprints. Once all footprints identified by the above criteria were digitized for all California counties, the features were visually classified into ground, parking and rooftop categories. The features were also classified into rural and urban types using the 42 U.S. Code § 1490 definition for rural. In addition, the distance to the closest substation and the percentile category of this distance (e.g. 0-25th percentile, 25th-50th percentile) was also calculated. The coverage provided by this data set should not be assumed to be a complete accounting of solar footprints in California. Rather, this dataset represents an attempt to improve upon existing solar feature datasets and to update the inventory of "large" solar footprints via imagery, especially in recent years since previous datasets were published. This procedure produced a total solar project footprint of 150,250 acres. Attempts to classify these footprints and isolate the large utility-scale projects from the smaller rooftop solar projects identified in the data set is difficult. The data was gathered based on imagery, and project information that could link multiple adjacent solar footprints under one larger project is not known. However, partitioning all solar footprints that are at least partly outside of the techno-economic exclusions and greater than 7 acres yields a total footprint size of 133,493 acres. These can be approximated as utility-scale footprints. Metadata: (1) CBI Solar FootprintsAbstract: Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) created this dataset of solar footprints in California after it was found that no such dataset was publicly available at the time (Dec 2015-Jan 2016). This dataset is used to help identify where current ground based, mostly utility scale, solar facilities are being constructed and will be used in a larger landscape intactness model to help guide future development of renewable energy projects. The process of digitizing these footprints first began by utilizing an excel file from the California Energy Commission with lat/long coordinates of some of the older and bigger locations. After projecting those points and locating the facilities utilizing NAIP 2014 imagery, the developed area around each facility was digitized. While interpreting imagery, there were some instances where a fenced perimeter was clearly seen and was slightly larger than the actual footprint. For those cases the footprint followed the fenced perimeter since it limits wildlife movement through the area. In other instances, it was clear that the top soil had been scraped of any vegetation, even outside of the primary facility footprint. These footprints included the areas that were scraped within the fencing since, especially in desert systems, it has been near permanently altered. Other sources that guided the search for solar facilities included the Energy Justice Map, developed by the Energy Justice Network which can be found here:https://www.energyjustice.net/map/searchobject.php?gsMapsize=large&giCurrentpageiFacilityid;=1&gsTable;=facility&gsSearchtype;=advancedThe Solar Energy Industries Association’s “Project Location Map” which can be found here: https://www.seia.org/map/majorprojectsmap.phpalso assisted in locating newer facilities along with the "Power Plants" shapefile, updated in December 16th, 2015, downloaded from the U.S. Energy Information Administration located here:https://www.eia.gov/maps/layer_info-m.cfmThere were some facilities that were stumbled upon while searching for others, most of these are smaller scale sites located near farm infrastructure. Other sites were located by contacting counties that had solar developments within the county. Still, others were located by sleuthing around for proposals and company websites that had images of the completed facility. These helped to locate the most recently developed sites and these sites were digitized based on landmarks such as ditches, trees, roads and other permanent structures.Metadata: (2) UC Berkeley Solar PointsUC Berkeley report containing point location for energy facilities across the United States.2022_utility-scale_solar_data_update.xlsm (live.com)Metadata: (3) Kruitwagen et al. 2021Abstract: Photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating capacity has grown by 41 per cent per year since 2009. Energy system projections that mitigate climate change and aid universal energy access show a nearly ten-fold increase in PV solar energy generating capacity by 2040. Geospatial data describing the energy system are required to manage generation intermittency, mitigate climate change risks, and identify trade-offs with biodiversity, conservation and land protection priorities caused by the land-use and land-cover change necessary for PV deployment. Currently available inventories of solar generating capacity cannot fully address these needs. Here we provide a global inventory of commercial-, industrial- and utility-scale PV installations (that is, PV generating stations in excess of 10 kilowatts nameplate capacity) by using a longitudinal corpus of remote sensing imagery, machine learning and a large cloud computation infrastructure. We locate and verify 68,661 facilities, an increase of 432 per cent (in number of facilities) on previously available asset-level data. With the help of a hand-labelled test set, we estimate global installed generating capacity to be 423 gigawatts (−75/+77 gigawatts) at the end of 2018. Enrichment of our dataset with estimates of facility installation date, historic land-cover classification and proximity to vulnerable areas allows us to show that most of the PV solar energy facilities are sited on cropland, followed by arid lands and grassland. Our inventory could aid PV delivery aligned with the Sustainable Development GoalsEnergy Resource Land Use Planning - Kruitwagen_etal_Nature.pdf - All Documents (sharepoint.com)Metadata: (4) BLM Renewable ProjectTo identify renewable energy approved and pending lease areas on BLM administered lands. To provide information about solar and wind energy applications and completed projects within the State of California for analysis and display internally and externally. This feature class denotes "verified" renewable energy projects at the California State BLM Office, displayed in GIS. The term "Verified" refers to the GIS data being constructed at the California State Office, using the actual application/maps with legal descriptions obtained from the renewable energy company. https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS_REALTY_AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/solar_and_wind.Par.70101.File.dat/Public%20Webinar%20Dec%203%202014%20-%20Solar%20and%20Wind%20Regulations.pdfBLM CA Renewable Energy Projects | BLM GBP Hub (arcgis.com)Metadata: (5) Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report (QFER) California Power Plants - Overview (arcgis.com)

The Blue Map responds to the direction of the Independent Redistricting Commission to create draft maps that show variations on two student-focused districts, and the direction to show a map that has a north to south orientation for a single West Berkeley District. This map also meets the six universal map criteria to varying degrees. The universal criteria are: 1) Maximum of 10% population deviation; 2) Contiguous districts; 3) Maintain Communities of Interest and Neighborhoods; 4) Use major arterial streets as boundaries where possible; 5) Correct the features of the 2010 map that accounted for prior Councilmember residences; and 6) Include at least one compact student district in every map.The Blue Map follows the Commission direction by making the following noteworthy modifications:Create two “student-focused” districts with an east-west orientation (4,7);Create a single West Berkeley District west of San Pablo Avenue and including the neighborhood surrounding San Pablo Park (2);Unify the Westbrae Neighborhood in District 1;Move the Poet’s Corner Neighborhood to District 1;Unify the Lorin Neighborhood in District 3;Unify the Halcyon Neighborhood in District 8;Unify the Bateman Neighborhood in District 8;Unify LeConte Neighborhood in District 8;Move the District 5 and District 6 border from Spruce Street to Arlington Avenue;Move the Panoramic Hill Neighborhood and the Clark Kerr Campus into the eastern student district (District 7);Move the portion of the Northside Neighborhood south of LeConte Avenue into the western student district (District 4);Move a portion of Central Berkeley and Downtown Neighborhoods into District 3;The above changes necessarily create a lower degree of neighborhood cohesion for the following neighborhoods: North Berkeley, Central Berkeley, Downtown, Southside, North Shattuck;Correct map features for prior Councilmember residences in District 4 and District 7;Use of the major arterials, San Pablo Avenue, Sacramento Street, Spruce Street, Arlington Avenue, Adeline Avenue, and Telegraph Avenue, as council district boundaries;Commission direction on topography/wildfire risk/transit access is reflected in higher elevation neighborhoods contained in three council districts (6, 7, 8).

The Napa County Watersheds were generated from two elevation datasets. The Napa River Watershed was generated from LIDAR data processed by NCALM at UC Berkeley (http://calm.geo.berkeley.edu/ncalm/index.html). The eastern side of the county was delineated from DTM data which was generated from aerial photography (2002). The watersheds are intended to be used for hydrologic modeling and planning.

Data last synced 06-02-2025 06:04. Data synced on a Monthly interval.

This layer was created for the redistricting project map. BUSD provided a powerpoint file that showed the boundaries since they could not locate the original shapefile that was used. The core information used the generate the boundaries are the image in the powerpoint file and the 2020 census block boundaries. The source of image used is described below by the original contractor Bruce Wicinas. I was drafted to help BUSD around 1991. At that time they used planning software authored by a San Jose company, "Educational Data Systems." This was long before ESRI was known to the likes of school districts or acknowledged by the Census Bureau. "Educational Data Systems," which had many school district clients around the U.S., performed their own particle-ization of school district geography. They divided districts into rectangles of approximately 4 - 8 city blocks. These they called "planning areas." They were convenient. BUSD they divided into 445, a number neither too fine nor too coarse.Many years later, .shp files became widely available. Alas, not all Planning Area perimeters coincide with line segments of .shp files. In the Berkeley flatlands the discrepancies are not so bad. But in the hills, there aren't "blocks" but meandering strips. "Planning Areas" have line segments which don't correspond to streets or perimeters of .shp files.About 15 years ago I enhanced my custom software to read shp files. Thus I could superimpose Planning Areas and .shp files, observing the overlap discrepancies. I'll omit for now the rest of this story; what I did about the discrepancy between census Block Groups and Planning Areas. I could go into that if you are interested.I got "Planning Areas" into my custom software from the ancient EdSys data, somehow ,decades ago. I may have read a file containing polygon coordinates. At that time I could export the planning area polygons via DXF. But they have no relationship to .shp. I could provide a representation of GIS planning areas in coordinates such as "State Plane" but this probably does you no good. I have never written an ".shp" file exporter. The .shp file format is mind-boggling; archaic compared to modern methods.About 25 years ago I wrote an on-line means by which staff at BUSD can type in a Berkeley address and get the corresponding socio-ec category number. It does this by determining the "planning area number" - 1 through 445 - containing the address. That on-line software could provide the attendance zone as well but no one ever asked for that. The student assignment software used by the high school and by admissions performs that function internally. Every student has an attendance zone number as soon as they get added to the database.

The Eel River CZO operates on several spatial scales from a zero order hillslope to the entire Eel River on the north coast of California. Rivendell, Angelo, Sagehorn, South Fork, and Eel River GIS boundaries. GIS polygon shapefiles. All files are in geographic projection (Lat/Long) with a datum of WGS84.

The watershed boundaries are from USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) http://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html. Rivendell and Angelo boundaries are created from LiDAR by the CZO. Sagehorn Ranch is a privately held, active commercial ranch with no public access. Please contact the CZO if you are interested in data from Sagehorn Ranch.

Shapefiles

Eel River Watershed (drainage area 9534 km^2): Entire eel river. Greatest extent of CZO research.

South Fork Eel Watershed (drainage area 1784 km^2).

Angelo Reserve Boundary (30.0 km^2): Angelo Coast Range Reserve is a University of California Natural Reserve System protected land. It is the central focus of CZO research. http://angelo.berkeley.edu

Sagehorn Ranch Boundary (21.1 km^2): Sagehorn Ranch is a private ranch with active cattle raising. The owners have allowed the CZO to place instrumentation on their lands. Access is only by explicit agreement by owners.

Rivendell Cachement (0.0076 km^2): Rivendell is a small, heavily instrumented hillslope within the Angelo Reserve. It has roughly 700 instruments deployed as of 2016. Data is online at http://sensor.berkeley.edu

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) annually maintains and distributes an historical wildland fire perimeter dataset from across public and private lands in California. The GIS data is developed with the cooperation of the United States Forest Service Region 5, the Bureau of Land Management, California State Parks, National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and is released in the spring with added data from the previous calendar year. Although the dataset represents the most complete digital record of fire perimeters in California, it is still incomplete, and users should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on the data. This data should be used carefully for statistical analysis and reporting due to missing perimeters (see Use Limitation in metadata). Some fires are missing because historical records were lost or damaged, were too small for the minimum cutoffs, had inadequate documentation or have not yet been incorporated into the database. Other errors with the fire perimeter database include duplicate fires and over-generalization. Additionally, over-generalization, particularly with large old fires, may show unburned "islands" within the final perimeter as burned. Users of the fire perimeter database must exercise caution in application of the data. Careful use of the fire perimeter database will prevent users from drawing inaccurate or erroneous conclusions from the data. This data is updated annually in the spring with fire perimeters from the previous fire season. This dataset may differ in California compared to that available from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) due to different requirements between the two datasets. The data covers fires back to 1878. As of May 2024, it represents fire23_1. Please help improve this dataset by filling out this survey with feedback:Historic Fire Perimeter Dataset Feedback (arcgis.com)Current criteria for data collection are as follows:CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 impacted residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres.Version update:Firep23_1 was released in May 2024. Two hundred eighty four fires from the 2023 fire season were added to the database (21 from BLM, 102 from CAL FIRE, 72 from Contract Counties, 19 from LRA, 9 from NPS, 57 from USFS and 4 from USFW). The 2020 Cottonwood fire, 2021 Lone Rock and Union fires, as well as the 2022 Lost Lake fire were added. USFW submitted a higher accuracy perimeter to replace the 2022 River perimeter. Additionally, 48 perimeters were digitized from an historical map included in a publication from Weeks, d. et al. The Utilization of El Dorado County Land. May 1934, Bulletin 572. University of California, Berkeley. Two thousand eighteen perimeters had attributes updated, the bulk of which had IRWIN IDs added. A duplicate 2020 Erbes perimeter was removed. The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria, but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in the next update: Big Hill #2 (2023-CAHIA-001020). YEAR_ field changed to a short integer type. San Diego CAL FIRE UNIT_ID changed to SDU (the former code MVU is maintained in the UNIT_ID domains). COMPLEX_INCNUM renamed to COMPLEX_ID and is in process of transitioning from local incident number to the complex IRWIN ID. Perimeters managed in a complex in 2023 are added with the complex IRWIN ID. Those previously added will transition to complex IRWIN IDs in a future update.Includes separate layers filtered by criteria as follows:California Fire Perimeters (All): Unfiltered. The entire collection of wildfire perimeters in the database. It is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Recent Large Fire Perimeters (≥5000 acres): Filtered for wildfires greater or equal to 5,000 acres for the last 5 years of fires (2019-2023), symbolized with color by year and is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Year-only labels for recent large fires.California Fire Perimeters (1950+): Filtered for wildfires that started in 1950-present. Symbolized by decade, and display starting at country level scale.Detailed metadata is included in the following documents:Wildland Fire Perimeters (Firep23_1) Metadata For any questions, please contact the data steward:Kim Wallin, GIS SpecialistCAL FIRE, Fire & Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)kimberly.wallin@fire.ca.gov

This dataset contains 30-year rolling average of annual average precipitation across all four models and two greenhouse gas (RCP) scenarios in the four model ensemble. The year identified for a 30 year rolling average is the mid-point of the 30-year average. eg. The year 2050 includes the values from 2036 to 2065. The downscaling and selection of models for inclusion in ten and four model ensembles is described in Pierce et al. 2018, but summarized here. Thirty two global climate models (GCMs) were identified to meet the modeling requirements. From those, ten that closely simulate California’s climate were selected for additional analysis (Table 1, Pierce et al. 2018) and to form a ten model ensemble. From the ten model ensemble, four models, forming a four model ensemble, were identified to provide coverage of the range of potential climate outcomes in California. The models in the four model ensemble and their general climate projection for California are: HadGEM2-ES (warm/dry),CanESM2 (average), CNRM-CM5 (cooler/wetter),and MIROC5 the model least like the others to improve coverage of the range of outcomes. These data were downloaded from Cal-Adapt and prepared for use within CA Nature by California Natural Resource Agency and ESRI staff. Cal-Adapt. (2018). LOCA Derived Data [GeoTIFF]. Data derived from LOCA Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections. Cal-Adapt website developed by University of California at Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility under contract with the California Energy Commission. Retrieved from https://cal-adapt.org/ Pierce, D. W., J. F. Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan, (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006.

This dataset contains a 30-year average of annual average minimum and maximum temperatures across all ten models and two greenhouse gas (RCP) scenarios in the ten model ensemble. Three named time periods are included “Historic Baseline (1961-1990)”, “Mid-Century (2035-2064)”, and “End of Century (2070-2099).” The downscaling and selection of models for inclusion in ten and four model ensembles is described in Pierce et al. 2018, but summarized here. Thirty two global climate models (GCMs) were identified to meet the modeling requirements. From those, ten that closely simulate California’s climate were selected for additional analysis (Table 1, Pierce et al. 2018) and to form a ten model ensemble. These data were downloaded from Cal-Adapt and prepared for use within CA Nature by California Natural Resource Agency and ESRI staff. Cal-Adapt. (2018). LOCA Derived Data [GeoTIFF]. Data derived from LOCA Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections. Cal-Adapt website developed by University of California at Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility under contract with the California Energy Commission. Retrieved from https://cal-adapt.org/ Pierce, D. W., J. F. Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan, (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006.

Dataset Description: This dataset is an amended version of the UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) collision records from the six SCAG Counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) of all collisions between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019, downloaded from the TIMS webpage on March 23, 2022. SCAG developed this collection of collisions to determine the Regional High-Injury network. This dataset represents collisions between 2015 and 2019 located in the SCAG region that resulted in serious injury or fatality and have a clear mode type (Auto-Auto, Auto-Pedestrian, or Auto-Bicycle). Some collisions from the original dataset needed to be manually verified for location. Data development/processing methodology:SCAG prepared the collision data by filtering out collisions from the data downloaded from TIMS that did not fall into the scope of this analysis per the location, collision severity, and mode parameters. For more details on the methodology, please contact the point of contact.

The University of California Berkeley Herbarium contracted Aerial Information Systems, Inc. in 2008 to create a baseline inventory of wetlands and associated upland vegetation for approximately 38 square miles of land north of the city of Livermore, California, including and adjacent to the Springtown Alkali Sink Preserve. The vegetation map adheres to the 2008 National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) and the Manual of California Vegetation.One-foot natural color imagery flown in May 2005 was used as a base for the delineated polygons and photo interpretation signature in the focus study areas. Additional online digital imagery was deemed necessary as supplementary information and included the National Agricultural Inventory Program (NAIP) imagery flown in the summer of 2005 which was used as a base for areas outside of the focus studies.*Note: It is important to understand that the interpretation in the focus areas is georeferenced to the 1-foot 2005 imagery and will not line up precisely to the NAIP imagery in all cases. Therefore it is not advisable to view the delineations over the NAIP imagery, especially at a fine-scale level in the focus studies.The complete mapping effort is divided into two phases. The first phase is the detailed mapping of several focus study areas which total approximately 4200 acres in size and include the Springtown Preserve and adjacent areas along with Brushy Peak and the upper Altamont Creek drainage. The Phase II portion involves the creation of a more generalized vegetation map for the remaining thirty square miles including much of the remaining Altamont Creek watershed in the northern portion of the Livermore Valley.

Version InformationThe data is updated annually with fire perimeters from the previous calendar year.Firep23_1 was released in May 2024. Two hundred eighty four fires from the 2023 fire season were added to the database (21 from BLM, 102 from CAL FIRE, 72 from Contract Counties, 19 from LRA, 9 from NPS, 57 from USFS and 4 from USFW). The 2020 Cottonwood fire, 2021 Lone Rock and Union fires, as well as the 2022 Lost Lake fire were added. USFW submitted a higher accuracy perimeter to replace the 2022 River perimeter. A duplicate 2020 Erbes fire was removed. Additionally, 48 perimeters were digitized from an historical map included in a publication from Weeks, d. et al. The Utilization of El Dorado County Land. May 1934, Bulletin 572. University of California, Berkeley. There were 2,132 perimeters that received updated attribution, the bulk of which had IRWIN IDs added. The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria, but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in the next update: Big Hill #2 (2023-CAHIA-001020). YEAR_ field changed to a short integer type. San Diego CAL FIRE UNIT_ID changed to SDU (the former code MVU is maintained in the UNIT_ID domains). COMPLEX_INCNUM renamed to COMPLEX_ID and is in process of transitioning from local incident number to the complex IRWIN ID. Perimeters managed in a complex in 2023 are added with the complex IRWIN ID. Those previously added will transition to complex IRWIN IDs in a future update.If you would like a full briefing on these adjustments, please contact the data steward, Kim Wallin (kimberly.wallin@fire.ca.gov), CAL FIRE FRAP._CAL FIRE (including contract counties), USDA Forest Service Region 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management & National Park Service, and other agencies jointly maintain a fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state. The data covers fires back to 1878. Current criteria for data collection are as follows:CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 damaged/ destroyed residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres._Discrepancies between wildfire perimeter data and CAL FIRE Redbook Large Damaging FiresLarge Damaging fires in California were first defined by the CAL FIRE Redbook, and has changed over time, and differs from the definition initially used to define wildfires required to be submitted for the initial compilation of this digital fire perimeter data. In contrast, the definition of fires whose perimeter should be collected has changed once in the approximately 30 years the data has been in existence. Below are descriptions of changes in data collection criteria used when compiling these two datasets. To facilitate comparison, this metadata includes a summary, by year, of fires in the Redbook, that do not appear in this fire perimeter dataset. It is followed by an enumeration of each “Redbook” fire missing from the spatial data. Wildfire Perimeter criteria:~1991: 10 acres timber, 30 acres brush, 300 acres grass, damages or destroys three residence or one commercial structure or does $300,000 worth of damage 2002: 10 acres timber, 50 acres brush, 300 acres grass, damages or destroys three or more structures, or does $300,000 worth of damage~2010: 10 acres timber, 30 acres brush, 300 acres grass, damages or destroys three or more structures (doesn’t include out building, sheds, chicken coops, etc.)Large and Damaging Redbook Fire data criteria:1979: Fires of a minimum of 300 acres that burn at least: 30 acres timber or 300 acres brush, or 1500 acres woodland or grass1981: 1979 criteria plus fires that took ,3000 hours of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection personnel time to suppress1992: 1981 criteria plus 1500 acres agricultural products, or destroys three residence or one commercial structure or does $300,000 damage1993: 1992 criteria but “three or more structures destroyed” replaces “destroys three residence or one commercial structure” and the 3,000 hours of California Department of Forestry personnel time to suppress is removed2006: 300 acres or larger and burned at least: 30 acres of timber, or 300 acres of brush, or 1,500 acres of woodland, or 1,500 acres of grass, or 1,500 acres of agricultural products, or 3 or more structures destroyed, or $300,000 or more dollar damage loss.2008: 300 acres and largerYear# of Missing Large and Damaging Redbook Fires197922198013198115198261983319842019855219861219875619882319898199091991219921619931719942219959199615199791998101999720004200152002162003520042200512006112007320084320093201022011020124201322014720151020162201711201862019220203202102022020230Total488Enumeration of fires in the Redbook that are missing from Fire Perimeter data. Three letter unit code follows fire name.1979-Sylvandale (HUU), Kiefer (AEU), Taylor(TUU), Parker#2(TCU), PGE#10, Crocker(SLU), Silver Spur (SLU), Parkhill (SLU), Tar Springs #2 (SLU), Langdon (SCU), Truelson (RRU), Bautista (RRU), Crocker (SLU), Spanish Ranch (SLU), Parkhill (SLU), Oak Springs(BDU), Ruddell (BDF), Santa Ana (BDU), Asst. #61 (MVU), Bernardo (MVU), Otay #20 1980– Lightning series (SKU), Lavida (RRU), Mission Creek (RRU), Horse (RRU), Providence (RRU), Almond (BDU), Dam (BDU), Jones (BDU), Sycamore (BDU), Lightning (MVU), Assist 73, 85, 138 (MVU)1981– Basalt (LNU), Lightning #25(LMU), Likely (MNF), USFS#5 (SNF), Round Valley (TUU), St. Elmo (KRN), Buchanan (TCU), Murietta (RRU), Goetz (RRU), Morongo #29 (RRU), Rancho (RRU), Euclid (BDU), Oat Mt. (LAC & VNC), Outside Origin #1 (MVU), Moreno (MVU)1982- Duzen (SRF), Rave (LMU), Sheep’s trail (KRN), Jury (KRN), Village (RRU), Yuma (BDF)1983- Lightning #4 (FKU), Kern Co. #13, #18 (KRN)1984-Bidwell (BTU), BLM D 284,337, PNF #115, Mill Creek (TGU), China hat (MMU), fey ranch, Kern Co #10, 25,26,27, Woodrow (KRN), Salt springs, Quartz (TCU), Bonanza (BEU), Pasquel (SBC), Orco asst. (ORC), Canel (local), Rattlesnake (BDF)1985- Hidden Valley, Magic (LNU), Bald Mt. (LNU), Iron Peak (MEU), Murrer (LMU), Rock Creek (BTU), USFS #29, 33, Bluenose, Amador, 8 mile (AEU), Backbone, Panoche, Los Gatos series, Panoche (FKU), Stan #7, Falls #2 (MMU), USFS #5 (TUU), Grizzley, Gann (TCU), Bumb, Piney Creek, HUNTER LIGGETT ASST#2, Pine, Lowes, Seco, Gorda-rat, Cherry (BEU), Las pilitas, Hwy 58 #2 (SLO), Lexington, Finley (SCU), Onions, Owens (BDU), Cabazon, Gavalin, Orco, Skinner, Shell, Pala (RRU), South Mt., Wheeler, Black Mt., Ferndale, (VNC), Archibald, Parsons, Pioneer (BDU), Decker, Gleason(LAC), Gopher, Roblar, Assist #38 (MVU)1986– Knopki (SRF), USFS #10 (NEU), Galvin (RRU), Powerline (RRU), Scout, Inscription (BDU), Intake (BDF), Assist #42 (MVU), Lightning series (FKU), Yosemite #1 (YNP), USFS Asst. (BEU), Dutch Kern #30 (KRN)1987- Peach (RRU), Ave 32 (TUU), Conover (RRU), Eagle #1 (LNU), State 767 aka Bull (RRU), Denny (TUU), Dog Bar (NEU), Crank (LMU), White Deer (FKU), Briceburg (LMU), Post (RRU), Antelope (RRU), Cougar-I (SKU), Pilitas (SLU) Freaner (SHU), Fouts Complex (LNU), Slides (TGU), French (BTU), Clark (PNF), Fay/Top (SQF), Under, Flume, Bear Wallow, Gulch, Bear-1, Trinity, Jessie, friendly, Cold, Tule, Strause, China/Chance, Bear, Backbone, Doe, (SHF) Travis Complex, Blake, Longwood (SRF), River-II, Jarrell, Stanislaus Complex 14k (STF), Big, Palmer, Indian (TNF) Branham (BLM), Paul, Snag (NPS), Sycamore, Trail, Stallion Spring, Middle (KRN), SLU-864 1988- Hwy 175 (LNU), Rumsey (LNU), Shell Creek (MEU), PG&E #19 (LNU), Fields (BTU), BLM 4516, 417 (LMU), Campbell (LNF), Burney (SHF), USFS #41 (SHF), Trinity (USFS #32), State #837 (RRU), State (RRU), State (350 acres), RRU), State #1807, Orange Co. Asst (RRU), State #1825 (RRU), State #2025, Spoor (BDU), State (MVU), Tonzi (AEU), Kern co #7,9 (KRN), Stent (TCU), 1989– Rock (Plumas), Feather (LMU), Olivas (BDU), State 1116 (RRU), Concorida (RRU), Prado (RRU), Black Mt. (MVU), Vail (CNF)1990– Shipman (HUU), Lightning 379 (LMU), Mud, Dye (TGU), State 914 (RRU), Shultz (Yorba) (BDU), Bingo Rincon #3 (MVU), Dehesa #2 (MVU), SLU 1626 (SLU)1991- Church (HUU), Kutras (SHF)1992– Lincoln, Fawn (NEU), Clover, fountain (SHU), state, state 891, state, state (RRU), Aberdeen (BDU), Wildcat, Rincon (MVU), Cleveland (AEU), Dry Creek (MMU), Arroyo Seco, Slick Rock (BEU), STF #135 (TCU)1993– Hoisington (HUU), PG&E #27 (with an undetermined cause, lol), Hall (TGU), state, assist, local (RRU), Stoddard, Opal Mt., Mill Creek (BDU), Otay #18, Assist/ Old coach (MVU), Eagle (CNF), Chevron USA, Sycamore (FKU), Guerrero, Duck1994– Schindel Escape (SHU), blank (PNF), lightning #58 (LMU), Bridge (NEU), Barkley (BTU), Lightning #66 (LMU), Local (RRU), Assist #22 & #79 (SLU), Branch (SLO), Piute (BDU), Assist/ Opal#2 (BDU), Local, State, State (RRU), Gilman fire 7/24 (RRU), Highway #74 (RRU), San Felipe, Assist #42, Scissors #2 (MVU), Assist/ Opal#2 (BDU), Complex (BDF), Spanish (SBC)1995-State 1983 acres, Lost Lake, State # 1030, State (1335 acres), State (5000 acres), Jenny, City (BDU), Marron #4, Asist #51 (SLO/VNC)1996- Modoc NF 707 (Ambrose), Borrego (MVU), Assist #16 (SLU), Deep Creek (BDU), Weber (BDU), State (Wesley) 500 acres (RRU), Weaver (MMU), Wasioja (SBC/LPF), Gale (FKU), FKU 15832 (FKU), State (Wesley) 500 acres, Cabazon (RRU), State Assist (aka Bee) (RRU), Borrego, Otay #269 (MVU), Slaughter house (MVU), Oak Flat (TUU)1997- Lightning #70 (LMU), Jackrabbit (RRU), Fernandez (TUU), Assist 84 (Military AFV) (SLU), Metz #4 (BEU), Copperhead (BEU), Millstream, Correia (MMU), Fernandez (TUU)1998- Worden, Swift, PG&E 39 (MMU), Chariot, Featherstone, Wildcat, Emery, Deluz (MVU), Cajalco Santiago (RRU)1999- Musty #2,3 (BTU), Border # 95 (MVU), Andrews,

This dataset contains a 30-year rolling average of annual average minimum and maximum temperatures from the four models and two greenhouse gas (RCP) scenarios included in the four model ensemble for the years 1950-2099.The year identified is the mid-point of the 30-year average. eg. The year 2050 includes the values from 2036 to 2065.

The downscaling and selection of models for inclusion in ten and four model ensembles is described in 'https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-006_ADA.pdf#page=11' rel='nofollow ugc'>Pierce et al. 2018, but summarized here. Thirty two global climate models (GCMs) were identified to meet the modeling requirements. From those, ten that closely simulate California’s climate were selected for additional analysis ('https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-006_ADA.pdf#page=11' rel='nofollow ugc'>Table 1, Pierce et al. 2018) and to form a ten model ensemble. From the ten model ensemble, four models, forming a four model ensemble, were identified to provide coverage of the range of potential climate outcomes in California. The models in the four model ensemble and their general climate projection for California are:

• HadGEM2-ES (warm/dry),
• CanESM2 (average),
• CNRM-CM5 (cooler/wetter),
• and MIROC5 the model least like the others to improve coverage of the range of outcomes.

These data were downloaded from Cal-Adapt and prepared for use within CA Nature by California Natural Resource Agency and ESRI staff.

Cal-Adapt. (2018). LOCA Derived Data [GeoTIFF]. Data derived from LOCA Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections. Cal-Adapt website developed by University of California at Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility under contract with the California Energy Commission. Retrieved from https://cal-adapt.org/

Pierce, D. W., J. F. Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan, (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006.

Please help improve this dataset by filling out this survey with feedback:Historic Fire Perimeter Dataset Feedback (arcgis.com)Current criteria for data collection are as follows:CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 impacted residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres.Version update:Firep23_1 was released in May 2024. Two hundred eighty four fires from the 2023 fire season were added to the database (21 from BLM, 102 from CAL FIRE, 72 from Contract Counties, 19 from LRA, 9 from NPS, 57 from USFS and 4 from USFW). The 2020 Cottonwood fire, 2021 Lone Rock and Union fires, as well as the 2022 Lost Lake fire were added. USFW submitted a higher accuracy perimeter to replace the 2022 River perimeter. Additionally, 48 perimeters were digitized from an historical map included in a publication from Weeks, d. et al. The Utilization of El Dorado County Land. May 1934, Bulletin 572. University of California, Berkeley. Two thousand eighteen perimeters had attributes updated, the bulk of which had IRWIN IDs added. A duplicate 2020 Erbes perimeter was removed. The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria, but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in the next update: Big Hill #2 (2023-CAHIA-001020). YEAR_ field changed to a short integer type. San Diego CAL FIRE UNIT_ID changed to SDU (the former code MVU is maintained in the UNIT_ID domains). COMPLEX_INCNUM renamed to COMPLEX_ID and is in process of transitioning from local incident number to the complex IRWIN ID. Perimeters managed in a complex in 2023 are added with the complex IRWIN ID. Those previously added will transition to complex IRWIN IDs in a future update.Includes separate layers filtered by criteria as follows:California Fire Perimeters (All): Unfiltered. The entire collection of wildfire perimeters in the database. It is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Recent Large Fire Perimeters (≥5000 acres): Filtered for wildfires greater or equal to 5,000 acres for the last 5 years of fires (2019-2023), symbolized with color by year and is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Year-only labels for recent large fires.California Fire Perimeters (1950+): Filtered for wildfires that started in 1950-present. Symbolized by decade, and display starting at country level scale.Detailed metadata is included in the following documents:Wildland Fire Perimeters (Firep23_1) Metadata For any questions, please contact the data steward:Kim Wallin, GIS Specialist

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Adapting to Rising Tides Program developed a dataset to better understand community vulnerability to current and future flooding due to sea level rise and storm surges. This data has been used in the Adapting To Rising Tides Bay Area Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Assessment project as well as helping inform the implementation of the BCDC Environmental Justice and Social Equity Bay Plan amendment. The community vulnerability dataset contains four categories of information: 1. Social Vulnerability Indicators: Certain socioeconomic characteristics may reduce ability to prepare for, respond to, or recover from a hazard event. Census block groups with high concentrations (relative to the nine county Bay Area) of these characteristics are flagged as socially vulnerable, with each block group assigned a rank of highest, high, moderate, and low. Data is currently from American Community Survey (ACS) 2018 5-year estimates but is anticipated to be updated as new ACS 5-year estimates become available. 2. Contamination Vulnerability Indicators: The presence of contaminated lands and water raises health and environmental justice concerns, which worsen with flooding and sea level rise. A rank of highest, high, moderate, and lower for the severity of contamination in each block group was calculated using data compiled by CalEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for use in CalEnviroScreen 3.0. 3. Residential Exposure to Sea Level Rise: Calculated by joining Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2010 residential parcel data with 2017 ART Bay Area Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Analysis data, FEMA 100 and 500 year flood zone data, and San Francisco 100-year precipitation data to generate the number of residential units exposed at each water level summed by block group. This methodology assumes that once a parcel is exposed to any amount of flooding, the entire number of residential units within that parcel are considered impacted. 4. Complementary Community Vulnerability Screening Tools: Many screening approaches exist to characterize disadvantaged or vulnerable communities. Often in the Bay Area, different designations of disadvantaged/vulnerable communities are located in the same area. It is recommended to use the ART approach in combination with other complementary tools and designations. The following are included in this shapefile as fields for cross-referencing: CalEnviroScreen 3.0 total score, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Community of Concern designation, UC Berkeley Displacement and Gentrification Typologies.Data and resources can be accessed at https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/data/community.html. For information about data development and access please review the Community Vulnerability User Guide and BCDC’s Github Repository. For additional descriptions of GIS methods used in ART Bay Area, please see the ART Bay Area Report Appendix: GIS Data and Methods. For more information, please contact GIS@bcdc.ca.gov.

Total annual precipitation is shown along with elevation hillshade using the NAGI method. Hillshade is from Esri Elevation Service, and precipitation data is taken from WMO and FAO rain gages in addition to a number of national datasets. The annual and monthly averages for the period 1950-2000 was calculated and interpolated by WorldClim.org, a collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley, the International Cetner for Tropical Agrilculture, and the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management.

This dataset contains annual average precipitation from the four models and two greenhouse gas (RCP) scenarios included in the four model ensemble for the years 1950-2099.

The downscaling and selection of models for inclusion in ten and four model ensembles is described in Pierce et al. 2018, but summarized here. Thirty two global climate models (GCMs) were identified to meet the modeling requirements. From those, ten that closely simulate California’s climate were selected for additional analysis (Table 1, Pierce et al. 2018) and to form a ten model ensemble. From the ten model ensemble, four models, forming a four model ensemble, were identified to provide coverage of the range of potential climate outcomes in California. The models in the four model ensemble and their general climate projection for California are:

HadGEM2-ES (warm/dry),CanESM2 (average), CNRM-CM5 (cooler/wetter),and MIROC5 the model least like the others to improve coverage of the range of outcomes.

These data were downloaded from Cal-Adapt and prepared for use within CA Nature by California Natural Resource Agency and ESRI staff.

Cal-Adapt. (2018). LOCA Derived Data [GeoTIFF]. Data derived from LOCA Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections. Cal-Adapt website developed by University of California at Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility under contract with the California Energy Commission. Retrieved from https://cal-adapt.org/

Pierce, D. W., J. F. Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan, (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006.

This dataset provides the number and rate of children ages 0-17 with reported cases of abuse or neglect in 2018 by age group, race/ethnicity, and type of maltreatment. Information like this may be useful for studying children and abuse.Spatial Extent: CaliforniaSpatial Unit: CountyCreated: July 2019Updated: n/aSource: UC Berkeley Center for Social Services Research (California Child Welfare Indicators Project)Contact Person: California Child Welfare Indicators ProjectContact Email: CWSData@dss.ca.govSource Link: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/

This dataset contains a 30-year rolling average of annual average precipitation from the four models and two greenhouse gas (RCP) scenarios included in the four model ensemble for the years 1950-2099. The year identified is the mid-point of the 30-year average. eg. The year 2050 includes the values from 2036 to 2065.

The downscaling and selection of models for inclusion in ten and four model ensembles is described in Pierce et al. 2018, but summarized here. Thirty two global climate models (GCMs) were identified to meet the modeling requirements. From those, ten that closely simulate California’s climate were selected for additional analysis (Table 1, Pierce et al. 2018) and to form a ten model ensemble. From the ten model ensemble, four models, forming a four model ensemble, were identified to provide coverage of the range of potential climate outcomes in California. The models in the four model ensemble and their general climate projection for California are: HadGEM2-ES (warm/dry), CanESM2 (average), CNRM-CM5 (cooler/wetter), and MIROC5 the model least like the others to improve coverage of the range of outcomes.

These data were downloaded from Cal-Adapt and prepared for use within CA Nature by California Natural Resource Agency and ESRI staff.

Cal-Adapt. (2018). LOCA Derived Data [GeoTIFF]. Data derived from LOCA Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections. Cal-Adapt website developed by University of California at Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility under contract with the California Energy Commission. Retrieved from https://cal-adapt.org/

Pierce, D. W., J. F. Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan, (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006.

Total annual precipitation is shown along with elevation hillshade using the NAGI method. Hillshade is from Esri Elevation Service, and precipitation data is taken from WMO and FAO rain gages in addition to a number of national datasets. The annual and monthly averages for the period 1950-2000 was calculated and interpolated by WorldClim.org, a collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley, the International Cetner for Tropical Agrilculture, and the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management.