United States of America GIS data

EnviroAtlas image service of HistSummerTempMax for time slider

EnviroAtlas image service of HistSummerPrecip for time slider

This dataset only includes incident reports for fires responded to by the Charlotte Fire Department (CFD). For all CFD incidents including EMS, HazMat, Rescue, and others, refer to the “CFD Public Incident Reports (All)” dataset. Included in this data are public fields pertaining to CFD fire-related incidents (IncidentType field in the 100s range), including fire-specific fields that are not relevant to other incident types. The data covers all locked incident reports for fire incidents worked within the past two years up to the last data update. This does not include false alarms, sprinkler activations, smoke scares, or other fire-related incidents where there was no fire to extinguish. CFD reports its incidents in a manner consistent with National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) guidelines. END OF USE CONSTRAINT: (3)...accuracy or completeness of any information archived and distributed.

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

Census Tracts, Census Block Groups, Census Blocks; January 1, 2020 vintage

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2020 vintage

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

A list of all reported interactions between a Metro Government department or office and federal immigration authorities, as required by Mayor O’Connell’s Executive Order #30. Source Link: https://www.nashville.gov/departments/metro-clerk/legal-resources/executive-orders/mayor-freddie-oconnell/fo030 Metadata Document: Metro Immigration Interactions Metadata.pdf Contact Data Owner: opendata@nashville.gov

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

Military Installations; National Park Service Areas; Correctional Facilities; Colleges and Universities

uav imagery by -, acquired 2026-03-22 to 2026-03-22, 20.0 cm per pixel, published on OpenAerialMap.

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2000 vintage

The Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) is administered every two years to a statewide sample of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade youth under the direction of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center. The survey includes questions assessing youth substance use, including fentanyl. This dataset contains selected fentanyl-related survey results for Tempe youth. Each record represents a survey question or response category for a specific grade level and survey year. Key fields include survey question, grade, year, percentage value, and grade. Unless otherwise noted in the Question field, percentage values represent respondents providing an affirmative response to the listed question or statement. Alternative response categories are identified in parentheses, such as (No). This data is sourced from the Arizona Youth Survey and has been prepared by the City of Tempe for use in the Tempe Youth Fentanyl Awareness and Use dashboard and for public data access. Data Scope The dataset includes selected fentanyl-related Arizona Youth Survey results for Tempe youth in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades for available survey years. Data are provided as aggregated percentages by survey question, grade level, and year and do not represent individual survey respondents. Data Use This dataset may be used to explore fentanyl awareness and reported use among surveyed Tempe youth and to compare results across grade levels and available survey years. It supports the Tempe Youth Fentanyl Awareness and Use dashboard. Data Limitations Results represent youth participating in the Arizona Youth Survey and should be interpreted within the methodology and limitations of the survey. Availability of questions and results may vary by survey year and grade level. A value of -8888 indicates that no data were provided for the question, grade, and year combination. This may indicate that the survey question was not asked or that a result was otherwise unavailable. -8888 should not be interpreted as 0%. For additional information about the Arizona Youth Survey and its methodology, see the Arizona Youth Survey. Data Dictionary Additional Information Contact Name: Mary Mezey Contact Email: Mary_Mezey@tempe.gov Data Source: Arizona Youth Survey (AYS), Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Data Source Type: Excel workbook Preparation Method: A subset of Arizona Youth Survey results specific to Tempe was provided to the City of Tempe in Excel format. The source data were transformed into a machine-readable tabular format in Power BI. Each record represents a survey question or response category by grade level and survey year. Missing or unavailable values are represented by -8888. Publish Method: Manual Publish Frequency: Biennial, based on availability of Arizona Youth Survey data.

Date of Image: Pre-Event: August 2024, September 18, 2024 - September 26, 2024 Post-Event: September 27, 2024 - October 11, 2024 Summary: These Black Marble Day-Night Band (BRDF-Corrected) images were created by the NASA Black Marble Science team. The images corrected for atmospheric, terrain, lunar BRDF, and straylight effects, and directly measures light intensity on the ground in units of nanowatts/(steradian centimeter squared). The images are scaled from 0 - 30, and show the impact of Hurricane Helene on electric grids in the Southeast US. The baseline image is from August 2024, generated from all daily atmospheric and lunar-corrected data from that month, with additional baselines from September 18-25, 2024, and the “after" image from September 27, 2024. There is a layer to display where clouds are present. This comparison between the images is meant as a visual assessment of outage impacts from Francine to aid various partners who are working to deliver emergency aids to local communities. Power outage maps like these help disaster response efforts in the short-term as well as long-term monitoring during the crucial stages of disaster recovery. Suggested Use: NASA's Black Marble Nighttime Light product suite is a state-of-the-art daily global collection of standard products for monitoring nighttime lights (NTL). Utilizing the Visible Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) Day/Night Band (DNB) aboard the Suomi-NPP, NOAA-20, and NOAA-21 satellites. The image is in inferno color scale. Yellow represents presence of more light; dark blue less lights. Grey represents cloud cover. Satellite/Sensor: Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) Day/Night Band (DNB) onboard the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Platform (SNPP), NOAA-20, and NOAA-21 SNPP: August 2024 composite, September 18 - 24, 2024, October 1, 2024, October 10, 2024 - October 11, 2024 NOAA-20: September 25 - September 30, 2024, October 2, 2024 - October 9, 2024 Resolution: 500 meters Credits: NASA Black Marble Science team Please cite the following two references when using this data: Román MO, Stokes EC, Shrestha R, Wang Z, Schultz L, Carlo EA, Sun Q, Bell J, Molthan A, Kalb V, Ji C. Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. PloS one. 2019 Jun 28;14(6):e0218883. Román MO, Wang Z, Sun Q, Kalb V, Miller SD, Molthan A, Schultz L, Bell J, Stokes EC, Pandey B, Seto KC. NASA's Black Marble nighttime lights product suite. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2018 Jun 1;210:113-43. Point of Contact: Ranjay Shrestha NASA Goddard Space Flight Center E-mail: ranjay.m.shrestha@nasa.gov Additional Links: NASA’s Black Marble Product Suite Román, M.O. et al. (2019) Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. PLoS One, 14 (6). Román, M.O. et al. (2018) NASA’s Black Marble nighttime lights product suite. Remote Sensing of Environment. 210, 113–143. Esri REST Endpoint: See URL section on right side of page. WMS Endpoint: https://gis.earthdata.nasa.gov/portal/services/DISASTERS_202409_HURRICANE_HELENE/BLACKMARBLE_BRDF/ImageServer/WMSServer

ACS 2014 Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2014 vintage

Household type, Education, Disability, Language, Computer/Internet Use, and more. This service is updated annually with American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data. Contact: District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Email: planning@dc.gov. Geography: District-wide. Current Vintage: 2020-2024. ACS Table(s): DP02. Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey. Date of API call: March 11, 2026. National Figures: data.census.gov. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data. Data Note from the Census: Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. Data Processing Notes: This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page. Data processed using R statistical package and ArcGIS Desktop. Margin of Error was not included in this layer but is available from the Census Bureau. Contact the Office of Planning for more information about obtaining Margin of Error values.

With the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), Congress tasked states and territories to craft assessments of the forests within their boundaries and develop strategies to address threats and forest management opportunities. Now known as Forest Action Plans, these assessments and strategies provide an analysis of forest conditions and trends in the state and delineate priority forest landscape areas. They offer long-term plans for investing state, federal, and other resources where they can be most effective in achieving national conservation goals by addressing the State and Private Forestry (SPF) national priorities and objectives: 1) Conserve working forest lands, 2) Protect forests from harm, and 3) Enhance public benefits from trees and forests. Administered by the US Forest Service and implemented by State forestry agencies, the SPF Forest Stewardship Program encourages private forest landowners to manage their lands using professionally prepared Forest Stewardship plans. Participation in the Forest Stewardship Program requires that states and territories submit a raster dataset of priority areas specific to the Program - aligned with priority landscapes identified in Forest Action Plans - called Forest Stewardship Priority Areas, where they will focus their Program delivery efforts. Program performance measures include acres covered by active Forest Stewardship plans that are within Forest Stewardship Priority Areas State and territory Forest Stewardship Priority Areas data set submissions are valid for up to 10 (ten) years, but must be reviewed every 5 years and may be updated as frequently as annually. The Forest Stewardship Program Investment Areas are divided into a Federal Investment Area and a Non-Federal Investment Area. The Federal Investment Areas represent where Federal funding can be used for plan development, implementation, and monitoring. For plans outside of the Federal Investment Area, other funding will need to be used for those activities. Federal funding can be used for landowner education and assistance throughout the Forest Stewardship Program Area. ·     Forest Stewardship Federal Investment Areas: Represents no more than 50 percent of State or Territory’s nationally defined maximum acres for prioritization. Federally funded Forest Stewardship Program activities related to plan development, implementation, and monitoring with nonindustrial private forest landowners are used to accomplish: o   Reducing wildfire risk to communities (such as fuels reduction, prescribed fire) o   Enhancing wildlife habitat (such as game, and non-game) o   Protecting water resources (such as water quality, watershed management) o   Supporting jobs (such as rural prosperity) ·       Forest Stewardship Non-Federal Investment Areas: This is the remainder of the Forest Stewardship Program area where State and other leveraged funds can be used for Forest Stewardship Program plan activities. They should be used in accordance with state or territorial objectives identified in their forest action plan. This area is not subjected to any acreage caps.

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2010 vintage

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

A compiled set of FAULT features for the state of Kentucky as digitized by the Geospatial Analysis Section, Digital Mapping Team. Data set is derived from the 7.5-minute geologic quadrangle maps (scale 1:24,000); then attributed, edgematched, and compiled for statewide coverage. The data are produced and distributed by the Kentucky Geological Survey.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

Legal and Statistical Entities Web Map Service; January 1, 2020 vintage

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

CWHR Predicted Habitat Models represent areas of predicted suitable habitat for each species within its range. These models are built from the following principal inputs: 1) a statewide, best-available vegetation map (FVEG); 2) GIS data representing a species’ range; 3) the CWHR database of habitat suitability values for over 700 terrestrial vertebrate species. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (non-zero values less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66), and High (greater than 0.66) are based on the maximum suitability value across the 3 species life requisites: reproduction, feeding, and cover. Note that previous versions of these Predicted Habitat Models used an average across the 3 life requisites in order to obtain an overall suitability score for each habitat type and stage class. Habitat suitability scores were developed based on habitat patch sizes greater than 40 acres in size and are best interpreted for habitat patches greater than 200 acres in size. The FVEG landcover dataset is an aggregation of multiple statewide landcover and regional vegetation mapping efforts, conducted at different points in time (approximately 1990 up to time of publishing) and at various resolutions, compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). FVEG uses the most current and consistent data available for each region of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Crosswalks were used to attribute the various data sources according to the CWHR habitat-type classification system. Attributing FVEG with CWHR habitat types allows for the extraction of areas with non-zero suitability values for each species within the bounds of its range, creating a series of maps of predicted suitable habitat which are species-specific. Because FVEG is an amalgam of disparate landcover assessment efforts across the state, the predictive power for determining suitable habitat will vary between species, and possibly even regionally for species which are widely distributed. While these maps represent CDFW’s best estimate of the presence of suitable habitat for any given species in the CWHR system, these maps are also limited by several factors: 1) the accuracy and resolution of vegetation maps in a given region; 2) the dynamic nature of the landscape in which fire and other disturbance events alter conditions at a greater frequency than mapping efforts can track; 3) the currency of expert knowledge, particularly as species adapt to changing land and climate conditions and the shifting of other species’ ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species’ entire range; 5) metapopulation dynamics, which describes the shifting of populations within their environment as result of numerous types of interactions and responses. CWHR GIS data representing predicted suitable habitat should not be used to indicate the presence or absence of a particular species at any specific site. CWHR predicted habitat models are named according to the 4-character alpha-numeric CWHR ID assigned to each species (5 characters in the case of subspecies or other sub-taxa). There is also a “CWHR Revision Tracking Table” containing a record for each species, its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range and habitat model data revision history. CWHR species range models, predicted habitat models, and GIS data of the statewide distribution of all CWHR habitat types, along with the CWHR revision tracking table, are available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR.

Occupancy status, Units, Rooms, Year built, Owner/Renter (Tenure), Mortgage/Rent costs, and more. This service is updated annually with American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year data. Contact: District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Email: planning@dc.gov. Geography: District-wide. Current Vintage: 2023. ACS Table(s): DP04. Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey. Date of API call: January 2, 2025. National Figures: data.census.gov. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data. Data Note from the Census: Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. Data Processing Notes: This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page. Data processed using R statistical package and ArcGIS Desktop. Margin of Error was not included in this layer but is available from the Census Bureau. Contact the Office of Planning for more information about obtaining Margin of Error values.

Household type, Education, Disability, Language, Computer/Internet Use, and more. This service is updated annually with American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data. Contact: District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Email: planning@dc.gov. Geography: District-wide. Current Vintage: 2019-2023. ACS Table(s): DP02. Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey. Date of API call: January 2, 2025. National Figures: data.census.gov. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data. Data Note from the Census: Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. Data Processing Notes: This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page. Data processed using R statistical package and ArcGIS Desktop. Margin of Error was not included in this layer but is available from the Census Bureau. Contact the Office of Planning for more information about obtaining Margin of Error values.