The 2010 Forest and Range Assessment: Data

The datasets shown here were used in the various analyses of the 2010 Assessment. Updated versions of these datasets may be available from the data providers.


Name Provider Year Use Chapter
303(d) Listed Waterbodies, TMDL Program State Water Resources Control Board 2006 Input (for threat) 3.1
Aboveground Carbon Stocks FRAP 2009 Asset 3.7
Air Pollution FRAP 2009 Threat 3.2
Air Pollution Rank from PM2.5, Ozone Health and Non-attainment Days PM10 by Air Basin California Air Resources Board 2009 Input (for threat) 3.2
Anadromous Fish Watersheds FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Biomass Energy FRAP 2009 Asset 1.2
Biomass Facilities FRAP 2009 v1 N/A 3.4
Bioregions FRAP 2004 Reporting Unit 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7
Burn Severity US Forest Service 2009 Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.1
California Fire Regime Condition Class FRAP 2003 Input (for threat) 2.1, 3.5
California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) GreenInfo Network 2010 Input (for asset) 3.5
California Protected Areas Database (CPAD)** GreenInfo Network 2009 Input (for asset) 3.5, 3.6
California Tree Seed Zones Buck, et al. 1970 Input (for threat), Input (for asset) 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5
Canopy Cover Ranks from Percent Canopy Cover, National Land Cover Dataset US Geological Survey 2001 Input (for threat) 3.2
Census Blocks US Census Bureau 2000 Input (for asset) 3.6
Census Designated Places US Census Bureau 2000 Input (for asset) 2.2
Climate Change (Snowpack Decline) FRAP 2009 Threat 3.1
Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for California California Energy Commission 2009 Input (for threat) 3.1
Commercial Areas, National Land Cover Dataset US Geological Survey 2001 Input (for asset) 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3
Communities FRAP 2009 Reporting Unit, Asset, Input (for asset) 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6
Communities at Risk FRAP 2009 v1 Other 3.3
Community Wildfire Threat FRAP 2009 Threat 2.1, 3.3
County Boundaries FRAP 2009 Reporting Unit 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6
County General Plans Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century 2000 Input (for threat) 1.1, 3.1, 3.6
Current Mortality from Forest Insects and Disease, Aerial Detection Survey US Forest Service FHP 2008 v1 Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.2
Days over 90 Degrees from Daily Temperatures California Climate Action Team 2008 Input (for threat) 3.2
Development Threat (Landscape-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat 1.1
Development Threat (Localized) FRAP 2009               Threat, Input (for threat) 1.1, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7
Ecosystems FRAP 2009 Asset 1.2, 2.1, 2.2
Energy Consumption FRAP 2009 Threat 3.2
Essential Habitat Connectivity, California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project Department of Fish and Game 2010 Input (for asset) 3.5
Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) for Coho, Chinook, and Steelhead in California National Marine Fisheries Service 2006 Input (for asset) 3.1
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas FRAP 2006 Input (for threat) 2.1, 3.3
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas FRAP 2010 Input (for threat) 2.1, 3.3
Fire Perimeters FRAP 2009 Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.1
Forage Productivity UC Berkeley 2009 v1 Input (for asset) 1.2
Forest Biomass and Biomass Potentials FRAP 2005 Input (for asset) 1.2
Forest Meadows FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Forest Pest Damage (Landscape-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat 2.2
Forest Pest Damage (Stand-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat, Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.2
Forest Pest Risk US Forest Service FHP 2006 v1 Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.2, 3.6, 3.7
Forest Pest Threat (Landscape-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat 2.2
Forest Pest Threat (Stand-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat, Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.2, 3.6, 3.7
Fuel Rank FRAP 2002 Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.1
Green Infrastructure FRAP 2009 Asset 3.6
Green Infrastructure (Unprotected)*** FRAP 2009 Asset 3.6
Groundwater Basins FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Groundwater Basins (High Use) Department of Water Resources 2009 Input (for asset) 3.1
Groundwater Basins (Low Use) Department of Water Resources 2009 Input (for asset) 3.1
Groundwater Basins Vulnerable to Pollution Department of Water Resources 2009 Input (for asset) 3.1
Historic Range for Salmonids in California National Marine Fisheries Service 2003 Input (for asset) 3.1
Housing Density US Census Bureau 2000 Input (for asset) 2.1, 2.2, 3.3
Housing Density Class US Census Bureau 2000 Input (for asset), Input (for threat) 3.2
ICLUS US EPA 2008 Input (for threat) 1.1, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7
Idle and Proposed Biomass Facilities (buffered 25 miles) from Biomass Facilities FRAP 2009 v1 N/A 3.4
Impaired Waterbodies (303d) FRAP 2009 Threat 3.1
Impervious Surfaces FRAP 2009 Threat 3.1
Impervious Surfaces Rank from Impervious Surfaces, National Land Cover Dataset US Geological Survey 2001 Input (for threat) 3.2
Impervious Surfaces, National Land Cover Dataset US Geological Survey 2001 Input (for threat) 3.1, 3.2
Incorporated Cities FRAP 2009 Input (for asset) 2.2
MC1 Carbon Model Outputs**** The Nature Conservancy 2009 Input (for asset) 3.7
Major Highways, TIGER US Census Bureau 2000 Input (for asset) 2.1, 2.2, 3.3
Major Roads FRAP 2009 Asset 2.1, 2.2, 3.3
Monthly Storage in Major Reservoirs Department of Water Resources 2009 Input (for asset) 3.1
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)** US Geological Survey 2005 Input (for asset) 3.1
National Inventory of Dams* US Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Input (for asset) 3.1
Natural Landscape Blocks, Essential Connectivity Habitat and Protected Areas FRAP 2010 Asset 3.5
Naturally Occuring Lakes and Ponds FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Operational Biomass Facilities (buffered 25 miles) from Biomass Facilities FRAP 2009 v1 N/A 3.4
Ownership FRAP 2009 Reporting Unit 2.1, 2.2
Percent Canopy Cover, National Land Cover Dataset US Geological Survey 2005 Input (for asset), Input (for threat) 3.1, 3.2
Pollutants in 303(d) Listed Waterbodies State Water Resources Control Board 2006 Input (for threat) 3.1
Post-Fire Erosion FRAP 2009 Threat 3.1
Post-Fire Erosion Potential FRAP 2004 Input (for threat) 3.1
Public Conservation Trust Lands, Legacy Project Natural Resources Agency 2005 Input (for asset) 3.5
Range Productivity FRAP 2009 Asset 1.2
Recreation Areas FRAP 2009 Asset 3.6
Recreation Areas (Developed) US Forest Service 2006 Input (for asset) 3.6
Riparian Vegetation (Shading) FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Sierra Nevada Montane Meadows US Forest Service R5 2000 Input (for asset) 3.1
Soil Organic Carbon FRAP 2009 Asset 3.7
Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic FRAP 2006 Input (for threat), Input (for asset) 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.5, 3.6
Structures FRAP 2009 Asset 2.1, 2.2, 3.3
Surface Water Runoff FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Surface Water Storage Watersheds FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Thornthwaite Water Balance Model (Mean Annual Water Runoff) US Geological Survey 2007 Input (for asset) 3.1
Timber FRAP 2009 Asset 1.2
Transmission Lines FRAP 2009 Asset 2.1, 2.2, 3.3
Transmission Lines California Energy Commission 2007 Input (for asset) 2.1, 2.2, 3.3
Urban Areas US Census Bureau 2000 Input (for asset) 3.2
Urban Heat FRAP 2009 Threat 3.2
Urban Population FRAP 2009 Asset 3.2
Urban Roads Rank from Functional Roads (FUNC) CalTrans 2004 Input (for threat) 3.2
Watershed Boundaries Database USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009 Reporting Unit, Input (for asset), Input (for threat) 2.1, 3.1
Wild and Scenic River Designations Department of Fish and Game 2008 Input (for asset) 3.1
Wild and Scenic Rivers FRAP 2009 Asset 3.1
Wildfire Damage (Landscape-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat 2.1
Wildfire Damage (Stand-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat, Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.1
Wildfire Threat FRAP 2005 Input (for threat) 1.2, 2.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7
Wildfire Threat (Landscape-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat 2.1, 3.5
Wildfire Threat (Stand-Level) FRAP 2009 Threat 1.2, 2.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7
 


* Requests for National Inventory of Dams (NID) data should be made directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

** This dataset differs from that used in the analysis in that it does not include easements. Requests for easement data should be made directly to GreenInfo Network.

*** A separate unprotected green infrastructure dataset was not actually created. This dataset includes all green infrastructure lands, protected and unprotected. However, since the development threat is ranked zero for all protected lands, areas with no development threat received a zero ranking in the priority landscape.

**** Please contact Chris Keithley if you are interested in the MC1 Carbon Model Outputs dataset.

·Subscribe to our Data Updates

* indicates required

This Google™ translation feature is provided for informational purposes only.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protecton is unable to guarantee the accuracy of this translation and is therefore not liable for any inaccurate information resulting from the translation application tool.

Please consult with a translator for accuracy if you are relying on the translation or are using this site for official business.

If you have any questions please contact us here.

Select a Language Below / Seleccione el Idioma Abajo

Close this box or use the [ X ]