The 2000 Fresno County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s San Joaquin District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and San Joaquin District. The finalized data include a shapefile of central and western Fresno County (land use vector data) and JPG files (raster data from aerial imagery). Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were either drawn on-screen using developed photoquads, or hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to the extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. If the data is compared to the previous digital survey (i.e. the two coverages intersected for change detection determination) there will be land use changes that may be unexpected. The linework was created independently, so even if a field’s physical boundary hasn’t changed between surveys, the lines may differ due to difference in digitizing. Numerous thin polygons (with very little area) will result. A result could be UV1 (paved roads) to F1 (cotton). In reality, paved roads are not converted to cotton fields, but these small polygons would be created due to the differences in digitizing the linework for each survey. Additionally, this kind of comparison may yield polygons of significant size with unexpected changes. These changes will almost always involve non-cropped land, mainly U (urban), UR1 (single family homes on 1 – 5 acres), UV (urban vacant), NV (native vegetation), and I1 (land not cropped that year, but cropped within the past three years). The unexpected results (such as U to NV, or UR1 to NV) occur mainly because of interpretation of those non-cropped land uses with aerial imagery. Newer surveys or well funded surveys have had the advantage of using improved quality (higher resolution) imagery or additional labor, where more accurate identification of land use is possible, and more accurate linework is created. For example, an older survey may have a large polygon identified as UR, where the actual land use was a mixture of houses and vacant land. A newer survey may have, for that same area, delineated separately those land uses into smaller polygons. The result of an intersection would include changes from UR to UV (which is normally an unlikely change). It is important to understand that the main purpose of DWR performing land use surveys is to aid in development of agricultural water use data. Thus, given our goals and budget, our emphasis is on obtaining accurate agricultural land uses with less emphasis on obtaining accurate non-agricultural land uses (urban and native areas). 5. Water source information was not collected for this survey. 6. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.

The 2000 Fresno County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s San Joaquin District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and San Joaquin District. The finalized data include a shapefile of central and western Fresno County (land use vector data) and JPG files (raster data from aerial imagery). Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were either drawn on-screen using developed photoquads, or hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to the extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. If the data is compared to the previous digital survey (i.e. the two coverages intersected for change detection determination) there will be land use changes that may be unexpected. The linework was created independently, so even if a field’s physical boundary hasn’t changed between surveys, the lines may differ due to difference in digitizing. Numerous thin polygons (with very little area) will result. A result could be UV1 (paved roads) to F1 (cotton). In reality, paved roads are not converted to cotton fields, but these small polygons would be created due to the differences in digitizing the linework for each survey. Additionally, this kind of comparison may yield polygons of significant size with unexpected changes. These changes will almost always involve non-cropped land, mainly U (urban), UR1 (single family homes on 1 – 5 acres), UV (urban vacant), NV (native vegetation), and I1 (land not cropped that year, but cropped within the past three years). The unexpected results (such as U to NV, or UR1 to NV) occur mainly because of interpretation of those non-cropped land uses with aerial imagery. Newer surveys or well funded surveys have had the advantage of using improved quality (higher resolution) imagery or additional labor, where more accurate identification of land use is possible, and more accurate linework is created. For example, an older survey may have a large polygon identified as UR, where the actual land use was a mixture of houses and vacant land. A newer survey may have, for that same area, delineated separately those land uses into smaller polygons. The result of an intersection would include changes from UR to UV (which is normally an unlikely change). It is important to understand that the main purpose of DWR performing land use surveys is to aid in development of agricultural water use data. Thus, given our goals and budget, our emphasis is on obtaining accurate agricultural land uses with less emphasis on obtaining accurate non-agricultural land uses (urban and native areas). 5. Water source information was not collected for this survey. 6. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.