Description: Detailed Analysis Unit-(DAU) Convergence via County Boundary cnty24k09_1_poly, (*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty24k09_1_poly), State of California. The existing DAU boundaries were extracted via cnty24k09_1_poly, Northern Region Office (NRO) via ArcMap 10.1. DAU’s were sent out to: Northern Region Office (NRO), North Central Region Office (NCRO), South Central Region Office (SCRO) and Southern Region Office (SRO) respectively. Collaboration by Department of Water Resources, Region Office personnel, Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh - NCRO, Cynthia Moffett - SCRO and Robert Fastenau - SRO with the final merge of all data into a cohesive feature class.This version was derived because a preexisting “dau_v2_105 nad27” Detailed Analysis Unit feature class that contained a multitude of variant sliver acreages along all DAU and county boundary lines through-out the State of California.Each Region Office was sent their respective features where they exposed the DAU’s sliver anomalies. They subsequently merged the variant slivers into the proper DAUs. Upon completion, the DAU feature classes were sent back for assemblage. These features are reachable by County\DAU. This allows the county boundaries, the DAU boundaries and the State of California Boundary to match Cal-Fire cnty24k09_1_poly.DAU BackgroundThe first investigation of California's water resources began in 1873 when President Ulysses S. Grant commissioned an investigation by Colonel B. S. Alexander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The state followed with its own study in 1878 when the State Engineer's office was created and filled by William Hammond Hall. The concept of a statewide water development project was first raised in 1919 by Lt. Robert B. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey. In 1931, State Engineer Edward Hyatt introduced a report identifying the facilities required and the economic means to accomplish a north-to-south water transfer. Called the "State Water Plan", the report took nine years to prepare. To implement the plan, the Legislature passed the Central Valley Act of 1933, which authorized the project. Due to lack of funds, the federal government took over the CVP as a public works project to provide jobs and its construction began in 1935.In 1945, the California Legislature authorized an investigation of statewide water resources and in 1947, the California Legislature requested that an investigation be conducted of the water resources as well as present and future water needs for all hydrologic regions in the State. Accordingly, DWR and its predecessor agencies began to collect the urban and agricultural land use and water use data that serve as the basis for the computations of current and projected water uses. The work, conducted by the Division of Water Resources (DWR’s predecessor) under the Department of Public Works, led to the publication of three important bulletins: Bulletin 1 (1951), "Water Resources of California," a collection of data on precipitation, unimpaired stream flows, flood flows and frequency, and water quality statewide; Bulletin 2 (1955), "Water Utilization and Requirements of California," estimates of water uses and forecasts of "ultimate" water needs; and Bulletin 3 (1957), "The California Water Plan," plans for full practical development of California’s water resources, both by local projects and a major State project to meet the State's ultimate needs. (**See brief addendum below** “The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region”)DWR subdivided California into study areas for planning purposes. The largest study areas are the ten hydrologic regions (HR), corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. The next levels of delineation are the Planning Areas (PA), which in turn are composed of multiple detailed analysis units (DAU). The DAUs are often split by county boundaries, so are the smallest study areas used by DWR. The DAU/counties are used for estimating water demand by agricultural crops and other surfaces for water resources planning. Under current guidelines, each DAU/County has multiple crop and land-use categories. Many planning studies begin at the DAU or PA level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.Since 1950 DWR has conducted over 250 land use surveys of all or parts of California's 58 counties. Early land use surveys were recorded on paper maps of USGS 7.5' quadrangles. In 1986, DWR began to develop georeferenced digital maps of land use survey data, which are available for download. Long term goals for this program is to survey land use more frequently and efficiently using satellite imagery, high elevation digital imagery, local sources of data, and remote sensing in conjunction with field surveys.There are currently 58 counties and 278 DAUs in California.Due to some DAUs being split by county lines, the total number of DAU’s identifiable via DAU by County is 782.**ADDENDUM**The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region[Detailed Analysis Units made up of a grouping of the Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) boundaries occurred on the Eastern Foothills and Mountains within the Sacramento Region. Other DSA’s were divided into two or more DAU’s; for example, DSA 58 (Redding Basin) was divided into 3 DAU’s; 143,141, and 145. Mountain areas on both the east and west side of the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam went from ridge top to ridge top, or topographic highs. If available, boundaries were set adjacent to stream gages located at the low point of rivers and major creek drainages.Later, as the DAU’s were developed, some of the smaller watershed DSA boundaries in the foothill and mountain areas were grouped. The Pit River DSA was split so water use in the larger valleys (Alturas area, Big Valley, Fall River Valley, Hat Creek) could be analyzed. A change in the boundary of the Sacramento Region mountain area occurred at this time when Goose Lake near the Oregon State Line was included as part of the Sacramento Region.The Sacramento Valley Floor hydrologic boundary was at the edge of the alluvial soils and slightly modified to follow the water bearing sediments to a depth of 200 feet or more. Stream gages were located on incoming streams and used as an exception to the alluvial soil boundary. Another exception to the alluvial boundary was the inclusion of the foothills between Red Bluff and the Redding Basin. Modifications of the valley floor exterior boundary were made to facilitate analysis; some areas at the northern end of the valley followed section lines or other established boundaries.Valley floor boundaries, as originally shown in Bulletin 2, Water Utilization and Requirements of California, 1955 were based on physical topographic features such as ridges even if they only rise a few feet between basins and/or drainage areas. A few boundaries were based on drainage canals. The Joint DWR-USBR Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) used drainage areas where topographic highs drained into one drainage basin. Some areas were difficult to study, particularly in areas transected by major rivers. Depletion Study Drainage Areas containing large rivers were separated into two DAU’s; one on each side of the river. This made it easier to analyze water source, water supply, and water use and drainage outflow from the DAU.Many of the DAUs that consist of natural drainage basins have stream gages located at outfall gates, which provided an accurate estimate of water leaving the unit. Detailed Analysis Units based on political boundaries or other criteria are much more difficult to analyze than those units that follow natural drainage basins.]**END ADDENDUM**FieldsData TypeDescriptionDAU_CODETextDetailed Analysis Units NumberDAU_NAMETextDetailed Analysis Unit NameHR CODETextHydrologic RegionsHR_NAMETextHydrologic Region NameNAME_PCASETextCounty Name Upper\Lower CaseNAME_UCASETextCounty Name Upper CaseFMNAME_PCTextName Upper\Lower Case - CountyFMNAME_UCTextCounty Name Upper Case ABBREVTextCounty Abbreviation ABCODETextCodeFIPSTextFederal Information Processing Standards, 3-Digit NumberACRESDoubleAcres Of Polygonal Feature –Not DynamicPA_NOTextPlanning Area NumberPA_LABELTextPlanning Area LabelPSA_CODETextHistoric Planning Area NumberPSA_NAMETextHistoric Planning Area LabelDAUID_CODETextCodeISLANDTextYes\NoIslandnameTextIsland NameVxcountLongFeature Vertex Count –Not DynamicRegionTextDWR Regional Boundary & NameRegion_AbrevTextDWR Regional Boundary & Name AbbreviationX-COORDDoubleX Coordinate Centroid –Not DynamicY-COORDDoubleY Coordinate Centroid –Not DynamicShape_LengthDoubleShape Length - DynamicShape_AreaDoubleShape Area- Dynamic.............................................................................................................................................cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Summary:Ideally, state and federal agencies should be using the same framework data for common themes such as county boundaries. This layer provides an initial offering as "best available" at 1:24,000 scale. Additional improvements, including a review of data sources for the coastline, can be added over time based on interagency review and agreement on proposed changes.cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Description:In late 1996, the Dept. of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) dataset (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the lineage section of the metadata. A dataset named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 dataset was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the dataset to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL-FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL-FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL-FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has been renamed cnty24k09_1. Detailed documentation of changes is included in the Process Step section of the metadata.cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Credits:U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire protectioncnty24k09_1_poly metadata Use Limitations:See Citation section for FRAP disclaimer
Copyright Text: Department of Water Resources:
Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh, NCRO, Cynthia Moffett, SCRO and Robert Fastenau, SRO.