Geology & Mining

This dataset was updated May, 2026. This is a hosted view for the public of the California Land Ownership layer. 

This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.

The current process for compiling the data sources includes:

* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary

* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)

* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.

* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.

* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)

* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD

* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.

In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset.

Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.

Data Sources:

* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2025b). 

* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated January, 2026).  

* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated April, 2026). 

* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2026) via Ronald Lodgepole 

* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019)

Data Gaps & Changes:

Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset, and topology issues within the individual input datasets (ex: CPAD). Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

26_1: The BIA input data added datasets from newer tribal land allotments not included in previous ownership datasets. DOD and FWS were also added to with topology errors near Tijuana Slough adjusted. The DOD input appeared to shift in the original source, causing minor topology errors.

25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overalps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.

24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.

23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.

22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

The original data was compiled at 1:500,000 to 1:1,000,000 scales in participation with Federal and State agencies and nongovernmental partners. The polygon descriptions are presented for the delineated 190 section ecological units. Brief descriptions of the section map units provide an abstract primarily of the climate, physiographic, and geologic substrate that combine to form ecosystems with distinctive vegetation and other unique ecological characteristics. More information of this data set can be found at the FSGeoData Clearinghouse (http://fsgeodata.fs.fed.us/other_resources/ecosubregions.html).

The polygons in this layer show the position of Offshore Oil Leases as documented by former State Lands Senior Boundary Determination Officer, Cris N. Perez and as reviewed and updated by GIS and Boundary staff.

Background:

This layer represents active offshore oil and gas agreements in California waters, which are what remain of the more than 60 originally issued. These leases were issued prior to the catastrophic 1969 oil spill from Platform A in federal waters off Santa Barbara County, and some predate the formation of the Commission. Between 2010 and 2014, the bulk of the approximately $300 million generated annually for the state's General Fund from oil and gas agreements was from these offshore leases.

In 1921, the Legislature created the first tidelands oil and gas leasing program. Between 1921 and 1929, approximately 100 permits and leases were issued and over 850 wells were drilled in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. In 1929, the Legislature prohibited any new leases or permits. In 1933, however, the prohibition was partially lifted in response to an alleged theft of tidelands oil in Huntington Beach. It wasn't until 1938, and again in 1955, that the Legislature would allow new offshore oil and gas leasing. Except for limited circumstances, the Legislature has consistently placed limits on the areas that the Commission may offer for lease and in 1994, placed the entirety of California's coast off-limits to new oil and gas leases.

Layer Creation Process:

In 1997 Cris N. Perez, Senior Boundary Determination Officer of the Southern California Section of the State Lands Division, prepared a report on the Commission’s Offshore Oil Leases to:

A. Show the position of Offshore Oil Leases.

B. Produce a hard copy of 1927 NAD Coordinates for each lease.

C. Discuss any problems evident after plotting the leases.

Below are some of the details Cris included in the report:

I have plotted the leases that were supplied to me by the Long Beach Office and computed 1927 NAD California Coordinates for each one. Where the Mean High Tide Line (MHTL) was called for and not described in the deed, I have plotted the California State Lands Commission CB Map Coordinates, from the actual field surveys of the Mean High Water Line and referenced them wherever used.

Where the MHTL was called for and not described in the deed and no California State Lands Coordinates were available, I digitized the maps entitled, “Map of the Offshore Ownership Boundary of the State of California Drawn pursuant to the Supplemental Decree of the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. V. California, 382 U.S. 448 (1966), Scale 1:10000 Sheets 1-161.” The shore line depicted on these maps is the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) Line as shown on the Hydrographic or Topographic Sheets for the coastline. If a better fit is needed, a field survey to position this line will need to be done.

The coordinates listed in Cris’ report were retrieved through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and used to produce GIS polygons using Esri ArcGIS software. Coordinates were checked after the OCR process when producing the polygons in ArcMap to ensure accuracy. Original Coordinate systems (NAD 1927 California State Plane Zones 5 and 6) were used initially, with each zone being reprojected to NAD 83 Teale Albers Meters and merged after the review process.

While Cris’ expertise and documentation were relied upon to produce this GIS Layer, certain polygons were reviewed further for any potential updates since Cris’ document and for any unusual geometry. Boundary Determination Officers addressed these issues and plotted leases currently listed as active, but not originally in Cris’ report.

On December 24, 2014, the SLA boundary offshore of California was fixed (permanently immobilized) by a decree issued by the U.S. Supreme Court United States v. California, 135 S. Ct. 563 (2014). Offshore leases were clipped so as not to exceed the limits of this fixed boundary.

Lease Notes:

PRC 1482

The “lease area” for this lease is based on the Compensatory Royalty Agreement dated 1-21-1955 as found on the CSLC Insider. The document spells out the distinction between “leased lands” and “state lands”. The leased lands are between two private companies and the agreement only makes a claim to the State’s interest as those lands as identified and surveyed per the map Tract 893, Bk 27 Pg 24. The map shows the State’s interest as being confined to the meanders of three sloughs, one of which is severed from the bay (Anaheim) by a Tideland sale. It should be noted that the actual sovereign tide and or submerged lands for this area is all those historic tide and submerged lands minus and valid tide land sales patents. The three parcels identified were also compared to what the Orange County GIS land records system has for their parcels. Shapefiles were downloaded from that site as well as two centerline monuments for 2 roads covered by the Tract 893. It corresponded well, so their GIS linework was held and clipped or extended to make a parcel.

MJF Boundary Determination Officer 12/19/16

PRC 3455

The “lease area” for this lease is based on the Tract No. 2 Agreement, Long Beach Unit, Wilmington Oil Field, CA dated 4/01/1965 and found on the CSLC insider (also recorded March 12, 1965 in Book M 1799, Page 801).

Unit Operating Agreement, Long Beach Unit recorded March 12, 1965 in Book M 1799 page 599.

“City’s Portion of the Offshore Area” shall mean the undeveloped portion of the Long Beach tidelands as defined in Section 1(f) of Chapter 138, and includes Tract No. 1”

“State’s Portion of the Offshore Area” shall mean that portion of the Alamitos Beach Park Lands, as defined in Chapter 138, included within the Unit Area and includes Tract No. 2.”

“Alamitos Beach Park Lands” means those tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, described in that certain Judgment After Remittitur in The People of the State of California v. City of Long Beach, Case No. 683824 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, dated May 8, 1962, and entered on May 15, 1962 in Judgment Book 4481, at Page 76, of the Official Records of the above entitled court”

*The description for Tract 2 has an EXCEPTING (statement) “therefrom that portion lying Southerly of the Southerly line of the Boundary of Subsidence Area, as shown on Long Beach Harbor Department {LBHD} Drawing No. D-98. This map could not be found in records nor via a PRA request to the LBHD directly. Some maps were located that show the extents of subsidence in this area being approximately 700 feet waterward of the MHTL as determined by SCC 683824. Although the “EXCEPTING” statement appears to exclude most of what would seem like the offshore area (out to 3 nautical miles from the MHTL which is different than the actual CA offshore boundary measured from MLLW) the 1964, ch 138 grant (pg25) seems to reference the lands lying seaward of that MHTL and ”westerly of the easterly boundary of the undeveloped portion of the Long Beach tidelands, the latter of which is the same boundary (NW) of tract 2. This appears to then indicate that the “EXCEPTING” area is not part of the Lands Granted to City of Long Beach and appears to indicate that this portion might be then the “State’s Portion of the Offshore Area” as referenced in the Grant and the Unit Operating Agreement. Section “f” in the CSLC insider document (pg 9) defines the Contract Lands: means Tract No. 2 as described in Exhibit “A” to the Unit Agreement, and as shown on Exhibit “B” to the Unit Agreement, together with all other lands within the State’s Portion of the Offshore Area.

Linework has been plotted in accordance with the methods used to produce this layer, with record lines rotated to those as listed in the descriptions. The main boundaries being the MHTL(north/northeast) that appears to be fixed for most of the area (projected to the city boundary on the east/southeast); 3 nautical miles from said MHTL on the south/southwest; and the prolongation of the NWly line of Block 50 of Alamitos Bay Tract.

MJF Boundary Determination Officer 12-27-16

PRC 4736

The “lease area” for this lease is based on the Oil and Gas Lease and Agreement as found on the CSLC insider and recorded August 17, 1973 in BK 10855 PG 432 Official Records, Orange County.

The State’s Mineral Interests are confined to Parcels “B-1” and “B-2” and are referred to as “State Mineral Lands” comprising 70.00 Acres.

The lessee each has a right to certain uses including but not limited to usage of utility corridors, 110 foot radius parcels surrounding well-sites and roads. The State also has access to those same roads per this agreement/lease. Those uses are allowed in what are termed “State Lands”-Parcel E and “Leased Lands” which are defined as the “South Bolsa Lease Area”-Parcel C (2 parcels) and “North Bolsa Lease Area”-Parcel D. The “State Lands”-Parcel E are actually 3 parcels, 2 of which are within road right-of-ways.

MJF Boundary Determination Officer 12-28-16

The State Lands Commission has prepared the Significant Lands Inventory (report) for the California Legislature as a general identification and classification of those unconveyed State school lands and tide and submerged lands which possess significant environmental values. The publication incorporates evaluated and pertinent comments received on the initial draft report which was circulated statewide in February 1975.

The absence of a particular digitized waterway in the dataset does not mean that the State does not claim ownership of that parcel or waterway, or that such specific parcel or waterway has no significant environmental values. This dataset is not intended to establish ownership, only to identify those parcels which possess significant environmental values. Staff was unable to physically inventory all of the considered lands; instead, the advice and participation of those with known enviornmental expertise was utilized as additional to staff survey.

• Tide and submerged lands are digitized in the WaterBody and WaterLine feature classes; WaterLines for coastal areas, WaterBody for inland areas. Tide and submerged lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission are those sovereign lands received from the Federal Government by virtue of California's admission to the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Such lands, and State interest therein, are generally the lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean (seaward to a three-mile limit); tidal bays, sloughs, estuaries; and, navigable lakes and streams within the State.
• School Lands are digitized in the SchoolLand feature class. State school lands under the jurisdiction of the Commission are largely composed of the 16th and 36th sections of each township. The Federal Government transferred these lands to the State in 1853, in order to establish a financial foundation for a public school system. In cases where the 16th and 36th sections were mineral in character, incomplete as to acreage total, or already claimed or granted by the Federal Government, the State was permitted to select other lands "in lieu" of the specific sections.

The public trust of commerce, navigation and fisheries which the State retains on patented sovereign lands should also be considered included in this inventory. Wherever a waterway, or body of water, is listed or mapped, the common trust state interest in patented sovereign lands, if any, is also included.

The State Lands Commission emphasized when it adopted this report at its December 1, 1975 meeting that all tide and submerged lands are significant by the nature of their public ownership. Only because of the methodology used for this report are all of these waterways not specifically listed in this inventory.

It is the intent of the State Lands Commission that the Significant Lands Inventory be periodically updated. This dataset should be considered informational, to assist the Legislature, the Commission, and the public in considering the environmental aspects of a proposed project and the significant values to be protected therein.

The State Lands Commission has prepared the Significant Lands Inventory (report) for the California Legislature as a general identification and classification of those unconveyed State school lands and tide and submerged lands which possess significant environmental values. The publication incorporates evaluated and pertinent comments received on the initial draft report which was circulated statewide in February 1975.

The absence of a particular digitized waterway in the dataset does not mean that the State does not claim ownership of that parcel or waterway, or that such specific parcel or waterway has no significant environmental values. This dataset is not intended to establish ownership, only to identify those parcels which possess significant environmental values. Staff was unable to physically inventory all of the considered lands; instead, the advice and participation of those with known environmental expertise was utilized as additional to staff survey.

• Tide and submerged lands are digitized in the WaterBody and WaterLine feature classes; WaterLines for coastal areas, WaterBody for inland areas. Tide and submerged lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission are those sovereign lands received from the Federal Government by virtue of California's admission to the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Such lands, and State interest therein, are generally the lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean (seaward to a three-mile limit); tidal bays, sloughs, estuaries; and, navigable lakes and streams within the State.

• School Lands are digitized in the SchoolLand feature class. State school lands under the jurisdiction of the Commission are largely composed of the 16th and 36th sections of each township. The Federal Government transferred these lands to the State in 1853, in order to establish a financial foundation for a public school system. In cases where the 16th and 36th sections were mineral in character, incomplete as to acreage total, or already claimed or granted by the Federal Government, the State was permitted to select other lands "in lieu" of the specific sections.

The public trust of commerce, navigation and fisheries which the State retains on patented sovereign lands should also be considered included in this inventory. Wherever a waterway, or body of water, is listed or mapped, the common trust state interest in patented sovereign lands, if any, is also included.

The State Lands Commission emphasized when it adopted this report at its December 1, 1975 meeting that all tide and submerged lands are significant by the nature of their public ownership. Only because of the methodology used for this report are all of these waterways not specifically listed in this inventory.

It is the intent of the State Lands Commission that the Significant Lands Inventory be periodically updated. This dataset should be considered informational, to assist the Legislature, the Commission, and the public in considering the environmental aspects of a proposed project and the significant values to be protected therein.