The BEPS Program was created by Title III of the?Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018. The BEPS is a minimum threshold of energy performance that will be no lower than the local median?ENERGY STAR?score by property type (or equivalent metric). The standards were created to drive energy performance in existing buildings to help meet the energy and climate goals of the?Sustainable DC?plan \u2014 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption by 50% by 2032. DOEE established the first set of Standards on January 1, 2021. Standards will then be set every 6 years, creating BEPS Periods (BEPS Period 1, BEPS Period 2, etc.). The 2021 Building Energy Performance Standards and a Guide to the 2021 BEPS are available for viewing on DOEE\u2019s website.
To improve transparency and help building owners understand how their building performs relative to the BEPS, DOEE is publishing this BEPS Disclosure that compares a building\u2019s benchmarking data with the BEPS and provides an estimate of the building\u2019s distance from the standard and estimated performance requirement.
Please note that this dataset is based on information currently available to DOEE using calendar year 2019 benchmarking data provided by the building owner. Some buildings are still being evaluated and therefore have been designated as \u201cUnder Review\u201d in this dataset. Building owners that believe their 2019 calendar year data is incorrect should contact the Benchmarking Help Center (info.benchmark@dc.gov). Additionally, buildings that meet certain criteria may request a variance from the standards by submitting a variance request form on the DOEE website.
The BEPS Program was created by Title III of the?Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018. The BEPS is a minimum threshold of energy performance that will be no lower than the local median?ENERGY STAR?score by property type (or equivalent metric). The standards were created to drive energy performance in existing buildings to help meet the energy and climate goals of the?Sustainable DC?plan \u2014 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption by 50% by 2032. DOEE established the first set of Standards on January 1, 2021. Standards will then be set every 6 years, creating BEPS Periods (BEPS Period 1, BEPS Period 2, etc.). The 2021 Building Energy Performance Standards and a Guide to the 2021 BEPS are available for viewing on DOEE\u2019s website.
To improve transparency and help building owners understand how their building performs relative to the BEPS, DOEE is publishing this BEPS Disclosure that compares a building\u2019s benchmarking data with the BEPS and provides an estimate of the building\u2019s distance from the standard and estimated performance requirement.
Please note that this dataset is based on information currently available to DOEE using calendar year 2019 benchmarking data provided by the building owner. Some buildings are still being evaluated and therefore have been designated as \u201cUnder Review\u201d in this dataset. Building owners that believe their 2019 calendar year data is incorrect should contact the Benchmarking Help Center (info.benchmark@dc.gov). Additionally, buildings that meet certain criteria may request a variance from the standards by submitting a variance request form on the DOEE website.
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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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.
Renewable energy resources like wind facilities vary in size and geographic distribution within each state. Resource planning, land use constraints, climate zones, and weather patterns limit availability of these resources and where they can be developed.\u00a0 National, state, and local policies also set limits on energy generation and use. An example of resource planning in California is the\u00a0Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.\u00a0
By exploring the visualization, a viewer can gain a three-dimensional understanding of temporal variation in generation CFs, along with how the wind generation areas compare to one another. The viewer can observe that areas peak in generation in different periods. The large range in CFs is also visible.
Renewable energy resources like wind facilities vary in size and geographic distribution within each state. Resource planning, land use constraints, climate zones, and weather patterns limit availability of these resources and where they can be developed.\u00a0 National, state, and local policies also set limits on energy generation and use. An example of resource planning in California is the\u00a0Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.\u00a0
By exploring the visualization, a viewer can gain a three-dimensional understanding of temporal variation in generation CFs, along with how the wind generation areas compare to one another. The viewer can observe that areas peak in generation in different periods. The large range in CFs is also visible.
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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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.
The height and color of columns at project locations are scaled and shaded to represent CFs of the projects in a specific month and year. (Capacity factor is the ratio of the energy produced to the amount that could ideally have been produced in the same period using the nameplate capacity.) The capacity used is the annually reported capacity from the Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report (CEC-1304). The data excludes hydroelectric plants that are inactive: those reporting a status of indefinite shutdown, out of service, retired, or unknown\u00a0 Some hydroelectric generators can run at more than nameplate capacity, and the CF can be over 100 percent in some months.\u00a0
Several hydroelectric plants operate as pumped storage plants, and the net energy consumed for pumping is displayed as a negative CF, also based on the nameplate capacity.\u00a0 Plants with negative factors in a month appear as columns below the map surface.\u00a0
Renewable energy resources like these hydroelectric facilities vary in size and geographic distribution within each state. Resource planning, land use constraints, climate zones, and weather patterns limit availability of these resources and where they can be developed.\u00a0 National, state, and local policies also set limits on energy generation and use. An example of resource planning in California is the\u00a0Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.\u00a0
By exploring the visualization, a viewer can gain a three-dimensional understanding of seasonal variation in generation CFs, along with the locations and distribution of generation projects. Moving through the 3-D space gives a conception of generation CFs across the state. The viewer can observe that projects peak in generation and energy consumption in different months, depending on where and how they are operated. The large range in CFs is also apparent.
The interactive map visualization and data analysis are created by CEC staff. Values displayed are subject to revision when more accurate data is available.
For further information, contact\u00a0qfergen@energy.ca.gov.
The height and color of columns at project locations are scaled and shaded to represent CFs of the projects in a specific month and year. (Capacity factor is the ratio of the energy produced to the amount that could ideally have been produced in the same period using the nameplate capacity.) The capacity used is the annually reported capacity from the Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report (CEC-1304). The data excludes hydroelectric plants that are inactive: those reporting a status of indefinite shutdown, out of service, retired, or unknown\u00a0 Some hydroelectric generators can run at more than nameplate capacity, and the CF can be over 100 percent in some months.\u00a0
Several hydroelectric plants operate as pumped storage plants, and the net energy consumed for pumping is displayed as a negative CF, also based on the nameplate capacity.\u00a0 Plants with negative factors in a month appear as columns below the map surface.\u00a0
Renewable energy resources like these hydroelectric facilities vary in size and geographic distribution within each state. Resource planning, land use constraints, climate zones, and weather patterns limit availability of these resources and where they can be developed.\u00a0 National, state, and local policies also set limits on energy generation and use. An example of resource planning in California is the\u00a0Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.\u00a0
By exploring the visualization, a viewer can gain a three-dimensional understanding of seasonal variation in generation CFs, along with the locations and distribution of generation projects. Moving through the 3-D space gives a conception of generation CFs across the state. The viewer can observe that projects peak in generation and energy consumption in different months, depending on where and how they are operated. The large range in CFs is also apparent.
The interactive map visualization and data analysis are created by CEC staff. Values displayed are subject to revision when more accurate data is available.
For further information, contact\u00a0qfergen@energy.ca.gov.
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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019 ranges; 4) the frequency of species-specific surveys across a representative sample of a species\u2019 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 \u201cCWHR Revision Tracking Table\u201d 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.
This dataset is a draft crosswalk, indicating which public water systems are owned and operated by which urban retail water suppliers. \u201cUrban retail water supplier\u201d means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet of potable water annually at retail for municipal purposes. The Department of Water Resources has assigned each Urban Retail Water Suppliers a unique \"Organization Identification.\" Urban Retail Water Suppliers in California operate one or more public water systems. A \u201cpublic water system\u201d means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances. The State Water Resources Control Board has assigned each public water system a unique \"public water system identification.\" This dataset connects each Supplier's \"Organization Identification\" number to its \"public water system identification\" number or numbers.\r\n\r\nSystems identified in this crosswalk may not be relevant to the water loss or \"Conservation as a Way of Life\" regulations. Contact [orpp-waterconservation@waterboards.ca.gov](mailto:orpp-waterconservation@waterboards.ca.gov) for any questions or corrections to this crosswalk.","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/dc42f085-75d8-48e0-b795-8ede6ee576c2/download/urws-crosswalk.csv","format":"CSV","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"[Archived] PWSID-DWRID Crosswalk"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedBy":"https://data.ca.gov/api/action/datastore_search?resource_id=f2f53681-0bc5-4451-9f0c-7f29d8b39107&limit=0","describedByType":"application/json","description":"This file contains weighted average annual ETo, total precipitation, and Peff data on a fiscal year basis at the service area level for suppliers that have received their residential Landscape Area Measurement results from the Department of Water Resources. The tables from which this dataset have been compiled are released by the Department of Water Resources per fiscal year at [this page](https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/dwr-urban-water-use-objective-data).\r\n\r\nTo submit alternative data for consideration, contact [WUEStandards@water.ca.gov](mailto:WUEStandards@water.ca.gov).","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/f2f53681-0bc5-4451-9f0c-7f29d8b39107/download/annual_data.csv","format":"CSV","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Annual Weather Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedBy":"https://data.ca.gov/api/action/datastore_search?resource_id=f6285bcc-81b0-478a-87f6-789779c79d95&limit=0","describedByType":"application/json","description":"Seasonal ETo, Peff, and ETF data are provided for calculating agricultural variances for suppliers that have qualifying urban agriculture acreage in their service area. Seasonal values are weighted average values that are calculated based on crop acreages within the service area boundaries. Crop acreages are derived from DWR\u2019s land use data layer ([CADWR Land Use Viewer](https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/?page=home)). The evapotranspiration fraction (ETF) was calculated from weighted average values of crop coefficient (Kc) and irrigation efficiency (IE), which are also provided in this file.\r\n\r\nThe tables from which this dataset have been compiled are released by the Department of Water Resources per fiscal year at [this page](https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/dwr-urban-water-use-objective-data).","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/f6285bcc-81b0-478a-87f6-789779c79d95/download/seasonal_data.csv","format":"CSV","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Seasonal Weather Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/16a2fe04-065c-4923-9ce4-ec858e7e89fc/download/sbx_table.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/16a2fe04-065c-4923-9ce4-ec858e7e89fc","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - SB X7-7 Targets for Urban Retail Water Suppliers"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/1f1e87fa-8680-4693-92c9-49f8da3d9116/download/water_loss_standards.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/1f1e87fa-8680-4693-92c9-49f8da3d9116","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - Real Water Loss Budget: System-Specific Standards"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/27559969-e5d4-4d5f-a95d-7ecc4fc4f5e3/download/res_indoor_var_provn.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/27559969-e5d4-4d5f-a95d-7ecc4fc4f5e3","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - Residential Indoor Variances and Temporary Provisions"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/4a391691-5cd3-4179-9d68-4f8f10c0291a/download/submission_approval_var_provn_rev.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/4a391691-5cd3-4179-9d68-4f8f10c0291a","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - Submissions and Approvals for Variances and Temporary Provisions"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/4c2a23fc-27d8-4733-89a2-1c65a5e81c27/download/urwscrosswalkupdate.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/4c2a23fc-27d8-4733-89a2-1c65a5e81c27","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - PWSID-DWR ID Crosswalk"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/79b8d6fb-8646-448f-b8c9-4f622836a218/download/res_outdoor_var_provn.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/79b8d6fb-8646-448f-b8c9-4f622836a218","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - Residential Outdoor Variances and Temporary Provisions"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/9f72bb77-cceb-4bc9-b04f-b7b2aed01b76/download/cii_service_connections.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/9f72bb77-cceb-4bc9-b04f-b7b2aed01b76","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - CII Service Connections"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/f2f53681-0bc5-4451-9f0c-7f29d8b39107/download/annual_data.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/f2f53681-0bc5-4451-9f0c-7f29d8b39107","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - Annual Weather Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Data Dictionary for https://data.ca.gov/dataset/d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959/resource/f6285bcc-81b0-478a-87f6-789779c79d95/download/seasonal_data.csv","downloadURL":"https://data.ca.gov/datastore/dictionary_download/f6285bcc-81b0-478a-87f6-789779c79d95","format":"CSV","isDataDictionary":true,"mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Data Dictionary - Seasonal Weather Data"}],"identifier":"d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959","issued":"2024-02-16T23:39:16.833881","keyword":["AB1668","Making Conservation a California Way of Life","SB606","Urban Water Conservation Objectives","managing urban water use"],"license":"http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/odc-pddl","modified":"2026-08-25T19:32:51.294353","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"California State Water Resources Control Board"},"title":"Urban Water Use Objectives \u2013 Relevant Data"},"description":"The Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulation requires urban retail water suppliers (URWS) to annually calculate their Urban Water Use Objective (UWUO), which is the sum of efficiency budgets for a subset of urban water uses: residential indoor water use, residential outdoor water use, real water loss and commercial, industrial and institutional landscapes with dedicated irrigation meters. Each efficiency budget will be calculated using a statewide efficiency standard and local service area characteristics such as population, climate, and landscape area. Where relevant, suppliers may also include in their objective \u201cvariances\u201d for unique uses, or a bonus incentive for potable recycled water use. \r\n\r\nThis dataset contains information gathered from reports submitted to the State Water Board, the Department of Water Resources, and other relevant information sources. It also contains information derived by the Board and the Department for the purpose of the regulation. The values in these tables are used to pre-fill a number of fields within the UWUO reporting form that URWS are required to submit by January 1 of each year, starting in 2025. \r\n\r\nTo view the submitted values, please visit [this page](https://data.ca.gov/dataset/urban-water-use-objectives-compiled-report-data).","distribution_titles":["[Archived] Submissions and Approvals for Variances and Temporary Provisions","SB X7-7 Targets for Urban Retail Water Suppliers","Real Water Loss Budget: System-Specific Standards","Residential Indoor Variances and Temporary Provisions","[Archived] Emergency and High Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Variances","Submissions and Approvals for Variances and Temporary Provisions","PWSID-DWR ID Crosswalk","Real Water Loss: Data from Water Loss Audits","[Archived] Residential Outdoor Variances and Temporary Provisions","Residential Outdoor Variances and Temporary Provisions","[Archived] Res-Outdoor Budget: Landscape Area Measurement","Res-Indoor Budget: SDWIS Residential Population","Potable and Non-Potable Water Deliveries for URWS","Res-Outdoor Budget: Landscape Area Measurement","Potable Water Produced by URWS, per Source","CII Service Connections","Emergency and High Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Variances","[Archived] Residential Indoor Variances and Temporary Provisions","Potable Supply and Sold/Exported for URWS","[Archived] PWSID-DWRID Crosswalk","Annual Weather Data","Seasonal Weather Data","Data Dictionary - SB X7-7 Targets for Urban Retail Water Suppliers","Data Dictionary - Real Water Loss Budget: System-Specific Standards","Data Dictionary - Residential Indoor Variances and Temporary Provisions","Data Dictionary - Submissions and Approvals for Variances and Temporary Provisions","Data Dictionary - PWSID-DWR ID Crosswalk","Data Dictionary - Residential Outdoor Variances and Temporary Provisions","Data Dictionary - CII Service Connections","Data Dictionary - Annual Weather Data","Data Dictionary - Seasonal Weather Data"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/3806c27a-82ab-489c-bbdb-d2a1a9eeb3e3","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/3806c27a-82ab-489c-bbdb-d2a1a9eeb3e3/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":false,"identifier":"d3d441c4-2c9e-4bd6-8e85-77214e728959","keyword":["AB1668","Making Conservation a California Way of Life","SB606","Urban Water Conservation Objectives","managing urban water use"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-25T20:34:59.392290","organization":{"aliases":["ca"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"ae56c24b-46d3-4688-965e-94bdc208164f","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/state_CA.png","name":"State of California","organization_type":"State Government","slug":"california"},"popularity":3,"publisher":"California State Water Resources Control Board","slug":"urban-water-use-objectives-relevant-data","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":[],"title":"Urban Water Use Objectives \u2013 Relevant Data","type":"dataset"},{"_score":9.018622,"_sort":[1787620985448,9.018622,0,"b6f47c75-1165-414e-b780-21db79478291"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Bruce Dugger","hasEmail":"mailto:bruce.dugger@oregonstate.edu"},"description":"Habitat condition, both acres flooded and timing of inundation, were determined using remote sensing images from Landsat 5 and 8 for the Lower Klamath Basin, the representative basin for the southern Oregon and northeast California (SONEC) region. The dataset includes proportional water coverage (acres) for 8,825 distinct patches in Lower Klamath over 6 different time periods (1984-89; 1990-94; 1995-99; 2000-04; 2005-09; 2010-16), with a total of 368,301 acres of possibly foreageable land.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.4dfc3dcd-51d1-4c6e-beb7-97c8eddc7db3.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_4dfc3dcd-51d1-4c6e-beb7-97c8eddc7db3","keyword":["California","Klamath","Lower Klamath","Modoc","Oregon","Siskiyou","USGS:4dfc3dcd-51d1-4c6e-beb7-97c8eddc7db3","climate change","geoscientificInformation","geospatial datasets","habitats","hydrology","wetland ecosystems"],"modified":"2026-08-21T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-122.1335, 41.7106, -121.1767, 42.3773","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Water Coverage Data in Lower Klamath Basin, 1984-2016"},"description":"Habitat condition, both acres flooded and timing of inundation, were determined using remote sensing images from Landsat 5 and 8 for the Lower Klamath Basin, the representative basin for the southern Oregon and northeast California (SONEC) region. The dataset includes proportional water coverage (acres) for 8,825 distinct patches in Lower Klamath over 6 different time periods (1984-89; 1990-94; 1995-99; 2000-04; 2005-09; 2010-16), with a total of 368,301 acres of possibly foreageable land.","distribution_titles":["Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/d20a7fef-98f5-469c-be8e-e96771dfb1df","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/d20a7fef-98f5-469c-be8e-e96771dfb1df/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_4dfc3dcd-51d1-4c6e-beb7-97c8eddc7db3","keyword":["California","Klamath","Lower Klamath","Modoc","Oregon","Siskiyou","USGS:4dfc3dcd-51d1-4c6e-beb7-97c8eddc7db3","climate change","geoscientificInformation","geospatial datasets","habitats","hydrology","wetland ecosystems"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-25T01:23:05.448646","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"water-coverage-data-in-lower-klamath-basin-1984-2016","spatial_centroid":{"lat":41.97727999999999,"lon":-121.75077999999999},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-122.1335,41.7106],[-122.1335,42.3773],[-121.1767,42.3773],[-121.1767,41.7106],[-122.1335,41.7106]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Water Coverage Data in Lower Klamath Basin, 1984-2016","type":"dataset"},{"_score":9.0126705,"_sort":[1787620903785,9.0126705,0,"d40b4885-de68-4012-b996-ec3930c207fd"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Brent Lofgren","hasEmail":"mailto:brent.lofgren@noaa.gov"},"description":"A Coupled Hydrosphere Atmosphere Research Model was developed that predicted vertical water temperature profiles, ice cover, and precipitation within 40-km grids and lake levels for Lakes Huron and Lake Michigan between 2058 and 2066. In this data set, daily predicted water temperature profiles are summarized for four regions of each lake. Model output was driven by the Canadian CRCM3 GCM and assumed SRES A2 scenario greenhouse gas concentrations.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13HGTYM","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.7237e9ca-60e1-48db-b418-f4a6ec575b97.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_7237e9ca-60e1-48db-b418-f4a6ec575b97","keyword":["Great Lakes","Lake Huron","Lake Michigan","Michigan","USGS:7237e9ca-60e1-48db-b418-f4a6ec575b97","biota","climate change","environment","greenhouse gases","inlandWaters","water temperature"],"modified":"2026-08-21T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-88.2422, 41.2857, -79.9365, 46.1719","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Downscaled Vertical Water Temperature Profiles from a Coupled Hydrosphere Atmosphere Research Model: 2058-2066"},"description":"A Coupled Hydrosphere Atmosphere Research Model was developed that predicted vertical water temperature profiles, ice cover, and precipitation within 40-km grids and lake levels for Lakes Huron and Lake Michigan between 2058 and 2066. In this data set, daily predicted water temperature profiles are summarized for four regions of each lake. Model output was driven by the Canadian CRCM3 GCM and assumed SRES A2 scenario greenhouse gas concentrations.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/d580b651-32a9-49f1-8dea-eeb49bba1d18","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/d580b651-32a9-49f1-8dea-eeb49bba1d18/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_7237e9ca-60e1-48db-b418-f4a6ec575b97","keyword":["Great Lakes","Lake Huron","Lake Michigan","Michigan","USGS:7237e9ca-60e1-48db-b418-f4a6ec575b97","biota","climate change","environment","greenhouse gases","inlandWaters","water temperature"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-25T01:21:43.785822","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"downscaled-vertical-water-temperature-profiles-from-a-coupled-hydrosphere-atmosp-2058-2066","spatial_centroid":{"lat":43.240179999999995,"lon":-84.91992},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-88.2422,41.2857],[-88.2422,46.1719],[-79.9365,46.1719],[-79.9365,41.2857],[-88.2422,41.2857]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Downscaled Vertical Water Temperature Profiles from a Coupled Hydrosphere Atmosphere Research Model: 2058-2066","type":"dataset"},{"_score":9.343786,"_sort":[1787619622389,9.343786,0,"a943399e-607f-4678-8ba3-8c1c821ebe28"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"David M Warner","hasEmail":"mailto:dmwarner@usgs.gov"},"description":"Data represent lakewide mean primary production and lakewide mean estimated from SeaWifs and/or MODIS AQUA satellite data. Each daily value represents the mean of all raster cells for the particular day.\n","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1CEKUQQ","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.8a2845c2-4965-4bae-a961-0708f8150b39.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_8a2845c2-4965-4bae-a961-0708f8150b39","keyword":["Chlorophylls","Great Lakes","Lake Huron","Lake Michigan","Michigan","USGS:8a2845c2-4965-4bae-a961-0708f8150b39","biota","climate change","environment","inlandWaters"],"modified":"2026-08-21T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-88.0444, 41.6000, -80.6177, 46.1494","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Lakewide Satellite-Derived Mean Daily Chlorophyll-a and Primary Production Estimates in Lakes Michigan and Huron 1998-2008"},"description":"Data represent lakewide mean primary production and lakewide mean estimated from SeaWifs and/or MODIS AQUA satellite data. Each daily value represents the mean of all raster cells for the particular day.\n","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/08bd8837-6af4-43cb-8173-6a86d65d7726","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/08bd8837-6af4-43cb-8173-6a86d65d7726/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_8a2845c2-4965-4bae-a961-0708f8150b39","keyword":["Chlorophylls","Great Lakes","Lake Huron","Lake Michigan","Michigan","USGS:8a2845c2-4965-4bae-a961-0708f8150b39","biota","climate change","environment","inlandWaters"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-25T01:00:22.389013","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"lakewide-satellite-derived-mean-daily-chlorophyll-a-and-primary-production-estim-1998-2008","spatial_centroid":{"lat":43.419760000000004,"lon":-85.07372000000001},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-88.0444,41.6],[-88.0444,46.1494],[-80.6177,46.1494],[-80.6177,41.6],[-88.0444,41.6]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Lakewide Satellite-Derived Mean Daily Chlorophyll-a and Primary Production Estimates in Lakes Michigan and Huron 1998-2008","type":"dataset"},{"_score":57.831326,"_sort":[1787618244030,57.831326,0,"68932de4-f4b1-4d8a-a1d5-b8b25ea000f1"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Seth Munson","hasEmail":"mailto:smunson@usgs.gov"},"description":"This dataset includes herbaria specimen records that report collection location and date (from 1895 \u2013 2013) for grasses from the Southwest Environmental Information Network (http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet, Accessed 3 March 2014; 79% of records) and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.gbif.org, [accessed 3 March 2014]; 21% of records) for 12 states in the western United States. Associated climate data include monthly mean temperature, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation from the herbaria record locations from climate rasters provided by the PRISM Climate Group (http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu, [accessed 1 May 2014]). We derived climate variables expected to be biologically meaningful for plant performance based on annual trends, seasonality, and extreme conditions (Bioclim, http://www.worldclim.org/bioclim, [accessed 14 May 2014]) using the PRISM monthly temperature and precipitation values.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.bc40c96e-edf0-46a1-915d-dbe69e54f341.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_bc40c96e-edf0-46a1-915d-dbe69e54f341","keyword":["C3 and C4 grasses","USGS:bc40c96e-edf0-46a1-915d-dbe69e54f341","biota","climate change effects","environment","flowering time","functional trait","herbaria records","water-limited ecoregions"],"modified":"2026-08-21T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-124.9400, 31.1700, -109.0000, 49.0000","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Data for Climate drives shifts in grass reproductive phenology across the western U.S. (1895-2013)"},"description":"This dataset includes herbaria specimen records that report collection location and date (from 1895 \u2013 2013) for grasses from the Southwest Environmental Information Network (http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet, Accessed 3 March 2014; 79% of records) and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.gbif.org, [accessed 3 March 2014]; 21% of records) for 12 states in the western United States. Associated climate data include monthly mean temperature, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation from the herbaria record locations from climate rasters provided by the PRISM Climate Group (http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu, [accessed 1 May 2014]). We derived climate variables expected to be biologically meaningful for plant performance based on annual trends, seasonality, and extreme conditions (Bioclim, http://www.worldclim.org/bioclim, [accessed 14 May 2014]) using the PRISM monthly temperature and precipitation values.","distribution_titles":["Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e2b307a2-6e27-4ec9-84b3-a3026311d3cd","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e2b307a2-6e27-4ec9-84b3-a3026311d3cd/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_bc40c96e-edf0-46a1-915d-dbe69e54f341","keyword":["C3 and C4 grasses","USGS:bc40c96e-edf0-46a1-915d-dbe69e54f341","biota","climate change effects","environment","flowering time","functional trait","herbaria records","water-limited ecoregions"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-25T00:37:24.030209","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"data-for-climate-drives-shifts-in-grass-reproductive-phenology-across-the-wester-1895-2013","spatial_centroid":{"lat":38.302,"lon":-118.564},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-124.94,31.17],[-124.94,49.0],[-109.0,49.0],[-109.0,31.17],[-124.94,31.17]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Data for Climate drives shifts in grass reproductive phenology across the western U.S. (1895-2013)","type":"dataset"},{"_score":12.008997,"_sort":[1787448208741,12.008997,4,"23fb65b1-2292-45b4-bea7-34516f2cfd4d"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:76"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Geospatial Support","hasEmail":"mailto:geospatial@bia.gov"},"description":"
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) are chartered by their respective tribal governments, including the ten tribes within the largest reservations in the United States. The 33 accredited TCUs operate more than 90 campuses and sites in 15 states\u2014covering most of Indian Country\u2014and serve students from well more than 250 federally recognized Indian tribes. TCUs vary in enrollment (size), focus (liberal arts, sciences, workforce development/training), location (woodlands, desert, frozen tundra, rural, urban), and student population (predominantly American Indian). However, tribal identity is the core of every TCU, and they all share the mission of tribal self-determination and service to their respective communities.
These academically rigorous institutions engage in partnerships with organizations including U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and universities nationwide to support research and education programs that focus on issues such as climate change, sustainable agriculture, water quality, wildlife population dynamics, and diabetes prevention. Many support distance learning involving state-of-the-art learning environments.
","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://onemap-bia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/api/download/v1/items/607ecde42f634f70ac56a61342de0870/csv?layers=0","format":"CSV","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"CSV"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://onemap-bia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/api/download/v1/items/607ecde42f634f70ac56a61342de0870/geojson?layers=0","format":"GeoJSON","mediaType":"application/vnd.geo+json","title":"GeoJSON"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://onemap-bia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/api/download/v1/items/607ecde42f634f70ac56a61342de0870/kml?layers=0","format":"KML","mediaType":"application/vnd.google-earth.kml+xml","title":"KML"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://onemap-bia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/api/download/v1/items/607ecde42f634f70ac56a61342de0870/shapefile?layers=0","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Shapefile"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://onemap-bia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BIA-Geospatial::tribal-colleges-and-universities-tcu","format":"Web Page","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Hub Dataset"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://services1.arcgis.com/UxqqIfhng71wUT9x/arcgis/rest/services/TCU_Colleges/FeatureServer/0","format":"ArcGIS GeoServices REST API","mediaType":"application/json","title":"ArcGIS GeoService"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://services1.arcgis.com/UxqqIfhng71wUT9x/arcgis/rest/services/TCU_Colleges/FeatureServer/0/metadata?format=iso19139","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"ISO-19139 metadata"}],"identifier":"https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=607ecde42f634f70ac56a61342de0870&sublayer=0","issued":"2023-06-26T19:50:25Z","keyword":["BOGS","Pathways"],"landingPage":"https://onemap-bia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BIA-Geospatial::tribal-colleges-and-universities-tcu","license":"https://www.idmanagement.gov/license/","modified":"2026-08-21T10:09:26.884Z","programCode":["010:000"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Bureau of Indian Affairs"},"spatial":"-158.5303,55.3158,-131.5278,71.2952","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU)"},"description":"Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) are chartered by their respective tribal governments, including the ten tribes within the largest reservations in the United States. The 33 accredited TCUs operate more than 90 campuses and sites in 15 states\u2014covering most of Indian Country\u2014and serve students from well more than 250 federally recognized Indian tribes. TCUs vary in enrollment (size), focus (liberal arts, sciences, workforce development/training), location (woodlands, desert, frozen tundra, rural, urban), and student population (predominantly American Indian). However, tribal identity is the core of every TCU, and they all share the mission of tribal self-determination and service to their respective communities.
These academically rigorous institutions engage in partnerships with organizations including U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and universities nationwide to support research and education programs that focus on issues such as climate change, sustainable agriculture, water quality, wildlife population dynamics, and diabetes prevention. Many support distance learning involving state-of-the-art learning environments.
","distribution_titles":["CSV","GeoJSON","KML","Shapefile","ArcGIS Hub Dataset","ArcGIS GeoService","ISO-19139 metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/a6f8cdd0-26b6-4d5c-a5fb-162eec6c4ffb","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/a6f8cdd0-26b6-4d5c-a5fb-162eec6c4ffb/raw","has_download":false,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=607ecde42f634f70ac56a61342de0870&sublayer=0","keyword":["BOGS","Pathways"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:23:28.741242","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":4,"publisher":"Bureau of Indian Affairs","slug":"tribal-colleges-and-universities-tcu","spatial_centroid":{"lat":61.70756,"lon":-147.72930000000002},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-158.5303,55.3158],[-158.5303,71.2952],[-131.5278,71.2952],[-131.5278,55.3158],[-158.5303,55.3158]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU)","type":"dataset"},{"_score":20.9166,"_sort":[1787448117078,20.9166,0,"ed1e1b30-80ad-4c0d-80aa-b25159d70aef"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Maureen Ryan","hasEmail":"mailto:ambystomo@gmail.com"},"description":"These data are the result of 2 years of pond-breeding amphibian visual encounter surveys conducted across a range of pond types (from highly ephemeral to permanent hydrology) in Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks. The R code includes well-annotated code for reorganizing and sub-setting the master data, which should make it much easier to work with than the raw spreadsheet. Associated hydrologic data may be of use for other research applications. Recognize that this amphibian dataset is tied to 1) hydrologic projections developed using the Variable Infiltration Capacity model, which provides historical reconstructions of hydroperiod for most of 20th century and future hydrologic projections under climate change through the 2080s, 2) algorithms for remotely classifying montane wetlands and new wetland maps for Mount Rainier National Park. ","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13PGN55","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.84c9499d-d840-4277-9ffd-d5d800bca97f.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_84c9499d-d840-4277-9ffd-d5d800bca97f","keyword":["Ambystoma gracile","Ambystoma macrodactylum","Anura","Bufo boreas","Caudata","Mount Rainier National Park","Mt. Rainier National Park","North Cascades National Park","Olympic National Park","Pseudacris regilla","Rana cascadae","Taricha granulosa","USGS:84c9499d-d840-4277-9ffd-d5d800bca97f","Washington","amphibian presence","biota","climate change","habitat use","hydrology","montane pond","occupancy","pre-SM502.8"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-124.3128, 46.5923, -117.2050, 49.0153","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Amphibian Occupancy in Ponds in Olympic, Mount Rainier, and North Cascades National Parks: amphibian presence, site, and survey attributes (2012-2013)"},"description":"These data are the result of 2 years of pond-breeding amphibian visual encounter surveys conducted across a range of pond types (from highly ephemeral to permanent hydrology) in Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks. The R code includes well-annotated code for reorganizing and sub-setting the master data, which should make it much easier to work with than the raw spreadsheet. Associated hydrologic data may be of use for other research applications. Recognize that this amphibian dataset is tied to 1) hydrologic projections developed using the Variable Infiltration Capacity model, which provides historical reconstructions of hydroperiod for most of 20th century and future hydrologic projections under climate change through the 2080s, 2) algorithms for remotely classifying montane wetlands and new wetland maps for Mount Rainier National Park. ","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/603dbab7-71a6-4636-882a-65d218802f29","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/603dbab7-71a6-4636-882a-65d218802f29/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_84c9499d-d840-4277-9ffd-d5d800bca97f","keyword":["Ambystoma gracile","Ambystoma macrodactylum","Anura","Bufo boreas","Caudata","Mount Rainier National Park","Mt. Rainier National Park","North Cascades National Park","Olympic National Park","Pseudacris regilla","Rana cascadae","Taricha granulosa","USGS:84c9499d-d840-4277-9ffd-d5d800bca97f","Washington","amphibian presence","biota","climate change","habitat use","hydrology","montane pond","occupancy","pre-SM502.8"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:21:57.078151","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"amphibian-occupancy-in-ponds-in-olympic-mount-rainier-and-north-cascades-nationa-2012-2013","spatial_centroid":{"lat":47.5615,"lon":-121.46968},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-124.3128,46.5923],[-124.3128,49.0153],[-117.205,49.0153],[-117.205,46.5923],[-124.3128,46.5923]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Amphibian Occupancy in Ponds in Olympic, Mount Rainier, and North Cascades National Parks: amphibian presence, site, and survey attributes (2012-2013)","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.74011,"_sort":[1787447889332,8.74011,0,"593a12b1-f5e6-4f2c-af88-235498fbd7c8"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Seth M. Munson","hasEmail":"mailto:smunson@usgs.gov"},"description":"This dataset includes the cover of three vegetation types: perennial grasses, creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), and leguminous trees (Prosopis velutina, Parkinsonia microphylla, Parkinsonia florida) in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2005, and 2009 across southern Arizona. Cover was determined using sub-pixel classifications of two Landsat scenes from path 36, row 38 (centered on latitude: 31.7470, longitude: -111.3981) and path 37, row 38 (31.7470, -112.9431) that encompass Tucson, AZ.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"http://doi.org/10.5066/F7959FNF","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.d369daae-76ad-4e64-8dd2-fbc980696a1d.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_d369daae-76ad-4e64-8dd2-fbc980696a1d","keyword":["Sonoran Desert; southern Arizona","USGS:d369daae-76ad-4e64-8dd2-fbc980696a1d","aridity","biota","climate change","desert","environment","geospatial datasets","land degradation","remote sensing","shrub encroachment","southern Arizona"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-113.8600, 31.3375, -110.4700, 32.3930","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Shifts in Perennial grass in southern Arizona, 1989 - 2009"},"description":"This dataset includes the cover of three vegetation types: perennial grasses, creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), and leguminous trees (Prosopis velutina, Parkinsonia microphylla, Parkinsonia florida) in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2005, and 2009 across southern Arizona. Cover was determined using sub-pixel classifications of two Landsat scenes from path 36, row 38 (centered on latitude: 31.7470, longitude: -111.3981) and path 37, row 38 (31.7470, -112.9431) that encompass Tucson, AZ.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/c7c6f29e-127e-44cf-a2ab-471c49d70984","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/c7c6f29e-127e-44cf-a2ab-471c49d70984/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_d369daae-76ad-4e64-8dd2-fbc980696a1d","keyword":["Sonoran Desert; southern Arizona","USGS:d369daae-76ad-4e64-8dd2-fbc980696a1d","aridity","biota","climate change","desert","environment","geospatial datasets","land degradation","remote sensing","shrub encroachment","southern Arizona"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:18:09.332483","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"shifts-in-perennial-grass-in-southern-arizona-1989-2009","spatial_centroid":{"lat":31.7597,"lon":-112.50399999999999},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-113.86,31.3375],[-113.86,32.393],[-110.47,32.393],[-110.47,31.3375],[-113.86,31.3375]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Shifts in Perennial grass in southern Arizona, 1989 - 2009","type":"dataset"},{"_score":56.117138,"_sort":[1787447539487,56.117138,0,"1a436420-1fb6-4b26-a110-fc352d2284e6"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Imtiaz Rangwala","hasEmail":"mailto:Imtiaz.Rangwala@colorado.edu"},"description":"These datasets contain time series of anomalies, relative to 1971-2000 period, in the mean, daily minimum and maximum temperatures (F), precipitation (%), growing season length (GSL in days), and warm season duration index (WSDI in days) for the Southwest Colorado region for the three future climate scenarios considered in the Social Ecological and Climate Resiliency (SECR) project\n ","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13VNPMG","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.fb0a9474-34f0-42f5-b68f-6905702d02bd.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_fb0a9474-34f0-42f5-b68f-6905702d02bd","keyword":["USGS:fb0a9474-34f0-42f5-b68f-6905702d02bd","climate change","climatologyMeteorologyAtmosphere","external research support","precipitation","temperature"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-108.5000, 36.5000, -106.5000, 38.5000","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Timeseries of the anomalies in temperature and precipitation metrics between 1950-2099 for southwestern Colorado under three future climate scenarios"},"description":"These datasets contain time series of anomalies, relative to 1971-2000 period, in the mean, daily minimum and maximum temperatures (F), precipitation (%), growing season length (GSL in days), and warm season duration index (WSDI in days) for the Southwest Colorado region for the three future climate scenarios considered in the Social Ecological and Climate Resiliency (SECR) project\n ","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e2b97ff4-9649-430f-b478-773fcc38f489","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e2b97ff4-9649-430f-b478-773fcc38f489/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_fb0a9474-34f0-42f5-b68f-6905702d02bd","keyword":["USGS:fb0a9474-34f0-42f5-b68f-6905702d02bd","climate change","climatologyMeteorologyAtmosphere","external research support","precipitation","temperature"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:12:19.487302","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"timeseries-of-the-anomalies-in-temperature-and-precipitation-metrics-between-1950-2099-for","spatial_centroid":{"lat":37.3,"lon":-107.7},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-108.5,36.5],[-108.5,38.5],[-106.5,38.5],[-106.5,36.5],[-108.5,36.5]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Timeseries of the anomalies in temperature and precipitation metrics between 1950-2099 for southwestern Colorado under three future climate scenarios","type":"dataset"},{"_score":5.9693804,"_sort":[1787447193857,5.9693804,4,"17c7db07-d040-4be6-b66e-f0b1d04bdf25"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"John B Bradford","hasEmail":"mailto:jbradford@usgs.gov"},"description":"These data were compiled in order to represent long-term (multi-decadal) forest growth across eight different experimental forests in the United States, each with replicated levels of density treatments, as well as an important drought index correlated to growth. Forests around the world are experiencing severe droughts and elevated competitive intensity due to increased tree density. These data can be utilized to not only examine differences in within-stand competition, as well the trends and impact of drought in different forests across a broad climatic gradient, but also the influence of interactions between drought and competition on forest growth. Growth is measured as a treatment level, annual basal area increment (BAI, mm2/year). The self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI) was used as index of annual scale drought severity and related to growth patterns.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/F7125RW8","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.5a563a94e4b01e7be24449ab.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_5a563a94e4b01e7be24449ab","keyword":["Argonne Experimental Forest","Arizona","Bartlett Experimental Forest","Birch Lake Experiment","Black Hills Experimental Forest","Black Hills National Forest","Chequamegon National Forest","Chippewa National Forest","Climate","Competition","Cutfoot Experimental Forest","Dendrochronology","Drought","Flagstaff","Forest Density","Forest Health","Fort Valley Experimental Forest","Maine","Minnesota","New Hampshire","Nicolet National Forest","Ohio","Orono","Penobscot Experimental Forest","Resilience","Resistance","Silviculture","South Dakota","Superior National Forest","Taylor Woods","USGS:5a563a94e4b01e7be24449ab","Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest","White Mountain National Forest","Wisconsin"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-111.7210, 35.2787, -68.6167, 47.7000","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Long-term Experimental Forest Growth and Drought Data"},"description":"These data were compiled in order to represent long-term (multi-decadal) forest growth across eight different experimental forests in the United States, each with replicated levels of density treatments, as well as an important drought index correlated to growth. Forests around the world are experiencing severe droughts and elevated competitive intensity due to increased tree density. These data can be utilized to not only examine differences in within-stand competition, as well the trends and impact of drought in different forests across a broad climatic gradient, but also the influence of interactions between drought and competition on forest growth. Growth is measured as a treatment level, annual basal area increment (BAI, mm2/year). The self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI) was used as index of annual scale drought severity and related to growth patterns.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e7b64750-ceaa-48b0-a9a0-23e3649e5824","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e7b64750-ceaa-48b0-a9a0-23e3649e5824/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_5a563a94e4b01e7be24449ab","keyword":["Argonne Experimental Forest","Arizona","Bartlett Experimental Forest","Birch Lake Experiment","Black Hills Experimental Forest","Black Hills National Forest","Chequamegon National Forest","Chippewa National Forest","Climate","Competition","Cutfoot Experimental Forest","Dendrochronology","Drought","Flagstaff","Forest Density","Forest Health","Fort Valley Experimental Forest","Maine","Minnesota","New Hampshire","Nicolet National Forest","Ohio","Orono","Penobscot Experimental Forest","Resilience","Resistance","Silviculture","South Dakota","Superior National Forest","Taylor Woods","USGS:5a563a94e4b01e7be24449ab","Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest","White Mountain National Forest","Wisconsin"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:06:33.857256","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":4,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"long-term-experimental-forest-growth-and-drought-data","spatial_centroid":{"lat":40.247220000000006,"lon":-94.47927999999999},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-111.721,35.2787],[-111.721,47.7],[-68.6167,47.7],[-68.6167,35.2787],[-111.721,35.2787]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Long-term Experimental Forest Growth and Drought Data","type":"dataset"},{"_score":38.154037,"_sort":[1787447028343,38.154037,0,"b3159ac2-3cfa-4ddc-82ba-328887c1750e"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"T. Bruce Lauber","hasEmail":"mailto:TBL3@cornell.edu"},"description":"These datasets consists of responses to a standardized, web-based survey of partners and potential partners of the regional Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC). An initial sample for the survey was compiled from science producers and science users identified by the CASC, Landscape Conservation Cooperative staff and steering committee members with regions that overlapped with the CASC's region, and members of the AFWA Climate Science Committee. The survey documented the ways in which partners were engaged with the CASC and the factors affecting their engagement. The survey questions were developed based on insights from the focus groups conducted during the reviews of three previous CASCs and a review of the scholarly literature.\nThe survey documented the ways in which partners were engaged with the CASC and the factors affecting their engagement. The survey questions were developed based on insights from the focus groups conducted during the reviews of three previous CASCs and a review of the scholarly literature. \n","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13DC9ER","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.2485d334-55cb-4770-915f-93c66b972519.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_2485d334-55cb-4770-915f-93c66b972519","keyword":["USGS:2485d334-55cb-4770-915f-93c66b972519","external research support","partnerships","science centers","social sciences","society"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Measures of Quality and Extent of Partner Involvement with the North Central, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Central, and Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Centers from 2017 Web-based Surveys"},"description":"These datasets consists of responses to a standardized, web-based survey of partners and potential partners of the regional Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC). An initial sample for the survey was compiled from science producers and science users identified by the CASC, Landscape Conservation Cooperative staff and steering committee members with regions that overlapped with the CASC's region, and members of the AFWA Climate Science Committee. The survey documented the ways in which partners were engaged with the CASC and the factors affecting their engagement. The survey questions were developed based on insights from the focus groups conducted during the reviews of three previous CASCs and a review of the scholarly literature.\nThe survey documented the ways in which partners were engaged with the CASC and the factors affecting their engagement. The survey questions were developed based on insights from the focus groups conducted during the reviews of three previous CASCs and a review of the scholarly literature. \n","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/1f03c89d-7b97-4dad-befe-c1cefe8d4e54","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/1f03c89d-7b97-4dad-befe-c1cefe8d4e54/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_2485d334-55cb-4770-915f-93c66b972519","keyword":["USGS:2485d334-55cb-4770-915f-93c66b972519","external research support","partnerships","science centers","social sciences","society"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:03:48.343771","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"measures-of-quality-and-extent-of-partner-involvement-with-the-north-central-northeast-pac","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Measures of Quality and Extent of Partner Involvement with the North Central, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Central, and Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Centers from 2017 Web-based Surveys","type":"dataset"},{"_score":9.874011,"_sort":[1787447011817,9.874011,0,"a5bb603f-4bb0-4e46-a0c8-d4b5f875080d"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Jonathan Armstrong","hasEmail":"mailto:jonathan.armstrong@oregonstate.edu"},"description":"Temperature exerts a profound influence on the metabolism of fishes, with a cascade of consequences for behavior, growth, and survival. Spatially detailed temperature data are increasingly available, yet how temperature variation functions to support multiple life stages of fish is rarely known at similar scales. We surveyed cool springs identified by infrared technology to quantify their functionality as thermal refuges for juvenile and adult salmonids in the warm Sprague River sub-basin. Juvenile trout inhabited approximately half of potential refuges and were most prevalent in ponds and their outflow channels. Larger size classes were present in just 10% of refuges and were more prevalent in plumes. All trout selected cool, oxygenated habitats, but refuges occupied by larger trout were colder and deeper. Regression models for juvenile trout suggested that complex refuges, especially those associated with beaver dams, were more likely to be occupied; further, those containing complementary habitat types also contained more trout. \nBasin-scale analyses revealed that Sprague River springs provided minimal thermal refuge for the meta-population of large migratory trout in summer. However, these springs were a premier location for winter spawning in the Upper Klamath Basin and offered a moderate degree of warm refuge when temperatures were near freezing. Our results imply that temperature variation may also be used differently among life stages by other recolonizing salmonid species after upcoming dam removal in the basin. Future efforts to identify thermal refuges should consider ontogenetic variation and additional ecological relationships that may affect the functionality of cold water to fish.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13MXIHR","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.fa23339a-fb01-48d4-b870-cf52adda983e.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_fa23339a-fb01-48d4-b870-cf52adda983e","keyword":["USGS:fa23339a-fb01-48d4-b870-cf52adda983e","biota","climate change","external research support","thermal refuge","trout"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-124.5500, 41.9800, -116.4600, 46.2700","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Life-stage-specific thermal refuge use by redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii in the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon, USA"},"description":"Temperature exerts a profound influence on the metabolism of fishes, with a cascade of consequences for behavior, growth, and survival. Spatially detailed temperature data are increasingly available, yet how temperature variation functions to support multiple life stages of fish is rarely known at similar scales. We surveyed cool springs identified by infrared technology to quantify their functionality as thermal refuges for juvenile and adult salmonids in the warm Sprague River sub-basin. Juvenile trout inhabited approximately half of potential refuges and were most prevalent in ponds and their outflow channels. Larger size classes were present in just 10% of refuges and were more prevalent in plumes. All trout selected cool, oxygenated habitats, but refuges occupied by larger trout were colder and deeper. Regression models for juvenile trout suggested that complex refuges, especially those associated with beaver dams, were more likely to be occupied; further, those containing complementary habitat types also contained more trout. \nBasin-scale analyses revealed that Sprague River springs provided minimal thermal refuge for the meta-population of large migratory trout in summer. However, these springs were a premier location for winter spawning in the Upper Klamath Basin and offered a moderate degree of warm refuge when temperatures were near freezing. Our results imply that temperature variation may also be used differently among life stages by other recolonizing salmonid species after upcoming dam removal in the basin. Future efforts to identify thermal refuges should consider ontogenetic variation and additional ecological relationships that may affect the functionality of cold water to fish.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/df7c4868-b5a9-4da8-9e4c-fe6c1ca850ac","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/df7c4868-b5a9-4da8-9e4c-fe6c1ca850ac/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_fa23339a-fb01-48d4-b870-cf52adda983e","keyword":["USGS:fa23339a-fb01-48d4-b870-cf52adda983e","biota","climate change","external research support","thermal refuge","trout"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T01:03:31.817377","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"life-stage-specific-thermal-refuge-use-by-redband-trout-oncorhynchus-mykiss-newberrii-in-t","spatial_centroid":{"lat":43.696,"lon":-121.314},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-124.55,41.98],[-124.55,46.27],[-116.46,46.27],[-116.46,41.98],[-124.55,41.98]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Life-stage-specific thermal refuge use by redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii in the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon, USA","type":"dataset"},{"_score":27.956226,"_sort":[1787446574218,27.956226,0,"c8cd04fa-0718-41f3-a5d9-6d2149c1963a"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Climate Adaptation Science Centers","hasEmail":"mailto:casc-data@usgs.gov"},"description":"In partnership with South Atlantic LCC members, we assessed current and projected connectivity for three species (black bear [Ursus americanus], Rafinesque\u2019s big-eared bat [Corynorhinus rafinesquii], timber rattlesnake [Crotalus horridus]) that inhabit bottomland hardwoods throughout the southeastern US. For each species, we mapped important habitat connections between core patches of habitat using three different modeling approaches (Connectivity Analysis Toolkit (CAT), Circuitscape, and Linkage Mapper) that incorporated three types of resistance layers (expert opinion, niche modeling, and empirical data for the black bear only). The result was 21 sets of important connections, one for each of the species-resistance-connectivity algorithm combinations we analyzed. \nIn \"Connectivity for Climate Change in the Southeastern United States\" data set, we present the results of overlaying all of the connections in the 21 sets of results on current climate suitability, as well as future climate suitability. The data here show the change in suitability under climate change for all connections mapped in our study.\nIn \"key landscape connections under urban growth\" data set, we present the results of overlaying all of the connections in the 21 sets of results on maps of current urbanization as well as future projections of urbanization. The data here show the change in the proportion of each connection that is urbanized for all connections mapped in our study. The geographic domain of the urbanization projections we used did not cover the entire extent of our connectivity modeling effort. Therefore, some connections we mapped in the project are not included in this data set.\n","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13DSKWZ","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.6c94f075-82ad-4635-b0fc-6311b80ec613.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6c94f075-82ad-4635-b0fc-6311b80ec613","keyword":["Corynorhinus rafinesquii","Crotalus horridus","Rafinesque's big-eared bat","USGS:6c94f075-82ad-4635-b0fc-6311b80ec613","Ursus americanus","biota","black bear","climate change","external research support","geospatial datasets","habitat connectivity","pre-SM502.8","timber rattlesnake","wildlife"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-105.9364, 25.6310, -74.8775, 40.6623","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Current and Projected Habitat Connectivity for Three Species Inhabiting Bottomland Hardwoods Throughout the Southeastern U.S."},"description":"In partnership with South Atlantic LCC members, we assessed current and projected connectivity for three species (black bear [Ursus americanus], Rafinesque\u2019s big-eared bat [Corynorhinus rafinesquii], timber rattlesnake [Crotalus horridus]) that inhabit bottomland hardwoods throughout the southeastern US. For each species, we mapped important habitat connections between core patches of habitat using three different modeling approaches (Connectivity Analysis Toolkit (CAT), Circuitscape, and Linkage Mapper) that incorporated three types of resistance layers (expert opinion, niche modeling, and empirical data for the black bear only). The result was 21 sets of important connections, one for each of the species-resistance-connectivity algorithm combinations we analyzed. \nIn \"Connectivity for Climate Change in the Southeastern United States\" data set, we present the results of overlaying all of the connections in the 21 sets of results on current climate suitability, as well as future climate suitability. The data here show the change in suitability under climate change for all connections mapped in our study.\nIn \"key landscape connections under urban growth\" data set, we present the results of overlaying all of the connections in the 21 sets of results on maps of current urbanization as well as future projections of urbanization. The data here show the change in the proportion of each connection that is urbanized for all connections mapped in our study. The geographic domain of the urbanization projections we used did not cover the entire extent of our connectivity modeling effort. Therefore, some connections we mapped in the project are not included in this data set.\n","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e776f8a4-658e-492e-a508-7806267c722e","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e776f8a4-658e-492e-a508-7806267c722e/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6c94f075-82ad-4635-b0fc-6311b80ec613","keyword":["Corynorhinus rafinesquii","Crotalus horridus","Rafinesque's big-eared bat","USGS:6c94f075-82ad-4635-b0fc-6311b80ec613","Ursus americanus","biota","black bear","climate change","external research support","geospatial datasets","habitat connectivity","pre-SM502.8","timber rattlesnake","wildlife"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T00:56:14.218798","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"current-and-projected-habitat-connectivity-for-three-species-inhabiting-bottomland-hardwoo","spatial_centroid":{"lat":31.643520000000002,"lon":-93.51284000000001},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-105.9364,25.631],[-105.9364,40.6623],[-74.8775,40.6623],[-74.8775,25.631],[-105.9364,25.631]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Current and Projected Habitat Connectivity for Three Species Inhabiting Bottomland Hardwoods Throughout the Southeastern U.S.","type":"dataset"},{"_score":68.12431,"_sort":[1787446296968,68.12431,1,"d0b48984-40b7-4d78-a722-cd37079507c2"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Abigail J Lynch","hasEmail":"mailto:ajlynch@usgs.gov"},"description":"Note: this data release has been superseded by a newer version, available here: https://doi.org/10.5066/P9973SMC.\nInland fishes provide important ecosystem services to communities worldwide and are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Fish respond to climate change in diverse and nuanced ways which creates challenges for practitioners of fish conservation, climate change adaptation, and management. Although climate change is known to affect fish globally, a comprehensive online, public database of how climate change has impacted inland fishes worldwide and adaptation or management practices that may address these impacts does not exist. We conducted an extensive, systematic primary literature review to identify peer-reviewed journal publications describing projected and documented examples of climate change impacts on inland fishes. From this standardized Fish and Climate Change database, FiCli, researchers and managers can query fish families, species, response types, or geographic locations to obtain summary information on inland fish responses to climate change and recommended management actions. The FiCli provides access to comprehensive published information to inform inland fish Inland fishes provide important ecosystem services to communities worldwide and are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P9F6HA3M","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.621fc357d34ee0c6b38a8628.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_621fc357d34ee0c6b38a8628","keyword":["Africa","Americas","Asia","Europe","Middle East","Oceania","USGS:621fc357d34ee0c6b38a8628","biota","climate adaptation","climate change","database","environment","fish","fisheries management","inland","oceans"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-180.0000, -90.0000, 180.0000, 90.0000","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"FiCli: Fish and Climate Change Database (2021 Update)"},"description":"Note: this data release has been superseded by a newer version, available here: https://doi.org/10.5066/P9973SMC.\nInland fishes provide important ecosystem services to communities worldwide and are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Fish respond to climate change in diverse and nuanced ways which creates challenges for practitioners of fish conservation, climate change adaptation, and management. Although climate change is known to affect fish globally, a comprehensive online, public database of how climate change has impacted inland fishes worldwide and adaptation or management practices that may address these impacts does not exist. We conducted an extensive, systematic primary literature review to identify peer-reviewed journal publications describing projected and documented examples of climate change impacts on inland fishes. From this standardized Fish and Climate Change database, FiCli, researchers and managers can query fish families, species, response types, or geographic locations to obtain summary information on inland fish responses to climate change and recommended management actions. The FiCli provides access to comprehensive published information to inform inland fish Inland fishes provide important ecosystem services to communities worldwide and are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/68bf8c22-55b2-49b3-9aa5-9d16fd25ce94","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/68bf8c22-55b2-49b3-9aa5-9d16fd25ce94/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_621fc357d34ee0c6b38a8628","keyword":["Africa","Americas","Asia","Europe","Middle East","Oceania","USGS:621fc357d34ee0c6b38a8628","biota","climate adaptation","climate change","database","environment","fish","fisheries management","inland","oceans"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T00:51:36.968328","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":1,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"ficli-fish-and-climate-change-database-2021-update","spatial_centroid":{"lat":-18.0,"lon":-36.0},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-180.0,-90.0],[-180.0,90.0],[180.0,90.0],[180.0,-90.0],[-180.0,-90.0]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"FiCli: Fish and Climate Change Database (2021 Update)","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.481668,"_sort":[1787445691532,8.481668,0,"372deb92-3510-460c-bcf8-36a8aef7c9fe"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"L. Monika Moskal","hasEmail":"mailto:lmmoskal@uw.edu"},"description":"This dataset delineates wetland ponds and emergent wetland vegetation in Mt. Rainier National Park. It was created through object based image analysis of high resolution imagery from 2006 and 2009 and LiDAR data acquired in fall of 2008. Riparian wetlands are not included in this dataset. Accuracy is only verified for wetland ponds in the subalpine region. Forested wetlands, riparian wetlands, and emergent vegetation were only visually assessed. This data maps all wetland habitat, but was primarily used to locate and delineate amphibian habitat in Mt. Rainier National Park.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1NLJCY2","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.8a61d173-080d-4508-8439-dc2dd4bebbde.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_8a61d173-080d-4508-8439-dc2dd4bebbde","keyword":["Mount Rainier National Park","Mt Rainer National Park","North Cascades","USGS:8a61d173-080d-4508-8439-dc2dd4bebbde","Washington","climate change","environment","external research support","geospatial datasets","remote sensing","wetlands"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-121.9204, 46.7180, -121.4456, 47.0000","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Wetland Inventory for Mt. Rainier National Park created through object-based image analysis of lidar and high resolution imagery, 2014"},"description":"This dataset delineates wetland ponds and emergent wetland vegetation in Mt. Rainier National Park. It was created through object based image analysis of high resolution imagery from 2006 and 2009 and LiDAR data acquired in fall of 2008. Riparian wetlands are not included in this dataset. Accuracy is only verified for wetland ponds in the subalpine region. Forested wetlands, riparian wetlands, and emergent vegetation were only visually assessed. This data maps all wetland habitat, but was primarily used to locate and delineate amphibian habitat in Mt. Rainier National Park.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/18ff0822-9438-45c4-b291-28a4988111c6","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/18ff0822-9438-45c4-b291-28a4988111c6/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_8a61d173-080d-4508-8439-dc2dd4bebbde","keyword":["Mount Rainier National Park","Mt Rainer National Park","North Cascades","USGS:8a61d173-080d-4508-8439-dc2dd4bebbde","Washington","climate change","environment","external research support","geospatial datasets","remote sensing","wetlands"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T00:41:31.532658","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"wetland-inventory-for-mt-rainier-national-park-created-through-object-based-image-ana-2014","spatial_centroid":{"lat":46.830799999999996,"lon":-121.73047999999999},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-121.9204,46.718],[-121.9204,47.0],[-121.4456,47.0],[-121.4456,46.718],[-121.9204,46.718]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Wetland Inventory for Mt. Rainier National Park created through object-based image analysis of lidar and high resolution imagery, 2014","type":"dataset"},{"_score":30.735455,"_sort":[1787445660211,30.735455,0,"d069e1a6-8ab2-478f-be3b-15c1f02195bf"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Climate Adaptation Science Centers","hasEmail":"mailto:casc-data@usgs.gov"},"description":"These datasets consist of transcripts from two focus groups with science users (1st group) and science producers (2nd group) who were partners of the regional Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC). The participants in the focus groups were science users and science producers identified by the regional CASC and recruited in collaboration with Cornell's Center for Conservation Social Sciences. The purpose of the focus groups was to understand the range of perspectives and experiences of CASC partners in relation to their work with the CASC. We attempted to include participants that represented a diversity of organizations and regions working with the CASC. Participants in the science users groups included representatives of agencies intended to benefit from the science produced by the CASC: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, federal natural resource agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, tribal organizations, and nongovernmental conservation organizations. Participants in the science producers focus group included researchers that had received research funding from the CASC. The focus groups consisted of semi-structured conversations guided by a series of open-ended questions and lasted approximately two hours. The questions were designed to explore how partners contributed to the work of the CASC and the factors that influenced the ability of the CASC to work with their partners. The specific question topics focused on: how participants have worked with the CASC, reasons for becoming involved with the CASC, benefits of involvement with the CASC, challenges to involvement, and what the CASC could do to promote even more benefits from involvement. Additionally, we specifically explored how the CASC contributed to the coproduction of science and the generation of actionable science, with questions about interactions between science producers and science users and the role of the CASC in connecting them.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.21429/eqqw-ca45","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.c5af6847-2b71-45e9-a8ee-76f9e441d32a.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_c5af6847-2b71-45e9-a8ee-76f9e441d32a","keyword":["Pacific Islands","USGS:c5af6847-2b71-45e9-a8ee-76f9e441d32a","United States","external research support","partnerships","science centers","social sciences","society"],"modified":"2026-08-20T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-178.2100, 18.9200, 179.7700, 71.3500","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Documentation of the Perspectives and Experiences of Partners with the North Central, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Central, and Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Centers from Focus Groups in 2017 and 2018 "},"description":"These datasets consist of transcripts from two focus groups with science users (1st group) and science producers (2nd group) who were partners of the regional Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC). The participants in the focus groups were science users and science producers identified by the regional CASC and recruited in collaboration with Cornell's Center for Conservation Social Sciences. The purpose of the focus groups was to understand the range of perspectives and experiences of CASC partners in relation to their work with the CASC. We attempted to include participants that represented a diversity of organizations and regions working with the CASC. Participants in the science users groups included representatives of agencies intended to benefit from the science produced by the CASC: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, federal natural resource agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, tribal organizations, and nongovernmental conservation organizations. Participants in the science producers focus group included researchers that had received research funding from the CASC. The focus groups consisted of semi-structured conversations guided by a series of open-ended questions and lasted approximately two hours. The questions were designed to explore how partners contributed to the work of the CASC and the factors that influenced the ability of the CASC to work with their partners. The specific question topics focused on: how participants have worked with the CASC, reasons for becoming involved with the CASC, benefits of involvement with the CASC, challenges to involvement, and what the CASC could do to promote even more benefits from involvement. Additionally, we specifically explored how the CASC contributed to the coproduction of science and the generation of actionable science, with questions about interactions between science producers and science users and the role of the CASC in connecting them.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/01af1239-43bf-4369-81b0-8d82a64fd3b3","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/01af1239-43bf-4369-81b0-8d82a64fd3b3/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_c5af6847-2b71-45e9-a8ee-76f9e441d32a","keyword":["Pacific Islands","USGS:c5af6847-2b71-45e9-a8ee-76f9e441d32a","United States","external research support","partnerships","science centers","social sciences","society"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T00:41:00.211438","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"documentation-of-the-perspectives-and-experiences-of-partners-with-the-north-central--2018","spatial_centroid":{"lat":39.891999999999996,"lon":-35.018},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-178.21,18.92],[-178.21,71.35],[179.77,71.35],[179.77,18.92],[-178.21,18.92]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Documentation of the Perspectives and Experiences of Partners with the North Central, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Central, and Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Centers from Focus Groups in 2017 and 2018 ","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.00506,"_sort":[1787445023410,8.00506,0,"72ab8a89-14e6-47c6-aa59-78d6e8a2ed46"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Mark Hausner","hasEmail":"mailto:casc-data@usgs.gov"},"description":"These data describe the water year (October-September) precipitation and summer (JJA) NDVI for the riparian areas along four creeks on the Silvies Valley Ranch. Each of these creeks had a series of rock checkdams installed between 2006 and 2011 to stop incision and raise the mean water level. Data in this file are used to examine the relationship between water year precipiation and summer NDVI in these watersheds and how that relationship may have changed with the installation of the dams.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13WQY8Y","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.f82b847e-e0b4-4ada-b657-c9bb871ad87e.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_f82b847e-e0b4-4ada-b657-c9bb871ad87e","keyword":["Flat Creek","Grant County","Jack Andy Creek","Landsat images","Lower Camp Creek","Oregon","Silvies Valley","USGS:f82b847e-e0b4-4ada-b657-c9bb871ad87e","Upper Camp Creek","biota","climate change","ecosystem monitoring","geospatial dataset","multispectral imaging","precipitation (atmospheric)"],"modified":"2018-05-01T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-119.02515, 44.00001, -118.95318, 44.06158","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Silvies Valley Ranch Stream Restoration Sites, 1983-2016"},"description":"These data describe the water year (October-September) precipitation and summer (JJA) NDVI for the riparian areas along four creeks on the Silvies Valley Ranch. Each of these creeks had a series of rock checkdams installed between 2006 and 2011 to stop incision and raise the mean water level. Data in this file are used to examine the relationship between water year precipiation and summer NDVI in these watersheds and how that relationship may have changed with the installation of the dams.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/98c4a949-54ab-46d4-b48c-ba7dce5367a2","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/98c4a949-54ab-46d4-b48c-ba7dce5367a2/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_f82b847e-e0b4-4ada-b657-c9bb871ad87e","keyword":["Flat Creek","Grant County","Jack Andy Creek","Landsat images","Lower Camp Creek","Oregon","Silvies Valley","USGS:f82b847e-e0b4-4ada-b657-c9bb871ad87e","Upper Camp Creek","biota","climate change","ecosystem monitoring","geospatial dataset","multispectral imaging","precipitation (atmospheric)"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T00:30:23.410423","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"silvies-valley-ranch-stream-restoration-sites-1983-2016","spatial_centroid":{"lat":44.024638,"lon":-118.996362},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-119.02515,44.00001],[-119.02515,44.06158],[-118.95318,44.06158],[-118.95318,44.00001],[-119.02515,44.00001]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Silvies Valley Ranch Stream Restoration Sites, 1983-2016","type":"dataset"},{"_score":62.25653,"_sort":[1787443747394,62.25653,0,"92cacf9d-a7a4-49d2-a259-2e7b9a645983"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Climate Adaptation Science Centers","hasEmail":"mailto:casc-data@usgs.gov"},"description":"In partnership with South Atlantic LCC members, we assessed current and projected connectivity for three species (black bear [Ursus americanus], Rafinesque\u2019s big-eared bat [Corynorhinus rafinesquii], timber rattlesnake [Crotalus horridus]) that inhabit bottomland hardwoods throughout the southeastern US. For each species, we mapped important habitat connections between core patches of habitat using three different modeling approaches (Connectivity Analysis Toolkit (CAT), Circuitscape, and Linkage Mapper) that incorporated three types of resistance layers (expert opinion, niche modeling, and empirical data for the black bear only). The result was 21 sets of important connections, one for each of the species-resistance-connectivity algorithm combinations we analyzed. In this data set, we present the results of overlaying all of the connections in the 21 sets of results on current climate suitability, as well as future climate suitability. The data here show the change in suitability under climate change for all connections mapped in our study.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13DSKWZ","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.6d5200b8-7379-49f7-89ea-8fbbb6b707ad.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6d5200b8-7379-49f7-89ea-8fbbb6b707ad","keyword":["Corynorhinus rafinesquii","Crotalus horridus","Rafinesque's big-eared bat","USGS:6d5200b8-7379-49f7-89ea-8fbbb6b707ad","Ursus americanus","biota","black bear","climate change","external research support","geospatial datasets","habitat connectivity","pre-SM502.8","timber rattlesnake","wildlife"],"modified":"2016-01-13T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-105.9364, 25.6310, -74.8775, 40.6623","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Connectivity for Climate Change in the Southeastern United States"},"description":"In partnership with South Atlantic LCC members, we assessed current and projected connectivity for three species (black bear [Ursus americanus], Rafinesque\u2019s big-eared bat [Corynorhinus rafinesquii], timber rattlesnake [Crotalus horridus]) that inhabit bottomland hardwoods throughout the southeastern US. For each species, we mapped important habitat connections between core patches of habitat using three different modeling approaches (Connectivity Analysis Toolkit (CAT), Circuitscape, and Linkage Mapper) that incorporated three types of resistance layers (expert opinion, niche modeling, and empirical data for the black bear only). The result was 21 sets of important connections, one for each of the species-resistance-connectivity algorithm combinations we analyzed. In this data set, we present the results of overlaying all of the connections in the 21 sets of results on current climate suitability, as well as future climate suitability. The data here show the change in suitability under climate change for all connections mapped in our study.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/571fe223-3950-4d57-871c-f38205b7fe49","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/571fe223-3950-4d57-871c-f38205b7fe49/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6d5200b8-7379-49f7-89ea-8fbbb6b707ad","keyword":["Corynorhinus rafinesquii","Crotalus horridus","Rafinesque's big-eared bat","USGS:6d5200b8-7379-49f7-89ea-8fbbb6b707ad","Ursus americanus","biota","black bear","climate change","external research support","geospatial datasets","habitat connectivity","pre-SM502.8","timber rattlesnake","wildlife"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-23T00:09:07.394256","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"connectivity-for-climate-change-in-the-southeastern-united-states","spatial_centroid":{"lat":31.643520000000002,"lon":-93.51284000000001},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-105.9364,25.631],[-105.9364,40.6623],[-74.8775,40.6623],[-74.8775,25.631],[-105.9364,25.631]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Connectivity for Climate Change in the Southeastern United States","type":"dataset"},{"_score":9.245003,"_sort":[1787361761539,9.245003,0,"ee8a6942-dd37-4892-bd71-09185321bbfd"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Luoliang Xu","hasEmail":"mailto:lxu287@wisc.edu"},"description":"A temperature-dependent surplus production model has been used to estimate the historical productivity of freshwater fish populations. The data utilized in this analysis includes: (1) an index of relative abundance; (2) fishery removals and subsidies from stocking programs; and (3) lake growing degree days. Surplus production represents the net change in population biomass in the absence of fishing, reflecting the interplay of population dynamics such as recruitment (gain), individual fish growth (gain), and natural mortality (loss).","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.21429/ykfe-6t55","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.5f6d985d-0fd7-4fdc-b2c5-890e1b79856a.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_5f6d985d-0fd7-4fdc-b2c5-890e1b79856a","keyword":["Midwest","Minnesota","South Dakota","Surplus production","USGS:5f6d985d-0fd7-4fdc-b2c5-890e1b79856a","Wisconsin","biota","climate change","fish","inlandWaters","lake fish"],"modified":"2026-08-19T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-104.0625, 42.4559, -86.8359, 49.4396","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Estimates of Historical Surplus Production of Freshwater Fish Populations Across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and South Dakota from 1980-2021"},"description":"A temperature-dependent surplus production model has been used to estimate the historical productivity of freshwater fish populations. The data utilized in this analysis includes: (1) an index of relative abundance; (2) fishery removals and subsidies from stocking programs; and (3) lake growing degree days. Surplus production represents the net change in population biomass in the absence of fishing, reflecting the interplay of population dynamics such as recruitment (gain), individual fish growth (gain), and natural mortality (loss).","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/0570ff45-6523-46c5-9992-111a0386d290","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/0570ff45-6523-46c5-9992-111a0386d290/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_5f6d985d-0fd7-4fdc-b2c5-890e1b79856a","keyword":["Midwest","Minnesota","South Dakota","Surplus production","USGS:5f6d985d-0fd7-4fdc-b2c5-890e1b79856a","Wisconsin","biota","climate change","fish","inlandWaters","lake fish"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-22T01:22:41.539981","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"estimates-of-historical-surplus-production-of-freshwater-fish-populations-across-1980-2021","spatial_centroid":{"lat":45.249379999999995,"lon":-97.17186},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-104.0625,42.4559],[-104.0625,49.4396],[-86.8359,49.4396],[-86.8359,42.4559],[-104.0625,42.4559]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Estimates of Historical Surplus Production of Freshwater Fish Populations Across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and South Dakota from 1980-2021","type":"dataset"},{"_score":9.83015,"_sort":[1787361746923,9.83015,0,"e3673f95-1443-4dec-b3bc-f8c6a7042a56"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Gretchen J.A. Hansen","hasEmail":"mailto:ghansen@umn.edu"},"description":"The data comprise observations of 12 species of fish from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fish survey data. Surveys were conducted between 1968 & 2022 generally for the purposes of assessing fishery statuses in inland lakes. The species in these data represent only a subset of all species present in DNR surveys, and were selected for our study because of relevance to stakeholders and relative vulnerability to the gears used to survey the populations.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/p1337zqc","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.d4d7a565-f755-494b-af10-0be7271ad038.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_d4d7a565-f755-494b-af10-0be7271ad038","keyword":["USGS:d4d7a565-f755-494b-af10-0be7271ad038","biota","climate change","fish","freshwater ecosystems","inland fishery resources"],"modified":"2026-08-19T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-97.2300, 43.4900, -89.5000, 49.3700","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Observations of 12 fish species from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources fish surveys of inland lakes between 1968-2022"},"description":"The data comprise observations of 12 species of fish from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fish survey data. Surveys were conducted between 1968 & 2022 generally for the purposes of assessing fishery statuses in inland lakes. The species in these data represent only a subset of all species present in DNR surveys, and were selected for our study because of relevance to stakeholders and relative vulnerability to the gears used to survey the populations.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/1fecc947-c857-4c0b-930d-0a8781bf827b","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/1fecc947-c857-4c0b-930d-0a8781bf827b/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_d4d7a565-f755-494b-af10-0be7271ad038","keyword":["USGS:d4d7a565-f755-494b-af10-0be7271ad038","biota","climate change","fish","freshwater ecosystems","inland fishery resources"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-22T01:22:26.923413","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"observations-of-12-fish-species-from-minnesota-department-of-natural-resources-f-1968-2022","spatial_centroid":{"lat":45.842,"lon":-94.138},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-97.23,43.49],[-97.23,49.37],[-89.5,49.37],[-89.5,43.49],[-97.23,43.49]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Observations of 12 fish species from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources fish surveys of inland lakes between 1968-2022","type":"dataset"},{"_score":21.00224,"_sort":[1787361596896,21.00224,0,"707f910a-212d-4b5d-a039-29991bfaa118"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Kenneth G. Boykin","hasEmail":"mailto:kboykin@nmsu.edu"},"description":"This dataset contains the result of the bioclimatic-envelope modeling of the three amphibian species -- the Sacramento Mountain Salamander (Aneides hardii), the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus), and the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) -- in the South Central US using the downscaled data provided by WorldClim. We used five species distribution models (SDM) including Generalized Linear Model, Random Forest, Boosted Regression Tree, Maxent, and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) and ensembles to develop the present day distributions of the species based on climate-driven models alone. We then projected future distributions of the species using data from four climate models: Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4), Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 2-Earth System (HadGEM2-ES), Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate version 5 (MIROC5), and Max Planck Institute Earth System Model, low resolution (MPI-ESM-LR). We ran the climate models according to two greenhouse gas concentration pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5). Datasets in this file are the results for models RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 for the years 2050 and 2070. It shows a comparison of ensembles of suitable bioclimatic conditions between present day and future day. The dataset shows areas where ensembles agree and suitable conditions are stable (stable represented in green), future ensemble projects new suitable conditions (gain represented in yellow), present ensemble may be converted to unsuitable in the future (loss represented in red), and areas where conditions are unsuitable in the future (non represented in gray).","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"http://doi.org/10.5066/F7B27SGV","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.01db4134-3223-406f-ab88-6ba612317729.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_01db4134-3223-406f-ab88-6ba612317729","keyword":["Aneides hardii","Chiricahua Leopard Frog","Jemez Mountains Salamander","Lithobates chiricahuensis","Plethodon neomexicanus","Sacramento Mountain Salamander","USGS:01db4134-3223-406f-ab88-6ba612317729","amphibians","bioclimatic-envelope","biota","climatologyMeteorologyAtmosphere","external research support","geospatial datasets","herpetofauna"],"modified":"2026-08-19T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-112.5861, 31.3322, -106.4861, 35.4988","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Projected future bioclimate-envelope suitability for amphibian species in South Central USA"},"description":"This dataset contains the result of the bioclimatic-envelope modeling of the three amphibian species -- the Sacramento Mountain Salamander (Aneides hardii), the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus), and the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) -- in the South Central US using the downscaled data provided by WorldClim. We used five species distribution models (SDM) including Generalized Linear Model, Random Forest, Boosted Regression Tree, Maxent, and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) and ensembles to develop the present day distributions of the species based on climate-driven models alone. We then projected future distributions of the species using data from four climate models: Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4), Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 2-Earth System (HadGEM2-ES), Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate version 5 (MIROC5), and Max Planck Institute Earth System Model, low resolution (MPI-ESM-LR). We ran the climate models according to two greenhouse gas concentration pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5). Datasets in this file are the results for models RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 for the years 2050 and 2070. It shows a comparison of ensembles of suitable bioclimatic conditions between present day and future day. The dataset shows areas where ensembles agree and suitable conditions are stable (stable represented in green), future ensemble projects new suitable conditions (gain represented in yellow), present ensemble may be converted to unsuitable in the future (loss represented in red), and areas where conditions are unsuitable in the future (non represented in gray).","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/a436f8a5-d4d9-4d55-b36a-fb26d59fdbc3","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/a436f8a5-d4d9-4d55-b36a-fb26d59fdbc3/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_01db4134-3223-406f-ab88-6ba612317729","keyword":["Aneides hardii","Chiricahua Leopard Frog","Jemez Mountains Salamander","Lithobates chiricahuensis","Plethodon neomexicanus","Sacramento Mountain Salamander","USGS:01db4134-3223-406f-ab88-6ba612317729","amphibians","bioclimatic-envelope","biota","climatologyMeteorologyAtmosphere","external research support","geospatial datasets","herpetofauna"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-22T01:19:56.896364","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"projected-future-bioclimate-envelope-suitability-for-amphibian-species-in-south-central-us","spatial_centroid":{"lat":32.99884,"lon":-110.1461},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-112.5861,31.3322],[-112.5861,35.4988],[-106.4861,35.4988],[-106.4861,31.3322],[-112.5861,31.3322]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Projected future bioclimate-envelope suitability for amphibian species in South Central USA","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.316616,"_sort":[1787360288229,8.316616,0,"b915199b-33d5-47e4-98a2-5eea6df58723"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"L. Monika Moskal","hasEmail":"mailto:lmmoskal@uw.edu"},"description":"Dataset provides point locations of wetlands in the channeled scablands of Washington State. It was created through object based image analysis of high resolution imagery from 2006 and 2009. Each wetland location has an associated surface water hydrograph constructed from spectral mixture analysis of Landsat satellite imagery (1983 \u2013 2011). Hydrologic data is stored in an associated csv file and can be linked to the data through a unique identifier (Wetland_ID). Additionally, individual surface water hydrographs for wetlands, in jpeg format, can be linked to wetland location through the unique identifier.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1KLGAYM","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.890a3e8a-adcc-42b7-b08b-8dec09e572a8.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_890a3e8a-adcc-42b7-b08b-8dec09e572a8","keyword":["Douglas County","Pacific Northwest","Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area","USGS:890a3e8a-adcc-42b7-b08b-8dec09e572a8","Washington","climate change","environment","external research support","geospatial data","hydrology","hydroperiod","pre-SM502.8","wetland dynamics","wetlands"],"modified":"2026-08-19T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-119.9832, 47.3547, -117.5008, 48.1312","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Wetland surface water dynamics in the channeled scablands of Washington State reconstructed from a time series of Landsat satellite imagery (1983\u20132011)"},"description":"Dataset provides point locations of wetlands in the channeled scablands of Washington State. It was created through object based image analysis of high resolution imagery from 2006 and 2009. Each wetland location has an associated surface water hydrograph constructed from spectral mixture analysis of Landsat satellite imagery (1983 \u2013 2011). Hydrologic data is stored in an associated csv file and can be linked to the data through a unique identifier (Wetland_ID). Additionally, individual surface water hydrographs for wetlands, in jpeg format, can be linked to wetland location through the unique identifier.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/4cd820e6-c5da-464e-ab61-66df2b6844bf","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/4cd820e6-c5da-464e-ab61-66df2b6844bf/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_890a3e8a-adcc-42b7-b08b-8dec09e572a8","keyword":["Douglas County","Pacific Northwest","Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area","USGS:890a3e8a-adcc-42b7-b08b-8dec09e572a8","Washington","climate change","environment","external research support","geospatial data","hydrology","hydroperiod","pre-SM502.8","wetland dynamics","wetlands"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-22T00:58:08.229471","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"wetland-surface-water-dynamics-in-the-channeled-scablands-of-washington-state-reconstructe","spatial_centroid":{"lat":47.6653,"lon":-118.99024},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-119.9832,47.3547],[-119.9832,48.1312],[-117.5008,48.1312],[-117.5008,47.3547],[-119.9832,47.3547]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Wetland surface water dynamics in the channeled scablands of Washington State reconstructed from a time series of Landsat satellite imagery (1983\u20132011)","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.457068,"_sort":[1787358761422,8.457068,0,"bf26f3a0-f210-47ee-90bc-fc0a1a64c23d"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Penelope W. Murphy","hasEmail":"mailto:pwmurphy2@wisc.edu"},"description":"Monitoring overwinter survival is valuable for understanding population dynamics of winter-adapted species. We quantified overwinter survival of Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Sandhill State Wildlife Area in Wisconsin using data from radio-collared birds. We used known fate survival models to quantify weekly survival across five winter seasons. This dataset includes encounter histories for each bird and individual covariate values for demographic information, weekly weather conditions, and land cover.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.21429/1xt7-m648","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.c262dd7b-ee76-433b-ae8f-90dd477106a8.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_c262dd7b-ee76-433b-ae8f-90dd477106a8","keyword":["Ruffed Grouse","Sandhill State Wildlife Area","USGS:c262dd7b-ee76-433b-ae8f-90dd477106a8","Winter Survival Data","Wisconsin","biota","climate change","color polymorphism","ecology","external research support","phenotypic mismatch","winter","winter ecology"],"modified":"2026-08-19T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-90.2527, 44.2973, -90.1126, 44.3985","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Known fate encounter histories of overwintering Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Sandhill Wildlife Area, Babcock, Wisconsin (2015 - 2022). "},"description":"Monitoring overwinter survival is valuable for understanding population dynamics of winter-adapted species. We quantified overwinter survival of Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Sandhill State Wildlife Area in Wisconsin using data from radio-collared birds. We used known fate survival models to quantify weekly survival across five winter seasons. This dataset includes encounter histories for each bird and individual covariate values for demographic information, weekly weather conditions, and land cover.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/255c0da1-1c68-4655-9b8d-9b36f3698527","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/255c0da1-1c68-4655-9b8d-9b36f3698527/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_c262dd7b-ee76-433b-ae8f-90dd477106a8","keyword":["Ruffed Grouse","Sandhill State Wildlife Area","USGS:c262dd7b-ee76-433b-ae8f-90dd477106a8","Winter Survival Data","Wisconsin","biota","climate change","color polymorphism","ecology","external research support","phenotypic mismatch","winter","winter ecology"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-22T00:32:41.422738","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"known-fate-encounter-histories-of-overwintering-ruffed-grouse-bonasa-umbellus-in-2015-2022","spatial_centroid":{"lat":44.337779999999995,"lon":-90.19666},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-90.2527,44.2973],[-90.2527,44.3985],[-90.1126,44.3985],[-90.1126,44.2973],[-90.2527,44.2973]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Known fate encounter histories of overwintering Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Sandhill Wildlife Area, Babcock, Wisconsin (2015 - 2022). ","type":"dataset"},{"_score":31.836948,"_sort":[1787274435270,31.836948,0,"27260d4e-b244-4273-b8bb-9cd206a6238e"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Emilie Henderson","hasEmail":"mailto:emilie.henderson@oregonstate.edu"},"description":"Collection of model inputs and outputs examining different combinations of management and climate scenarios run in northwest Washington. The objectives of this project are to explore how climate and land management in southwestern Oregon and coastal Washington might interact to shape future vegetation and wildlife habitat, and determine what management actions will likely maximize habitats for key species. Climate scenarios include no climate change, Hadley global circulation model, and RegCM3 regional circulation model.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P145U26M","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.b94832e2-05db-4f08-9790-3273d96fbf2f.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_b94832e2-05db-4f08-9790-3273d96fbf2f","keyword":["Pacific Coast","Pacific Northwest","Stream temperature","USGS:b94832e2-05db-4f08-9790-3273d96fbf2f","Washington","biota","climate change","economy","external research support","habitats","land management","modeling","state and transition modeling","vegetation change","vulnerability assessment","wildlife habitat"],"modified":"2026-08-18T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-124.7534, 46.0432, -122.4771, 48.4548","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Future Spotted Owl Habitat Projections, Northwest Washington Study Area, 2007-2096"},"description":"Collection of model inputs and outputs examining different combinations of management and climate scenarios run in northwest Washington. The objectives of this project are to explore how climate and land management in southwestern Oregon and coastal Washington might interact to shape future vegetation and wildlife habitat, and determine what management actions will likely maximize habitats for key species. Climate scenarios include no climate change, Hadley global circulation model, and RegCM3 regional circulation model.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/ab780c2d-70c6-43e6-ada4-7e62552d9028","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/ab780c2d-70c6-43e6-ada4-7e62552d9028/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_b94832e2-05db-4f08-9790-3273d96fbf2f","keyword":["Pacific Coast","Pacific Northwest","Stream temperature","USGS:b94832e2-05db-4f08-9790-3273d96fbf2f","Washington","biota","climate change","economy","external research support","habitats","land management","modeling","state and transition modeling","vegetation change","vulnerability assessment","wildlife habitat"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-21T01:07:15.270240","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"future-spotted-owl-habitat-projections-northwest-washington-study-area-2007-2096","spatial_centroid":{"lat":47.00784,"lon":-123.84288},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-124.7534,46.0432],[-124.7534,48.4548],[-122.4771,48.4548],[-122.4771,46.0432],[-124.7534,46.0432]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Future Spotted Owl Habitat Projections, Northwest Washington Study Area, 2007-2096","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.539833,"_sort":[1787187004124,8.539833,0,"44b53134-4270-4616-aa54-ca46df217373"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Alice Besterman","hasEmail":"mailto:abesterman@towson.edu"},"description":"These data were collected as a part of a replicated BACI (before-after-control-impact) designed study to test the efficacy of restoration using runnels, at two marshes with differing hydrology and geomorphology. Data are from Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. This data set includes field collected elevation data combined with tidal local tidal datums. These data were averaged over several field campaigns between 2020 and 2023.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1HYJHJ9","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.69f8d0e3b66b01f26a042d8b.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_69f8d0e3b66b01f26a042d8b","keyword":["Allens Pond","Atlantic Ocean","Buzzards Bay","Massachusetts","Nasketucket Bay","Northeast United States","USGS:69f8d0e3b66b01f26a042d8b","United States","climate change","coastal ecosystems","elevation","environment","oceans","sea-level change","wetland ecosystems"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-71.0651, 41.4859, -70.7794, 41.6503","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Elevation and tidal datums for salt marsh sites in Buzzards Bay, MA from 2020-2023"},"description":"These data were collected as a part of a replicated BACI (before-after-control-impact) designed study to test the efficacy of restoration using runnels, at two marshes with differing hydrology and geomorphology. Data are from Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. This data set includes field collected elevation data combined with tidal local tidal datums. These data were averaged over several field campaigns between 2020 and 2023.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/8ba06de8-2f37-41c9-ae4f-b0ca5cc59e04","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/8ba06de8-2f37-41c9-ae4f-b0ca5cc59e04/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_69f8d0e3b66b01f26a042d8b","keyword":["Allens Pond","Atlantic Ocean","Buzzards Bay","Massachusetts","Nasketucket Bay","Northeast United States","USGS:69f8d0e3b66b01f26a042d8b","United States","climate change","coastal ecosystems","elevation","environment","oceans","sea-level change","wetland ecosystems"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-20T00:50:04.124333","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"elevation-and-tidal-datums-for-salt-marsh-sites-in-buzzards-bay-ma-from-2020-2023","spatial_centroid":{"lat":41.551660000000005,"lon":-70.95082},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-71.0651,41.4859],[-71.0651,41.6503],[-70.7794,41.6503],[-70.7794,41.4859],[-71.0651,41.4859]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Elevation and tidal datums for salt marsh sites in Buzzards Bay, MA from 2020-2023","type":"dataset"},{"_score":16.861229,"_sort":[1787186382075,16.861229,0,"954c6e47-a280-4b9c-8818-314c467c197b"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Marc Pons","hasEmail":"mailto:info@ceg.group"},"description":"This single-band float32 GeoTIFF raster represents a spatially smoothed vulnerability\nindex for sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems at the northern extent of the sagebrush\nbiome, spanning the US\u2013Canada border region from north-central Montana into\nsoutheastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, with smaller portions of Wyoming,\nNorth Dakota, and South Dakota (approximately 46.0\u00b0N to 51.1\u00b0N latitude, 102.0\u00b0W to\n113.3\u00b0W longitude). The area falls primarily within the Northwestern Glaciated Plains\nand Northwestern Great Plains ecoregions (EPA Level III / CEC ecoregion classification),\nwith its western edge reaching the Rocky Mountain Front and Canadian Rockies foothills.\nThis region is the northernmost range of the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus\nurophasianus), centered on the Milk River and Frenchman River basins, and is sometimes\nreferred to informally as the greater northern sagebrush biome. Vulnerability values\nare continuous and range from 1 (lowest vulnerability) to 8 (highest vulnerability),\nreflecting a composite assessment of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of\nsagebrush ecosystems to stressors including climate change, invasive species (e.g.,\ncheatgrass, Bromus tectorum), wildfire, and land conversion. A focal mean filter with\na window size of 10 pixels was applied to the source vulnerability raster. At the\nnative 100 m (nominal, projected-CRS) cell resolution, this window corresponds to a\nnominal 1,000 m ground footprint \u2014 see Positional Accuracy below for a caveat on true\nground distance under this projection. This smoothing reduces local pixel-level noise\nand emphasizes landscape-scale vulnerability patterns. The raster is projected in\nWGS 84 / Pseudo-Mercator (EPSG:3857) \u2014 selected for compatibility with ArcGIS Online\npublishing \u2014 with a datum of WGS84 (not NAD83). Cells with no data are assigned IEEE 754\nNaN (float32).","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P14KPFAL","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.6a3ece3e1ba49b7c2e2634db.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6a3ece3e1ba49b7c2e2634db","keyword":["Alberta","Artemisia","EPSG:3857","GeoTIFF","Greater Sage-Grouse","Montana","North Dakota","Northern Great Plains","Northern Rocky Mountains","Northwestern Glaciated Plains","Northwestern Great Plains","Saskatchewan","South Dakota","USGS:6a3ece3e1ba49b7c2e2634db","WGS84","Wyoming","biota","cheatgrass","climate change","conservation planning","environment","focal mean smoothing","geoscientificInformation","invasive species","raster","sagebrush","sagebrush steppe","shrubland","vulnerability index","wildfire"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-113.3097, 45.9977, -101.9756, 51.1180","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Greater Northern Sagebrush Vulnerability Map"},"description":"This single-band float32 GeoTIFF raster represents a spatially smoothed vulnerability\nindex for sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems at the northern extent of the sagebrush\nbiome, spanning the US\u2013Canada border region from north-central Montana into\nsoutheastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, with smaller portions of Wyoming,\nNorth Dakota, and South Dakota (approximately 46.0\u00b0N to 51.1\u00b0N latitude, 102.0\u00b0W to\n113.3\u00b0W longitude). The area falls primarily within the Northwestern Glaciated Plains\nand Northwestern Great Plains ecoregions (EPA Level III / CEC ecoregion classification),\nwith its western edge reaching the Rocky Mountain Front and Canadian Rockies foothills.\nThis region is the northernmost range of the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus\nurophasianus), centered on the Milk River and Frenchman River basins, and is sometimes\nreferred to informally as the greater northern sagebrush biome. Vulnerability values\nare continuous and range from 1 (lowest vulnerability) to 8 (highest vulnerability),\nreflecting a composite assessment of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of\nsagebrush ecosystems to stressors including climate change, invasive species (e.g.,\ncheatgrass, Bromus tectorum), wildfire, and land conversion. A focal mean filter with\na window size of 10 pixels was applied to the source vulnerability raster. At the\nnative 100 m (nominal, projected-CRS) cell resolution, this window corresponds to a\nnominal 1,000 m ground footprint \u2014 see Positional Accuracy below for a caveat on true\nground distance under this projection. This smoothing reduces local pixel-level noise\nand emphasizes landscape-scale vulnerability patterns. The raster is projected in\nWGS 84 / Pseudo-Mercator (EPSG:3857) \u2014 selected for compatibility with ArcGIS Online\npublishing \u2014 with a datum of WGS84 (not NAD83). Cells with no data are assigned IEEE 754\nNaN (float32).","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/860d182f-b7a2-4d91-9094-ed84f52e0c83","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/860d182f-b7a2-4d91-9094-ed84f52e0c83/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6a3ece3e1ba49b7c2e2634db","keyword":["Alberta","Artemisia","EPSG:3857","GeoTIFF","Greater Sage-Grouse","Montana","North Dakota","Northern Great Plains","Northern Rocky Mountains","Northwestern Glaciated Plains","Northwestern Great Plains","Saskatchewan","South Dakota","USGS:6a3ece3e1ba49b7c2e2634db","WGS84","Wyoming","biota","cheatgrass","climate change","conservation planning","environment","focal mean smoothing","geoscientificInformation","invasive species","raster","sagebrush","sagebrush steppe","shrubland","vulnerability index","wildfire"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-20T00:39:42.075012","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"greater-northern-sagebrush-vulnerability-map","spatial_centroid":{"lat":48.045820000000006,"lon":-108.77606},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-113.3097,45.9977],[-113.3097,51.118],[-101.9756,51.118],[-101.9756,45.9977],[-113.3097,45.9977]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Greater Northern Sagebrush Vulnerability Map","type":"dataset"},{"_score":27.363827,"_sort":[1787184903436,27.363827,1,"c32eef82-af1f-4793-84ee-fe56c4a590d0"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Climate Adaptation Science Centers","hasEmail":"mailto:casc-data@usgs.gov"},"description":"Inland lake ecosystems are transforming due to unprecedented effects of climate changes and disturbance along riparian habitat, diminishing their potential to support fisheries. Walleye Sander vitreus, the most sought-after game fish in north-central North America supporting robust recreational and tribal fisheries, have declined. Climate change, harvest, invasive species, and concurrent increases in warm-water species (e.g., Centrarchidae) are implicated in declines. The Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework provides a structure to reconcile managing ecosystem transformations. To examine the utility of intensive resist actions, we conducted an experimental removal of centrarchids in a north temperate lake. We removed ~300,000 centrarchids from a lake over four years while monitoring the fish community response. Centrarchid abundance declined, yet we found no evidence of walleye recruitment but yellow perch Perca flavescens greatly increased. We present these findings to discuss the feasibility of resistance as a management strategy in supporting walleye fisheries facing environmental change as well as a segue for management discussions to move beyond traditional resist strategies when navigating ecosystem change.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P14MU9WM","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.659f2437d34e5af967a350a2.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_659f2437d34e5af967a350a2","keyword":["USGS:659f2437d34e5af967a350a2","climate change","farming","field experiments","inland fishery resources"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-90.2554, 45.6620, -89.6786, 46.1132","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Catch and Biomass per unit effort of fishes in two Northern Wisconsin lakes from 2017-2021"},"description":"Inland lake ecosystems are transforming due to unprecedented effects of climate changes and disturbance along riparian habitat, diminishing their potential to support fisheries. Walleye Sander vitreus, the most sought-after game fish in north-central North America supporting robust recreational and tribal fisheries, have declined. Climate change, harvest, invasive species, and concurrent increases in warm-water species (e.g., Centrarchidae) are implicated in declines. The Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework provides a structure to reconcile managing ecosystem transformations. To examine the utility of intensive resist actions, we conducted an experimental removal of centrarchids in a north temperate lake. We removed ~300,000 centrarchids from a lake over four years while monitoring the fish community response. Centrarchid abundance declined, yet we found no evidence of walleye recruitment but yellow perch Perca flavescens greatly increased. We present these findings to discuss the feasibility of resistance as a management strategy in supporting walleye fisheries facing environmental change as well as a segue for management discussions to move beyond traditional resist strategies when navigating ecosystem change.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/c2a93abe-2690-4f71-8759-726e88f15826","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/c2a93abe-2690-4f71-8759-726e88f15826/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_659f2437d34e5af967a350a2","keyword":["USGS:659f2437d34e5af967a350a2","climate change","farming","field experiments","inland fishery resources"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-20T00:15:03.436771","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":1,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"catch-and-biomass-per-unit-effort-of-fishes-in-two-northern-wisconsin-lakes-from-2017-2021","spatial_centroid":{"lat":45.84248,"lon":-90.02468},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-90.2554,45.662],[-90.2554,46.1132],[-89.6786,46.1132],[-89.6786,45.662],[-90.2554,45.662]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Catch and Biomass per unit effort of fishes in two Northern Wisconsin lakes from 2017-2021","type":"dataset"},{"_score":22.574764,"_sort":[1787184868150,22.574764,0,"74d59509-ef29-4e62-b87a-9b554623fc94"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center","hasEmail":"mailto:gs-b-werc_data_management@usgs.gov"},"description":"Coastal managers need robust projections of how sea-level rise (SLR), sediment availability, and management actions may alter estuarine habitats. We developed and calibrated WARMER-Coast, an intermediate-complexity modeling framework, to simulate tidal wetland evolution, assess potential upslope migration pathways, and evaluate management scenarios developed in consultation with local stakeholders. WARMER-Coast couples the 1-D soil cohort model WARMER v3 with a simplified 2-D hydrodynamic framework to simulate inundation, sediment transport, surface and edge erosion, plant growth, organic matter accumulation, and carbon storage. Model calibration leveraged extensive field observations, including water-level monitoring, elevation and vegetation surveys, surface elevation table measurements, soil cores, feldspar marker horizons, and short-term sediment deposition measurements. We applied the calibrated model to project marsh and seagrass habitat trajectories across five SLR scenarios and three sediment regimes. Results identify where habitat persistence, conversion, and upslope migration are most likely, and provide a framework for comparing the relative effectiveness of adaptive management actions in Morro Bay and other vulnerable estuaries.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1BMNQN3","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.6a7a2d731ba49b951e84040b.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6a7a2d731ba49b951e84040b","keyword":["California","Morro Bay","USGS:6a7a2d731ba49b951e84040b","biota","elevation","environment","mathematical modeling","sea-level change","tidal flat","wetland ecosystems"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-120.88342, 35.30731, -120.80319, 35.37418","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Projected evolution of intertidal habitats in Morro Bay, California under sea-level rise, climate variability, and management scenarios, 2020-2100"},"description":"Coastal managers need robust projections of how sea-level rise (SLR), sediment availability, and management actions may alter estuarine habitats. We developed and calibrated WARMER-Coast, an intermediate-complexity modeling framework, to simulate tidal wetland evolution, assess potential upslope migration pathways, and evaluate management scenarios developed in consultation with local stakeholders. WARMER-Coast couples the 1-D soil cohort model WARMER v3 with a simplified 2-D hydrodynamic framework to simulate inundation, sediment transport, surface and edge erosion, plant growth, organic matter accumulation, and carbon storage. Model calibration leveraged extensive field observations, including water-level monitoring, elevation and vegetation surveys, surface elevation table measurements, soil cores, feldspar marker horizons, and short-term sediment deposition measurements. We applied the calibrated model to project marsh and seagrass habitat trajectories across five SLR scenarios and three sediment regimes. Results identify where habitat persistence, conversion, and upslope migration are most likely, and provide a framework for comparing the relative effectiveness of adaptive management actions in Morro Bay and other vulnerable estuaries.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/c19dafbc-4332-41c7-ab54-dbc8a9651203","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/c19dafbc-4332-41c7-ab54-dbc8a9651203/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_6a7a2d731ba49b951e84040b","keyword":["California","Morro Bay","USGS:6a7a2d731ba49b951e84040b","biota","elevation","environment","mathematical modeling","sea-level change","tidal flat","wetland ecosystems"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-20T00:14:28.150908","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"projected-evolution-of-intertidal-habitats-in-morro-bay-california-under-sea-lev-2020-2100","spatial_centroid":{"lat":35.334058000000006,"lon":-120.85132800000001},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-120.88342,35.30731],[-120.88342,35.37418],[-120.80319,35.37418],[-120.80319,35.30731],[-120.88342,35.30731]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Projected evolution of intertidal habitats in Morro Bay, California under sea-level rise, climate variability, and management scenarios, 2020-2100","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.281875,"_sort":[1787184726115,8.281875,0,"4b578266-b733-47b6-9fe2-8bfa027e59ba"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Alice Besterman","hasEmail":"mailto:abesterman@towson.edu"},"description":"This data set includes water level response data from two salt marshes in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, which received hydrologic restoration to address interior ponding using runnels. These data are from a replicated BACI (before-after-control-impact) designed study, at two marshes with differing hydrology and geomorphology. Data were collected using HOBO Water Level Data Loggers (U20L-04) deployed below the marsh surface between May and October (full duration of deployment varies by year). Data were collected every 15-minutes and filtered to generate a minimum daily water level. Water levels are presented relative to soil height.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1MBL4ML","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.69f8d07bb66b01f26a042d7e.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_69f8d07bb66b01f26a042d7e","keyword":["Allens Pond","Atlantic Ocean","Buzzards Bay","Massachusetts","Nasketucket Bay","Northeast United States","USGS:69f8d07bb66b01f26a042d7e","United States","biota","climate change","coastal ecosystems","ecosystem management","environment","oceans","sea-level change","vegetation","wetland ecosystems"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-71.0335, 41.5065, -70.8364, 41.6447","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Water level responses in shallow-water areas to restoration in Buzzards Bay Massachusetts, 2020-2023"},"description":"This data set includes water level response data from two salt marshes in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, which received hydrologic restoration to address interior ponding using runnels. These data are from a replicated BACI (before-after-control-impact) designed study, at two marshes with differing hydrology and geomorphology. Data were collected using HOBO Water Level Data Loggers (U20L-04) deployed below the marsh surface between May and October (full duration of deployment varies by year). Data were collected every 15-minutes and filtered to generate a minimum daily water level. Water levels are presented relative to soil height.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f97a7158-2fe7-491c-9093-9450c791bc6f","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f97a7158-2fe7-491c-9093-9450c791bc6f/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_69f8d07bb66b01f26a042d7e","keyword":["Allens Pond","Atlantic Ocean","Buzzards Bay","Massachusetts","Nasketucket Bay","Northeast United States","USGS:69f8d07bb66b01f26a042d7e","United States","biota","climate change","coastal ecosystems","ecosystem management","environment","oceans","sea-level change","vegetation","wetland ecosystems"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-20T00:12:06.115817","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"water-level-responses-in-shallow-water-areas-to-restoration-in-buzzards-bay-mass-2020-2023","spatial_centroid":{"lat":41.56178,"lon":-70.95466},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-71.0335,41.5065],[-71.0335,41.6447],[-70.8364,41.6447],[-70.8364,41.5065],[-71.0335,41.5065]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Water level responses in shallow-water areas to restoration in Buzzards Bay Massachusetts, 2020-2023","type":"dataset"},{"_score":10.408051,"_sort":[1787184666802,10.408051,2,"0d9af362-07a8-4a0e-84d4-fe6eb303d5b1"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Jennifer M Cartwright","hasEmail":"mailto:jmcart@usgs.gov"},"description":"This data release includes data-processing scripts, data products, and associated metadata for a remote-sensing based approach to characterize vegetation conditions within a dry, mixed conifer forest study area in southern Oregon in 2001 (a single year drought without any widespread insect mortality) and 2009 (during a multi-year drought that coincided with a severe outbreak of mountain pine beetle; MPB). This analysis involved several steps. First, time-series climate data were compiled and plotted to identify drought periods. Similarly, time-series data representing insect outbreaks were compiled and plotted to identify trends in insect mortality. The study area was classified into forest canopy types using existing modeled estimates of tree basal area by tree species. Using remotely-sensed Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI) from the Landsat archive, NDMI anomalies from reference conditions were calculated in 2001 and 2009. Based on these anomalies, and using the forest classification map, refugia from drought (in 2001) and combined drought-MPB effects (in 2009) were identified as NDMI anomalies greater than the 90\\u003Csup\\u003Eth\\u003C/sup\\u003E-percentile value within each forest type. Once refugia had been identified, landscape variables (topographic, soil, and forest stand characteristics) were compiled and used to model the landscape controls on refugia locations using Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) modeling, a machine-learning algorithm. For detailed descriptions of data-release components, please consult the appropriate metadata documents that accompany the processing scripts and data products.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/F74Q7SWX","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.59637fdbe4b0d1f9f059d824.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_59637fdbe4b0d1f9f059d824","keyword":["USGS:59637fdbe4b0d1f9f059d824","biota","elevation","environment","geoscientificInformation"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-120.908504664726, 42.46096497075, -120.768520709553, 42.5920986015813","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Analysis of remotely-sensed vegetation conditions during droughts and a mountain pine beetle outbreak, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness, Oregon"},"description":"This data release includes data-processing scripts, data products, and associated metadata for a remote-sensing based approach to characterize vegetation conditions within a dry, mixed conifer forest study area in southern Oregon in 2001 (a single year drought without any widespread insect mortality) and 2009 (during a multi-year drought that coincided with a severe outbreak of mountain pine beetle; MPB). This analysis involved several steps. First, time-series climate data were compiled and plotted to identify drought periods. Similarly, time-series data representing insect outbreaks were compiled and plotted to identify trends in insect mortality. The study area was classified into forest canopy types using existing modeled estimates of tree basal area by tree species. Using remotely-sensed Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI) from the Landsat archive, NDMI anomalies from reference conditions were calculated in 2001 and 2009. Based on these anomalies, and using the forest classification map, refugia from drought (in 2001) and combined drought-MPB effects (in 2009) were identified as NDMI anomalies greater than the 90\\u003Csup\\u003Eth\\u003C/sup\\u003E-percentile value within each forest type. Once refugia had been identified, landscape variables (topographic, soil, and forest stand characteristics) were compiled and used to model the landscape controls on refugia locations using Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) modeling, a machine-learning algorithm. For detailed descriptions of data-release components, please consult the appropriate metadata documents that accompany the processing scripts and data products.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/fa062791-a35f-4abd-bde3-52ec27508686","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/fa062791-a35f-4abd-bde3-52ec27508686/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_59637fdbe4b0d1f9f059d824","keyword":["USGS:59637fdbe4b0d1f9f059d824","biota","elevation","environment","geoscientificInformation"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-20T00:11:06.802095","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":2,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"vegetation-indicators-and-landscape-characteristics-for-the-gearhart-mountain-wilderness-o","spatial_centroid":{"lat":42.51341842308252,"lon":-120.85251108265679},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-120.908504664726,42.46096497075],[-120.908504664726,42.5920986015813],[-120.768520709553,42.5920986015813],[-120.768520709553,42.46096497075],[-120.908504664726,42.46096497075]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Analysis of remotely-sensed vegetation conditions during droughts and a mountain pine beetle outbreak, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness, Oregon","type":"dataset"},{"_score":8.296259,"_sort":[1787183155505,8.296259,0,"9804a043-fd77-4f66-a206-33340fb66176"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Alice Besterman","hasEmail":"mailto:abesterman@towson.edu"},"description":"This data set includes vegetation response data from two salt marshes in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, which received hydrologic restoration to address interior ponding using runnels. These data are from a replicated BACI (before-after-control-impact) designed study. Data were collected using point-intercept method for percent cover, stem counts, stem height measurements, among other vegetation parameters. Field work methods from 2020 to 2023 were standardized and the data underwent quality control checks.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P13XSEIU","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.69f8d011b66b01f26a042d72.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_69f8d011b66b01f26a042d72","keyword":["Allens Pond","Atlantic Ocean","Buzzards Bay","Massachusetts","Nasketucket Bay","Northeast United States","USGS:69f8d011b66b01f26a042d72","United States","biota","climate change","coastal ecosystems","ecosystem management","environment","oceans","sea-level change","vegetation","wetland ecosystems"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"-71.1008, 41.4818, -70.8124, 41.6975","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Tidal marsh vegetation response to restoration in Buzzards Bay Massachusetts, 2020-2023"},"description":"This data set includes vegetation response data from two salt marshes in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, which received hydrologic restoration to address interior ponding using runnels. These data are from a replicated BACI (before-after-control-impact) designed study. Data were collected using point-intercept method for percent cover, stem counts, stem height measurements, among other vegetation parameters. Field work methods from 2020 to 2023 were standardized and the data underwent quality control checks.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/98e6ff97-542c-4167-8aa3-aca36d3ee285","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/98e6ff97-542c-4167-8aa3-aca36d3ee285/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_69f8d011b66b01f26a042d72","keyword":["Allens Pond","Atlantic Ocean","Buzzards Bay","Massachusetts","Nasketucket Bay","Northeast United States","USGS:69f8d011b66b01f26a042d72","United States","biota","climate change","coastal ecosystems","ecosystem management","environment","oceans","sea-level change","vegetation","wetland ecosystems"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-19T23:45:55.505483","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"tidal-marsh-vegetation-response-to-restoration-in-buzzards-bay-massachusetts-2020-2023","spatial_centroid":{"lat":41.568079999999995,"lon":-70.98544000000001},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-71.1008,41.4818],[-71.1008,41.6975],[-70.8124,41.6975],[-70.8124,41.4818],[-71.1008,41.4818]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Tidal marsh vegetation response to restoration in Buzzards Bay Massachusetts, 2020-2023","type":"dataset"},{"_score":51.533455,"_sort":[1787183070572,51.533455,0,"b6901774-e538-47fc-8875-8a1ac7adc155"],"dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:12"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Climate Adaptation Science Centers","hasEmail":"mailto:casc-data@usgs.gov"},"description":"This dataset contains the questionnaire used and survey results (excel files) from a household questionnaire survey (N=79) conducted for the Marshall Islands Climate and Migration project. Data were collected in migration destination states of Hawaii (Oahu and the Big Island, July-August 2017) and the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington, October-November 2017). These states were chosen for their high concentration of diaspora groups, support from community-based organizations and NGOs able to facilitate introductions and translation, and linkages to the Marshallese Consulate. Survey questions are available in both English and Marshallese. The household questionnaire generated quantitative and qualitative information by gathering sociodemographic data, the risk-proneness of respondents\u2019 houses, the impacts of environmental stressors, trends in ecosystem services, respondents\u2019 migration histories and future migration intentions, and perceptions on policy interventions.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://doi.org/10.5066/P1VGPKQH","description":"Landing page for access to the data","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/http","title":"Digital Data"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"The metadata original format","downloadURL":"https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/metadata/USGS.0552e822-581b-420f-8d44-ab32cb8bd4b9.xml","format":"XML","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Original Metadata"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_0552e822-581b-420f-8d44-ab32cb8bd4b9","keyword":["Hawaii","Majuro","Maleolap","Marshall Islands","Mejit","Oregon","Republic of Marshall Islands","USGS:0552e822-581b-420f-8d44-ab32cb8bd4b9","Washington","climate change","external research support","society"],"modified":"2026-08-17T00:00:00Z","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Geological Survey"},"spatial":"162.3200, 5.6000, 169.9700, 14.5900","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Survey to Explore the Perceptions of Climate Change and Ecosystem Services on Migration Decisions of Marshallese People"},"description":"This dataset contains the questionnaire used and survey results (excel files) from a household questionnaire survey (N=79) conducted for the Marshall Islands Climate and Migration project. Data were collected in migration destination states of Hawaii (Oahu and the Big Island, July-August 2017) and the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington, October-November 2017). These states were chosen for their high concentration of diaspora groups, support from community-based organizations and NGOs able to facilitate introductions and translation, and linkages to the Marshallese Consulate. Survey questions are available in both English and Marshallese. The household questionnaire generated quantitative and qualitative information by gathering sociodemographic data, the risk-proneness of respondents\u2019 houses, the impacts of environmental stressors, trends in ecosystem services, respondents\u2019 migration histories and future migration intentions, and perceptions on policy interventions.","distribution_titles":["Digital Data","Original Metadata"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/ff5e684e-7d24-4a5d-aeb7-76714c50ee87","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/ff5e684e-7d24-4a5d-aeb7-76714c50ee87/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/USGS_0552e822-581b-420f-8d44-ab32cb8bd4b9","keyword":["Hawaii","Majuro","Maleolap","Marshall Islands","Mejit","Oregon","Republic of Marshall Islands","USGS:0552e822-581b-420f-8d44-ab32cb8bd4b9","Washington","climate change","external research support","society"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-19T23:44:30.572680","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"popularity":0,"publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","slug":"survey-to-explore-the-perceptions-of-climate-change-and-ecosystem-services-on-migration-de","spatial_centroid":{"lat":9.196,"lon":165.38},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[162.32,5.6],[162.32,14.59],[169.97,14.59],[169.97,5.6],[162.32,5.6]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Survey to Explore the Perceptions of Climate Change and Ecosystem Services on Migration Decisions of Marshallese People","type":"dataset"},{"_score":19.342625,"_sort":[1787101902011,19.342625,3,"2381ebfb-3c68-4113-b706-130d6422c23d"],"dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["026:00"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"Sandi Miller","hasEmail":"mailto:sandi.g.miller@nasa.gov"},"description":"The Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI) is an initiative of the inter-governmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO) that aims to:\n\nfoster the sustained availability of observations for national forest monitoring systems; support governments that are establishing national systems by providing a platform for coordinating observations, providing assistance and guidance on utilizing observations, developing accepted methods and protocols, and promoting ongoing research and development; and work with national governments that report into international forest assessments (such as the global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO) and the national greenhouse gas inventories reported to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) using methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"http://techport.nasa.gov/xml-api/14686","format":"XML","mediaType":"application/xml"}],"identifier":"C1220567987-USGS_LTA","issued":"1972-07-27","keyword":["agricultural-plant-science","agriculture","earth-science","forest-science"],"landingPage":"https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov:443/search/concepts/C1220567987-USGS_LTA.html","language":["en-US"],"modified":"2025-03-31","programCode":["026:001"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"DOI/USGS/EROS"},"spatial":"90.0 23.5 90.35 23.7","temporal":"1972-07-27T00:00:00Z/2022-01-17T00:00:00Z","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"USGS Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI) Bangladesh"},"description":"The Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI) is an initiative of the inter-governmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO) that aims to:\n\nfoster the sustained availability of observations for national forest monitoring systems; support governments that are establishing national systems by providing a platform for coordinating observations, providing assistance and guidance on utilizing observations, developing accepted methods and protocols, and promoting ongoing research and development; and work with national governments that report into international forest assessments (such as the global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO) and the national greenhouse gas inventories reported to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) using methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).","distribution_titles":[],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/fd438c43-7c6d-4a06-a014-f1894f71763e","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/fd438c43-7c6d-4a06-a014-f1894f71763e/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"C1220567987-USGS_LTA","keyword":["agricultural-plant-science","agriculture","earth-science","forest-science"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-08-19T01:11:42.011544","organization":{"aliases":[""],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"f4ca4614-8901-409b-8553-2e994ad10023","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/nasa.png","name":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"nasa"},"popularity":3,"publisher":"DOI/USGS/EROS","slug":"usgs-global-forest-observations-initiative-gfoi-bangladesh","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"USGS Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI) Bangladesh","type":"dataset"}],"sort":"last_harvested_date"}