AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
Acoustic Bird Survey - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2824]

Automated acoustic recorders were deployed at 331 sites across the Mojave Desert ecoregion and 263 sites across the Great Valley ecoregion between March and July of 2016 and 2017. At each survey location, an SM3-BAT bioacoustic recorder was deployed with both an SMM-A1 acoustic microphone and an SMM-U1 ultrasonic microphone (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc., Maynard, MA, USA, hereafter termed ARU). Automated recorders were cable locked to securely-placed T-posts, with microphones 2 meters above the ground, and were located within 10 meters of the site center at a relatively open spot not occupied by thick vegetation. The ARUs were programmed to record three 5-minute sessions each morning during the survey period, with the first session at 30 minutes before sunrise, the second at sunrise, and the third at 30 minutes after sunrise. The ARUs were also programmed to alternate between 7.5-minute audible acoustic recordings and 22.5-minute triggered, full-spectrum ultrasonic recordings from 30 minutes before sunset until 0400 the following morning, at which time the ultrasonic recordings ceased; the 7.5-minute acoustic recordings continued every 30 minutes until the 5-minute dawn chorus recordings began at 30 minutes before sunrise. Deployments lasted for seven consecutive days, on average. For the avian acoustic analysis, all birds were surveyed on the acoustic channel from the three 5-minute dawn chorus recordings collected from three mornings during the survey period, preferably from consecutive days. Recordings were reviewed, and bird species identified by song or call. To aid in bird identification, spectrograms were visually examined using Raven Pro software (v. 1.5; Cornell Lab of Ornithology Bioacoustics Research Program, Ithaca, NY, USA). Multispecies hierarchical occupancy models were then used to estimate 1) the probability a given bird species occurred within the area sampled by an acoustic recorder during the survey period, 2) the richness of bird species, and 3) community and species-specific responses to different ecological covariates. For each sampling location, each 5-minute acoustic recording (n = 9) was treated as a repeat survey at that particular site. Occurrence and detection probabilities were assumed to differ between years and among species, and were assumed to be influenced by ecological covariates (e.g., crop cover, forest cover, water availability).
Acoustic Bat Survey - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2825]

Automated acoustic recorders were deployed at 331 sites across the Mojave Desert ecoregion and 263 sites across the Great Valley ecoregion between March and July of 2016 and 2017. At each survey location, an SM3-BAT bioacoustic recorder was deployed with both an SMM-A1 acoustic microphone and an SMM-U1 ultrasonic microphone (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc., Maynard, MA, USA, hereafter termed ARU). Automated recorders were cable locked to securely-placed T-posts 2 meters above the ground, and were located within 10 meters of the site center at a relatively open spot not occupied by thick vegetation. The ARUs were programmed to record three 5-minute sessions each morning during the survey period, with the first session at 30 minutes before sunrise, the second at sunrise, and the third at 30 minutes after sunrise. The ARUs were also programmed to alternate between 7.5-minute audible acoustic recordings and 22.5-minute triggered, full-spectrum ultrasonic recordings from 30 minutes before sunset until 0400 the following morning, at which time the ultrasonic recordings ceased; the 7.5-minute acoustic recordings continued every 30 minutes until the 5-minute dawn chorus recordings began at 30 minutes before sunrise. Deployments lasted for seven consecutive days, on average. Following the survey, Kaleidoscope Pro version 4.3.2 with the KPro classifier (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc., Maynard, MA, USA) was used to auto-classify file recordings to the species level for bats. Using the probabilistic output from the classifier, files were filtered to retain only those determined to have a misidentification probability less than 0.05. All of the remaining files were then manually reviewed (i.e., examination of diagnostics and spectrograms) to confirm or reject the auto-classified species identification. The automated and post-validated datasets were analyzed using five occupancy modeling frameworks, which differed in how they did or did not address false positive detections.
Habitat Rapid Assessment Survey - 2016 - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2827]

Vegetation surveys were conducted at all Great Valley and Mojave Desert study sites between May and July 2016. These surveys followed the California Native Plant Society/Department of Fish and Wildlife protocol for vegetation rapid assessment and were representative of either the lifeform for which the survey site was selected or the dominant vegetation type encountered on site, if the preassigned lifeform is not found. The rapid assessment sample was based not on a plot but on a single representative stand with 12-20 of the dominant or characteristic species and their cover values recorded. The CDFW Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program reviewed and confirmed or corrected all field assessments herein.
Habitat and Vegetation Assessment - 2017 - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2828]

Vegetation surveys were conducted at each Great Valley and Mojave Desert study site between March and June 2017. The surveys followed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Reconnissance Field Protocol and were representative of either the lifeform for which the survey site was selected, or the dominant vegetation type encountered on site, if the preassigned lieform was not found. These reconnaissance vegetation surveys are based on a representative stand with a subset of dominant or characteristic plant species and their cover values recorded rather than a plot based survey. Field crews determined the primary alliance for the stand and identified the dominant species present, along with percent cover and phenology information. If there was any uncertainty in keying to alliance, a secondary alliance was also described, along with any details to aid in later determination. The CDFW Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program reviewed and confirmed or corrected all field assessments herein.
Point Count Survey - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2829]

Avian point count surveys were conducted at 184 Great Valley study sites, and 107 Mojave Desert sites, between March and June 2017. Whenever possible, three independent point count surveys of five minutes each were conducted over the course of the month-long survey period at each site. To enable relatively accurate distance measurements, observers would mentally mark 50 meters in each cardinal direction using a rangefinder. Observer qualifications determined the complexity of the survey being conducted, with a focal survey recording data for only 25 pre-designated species; for comprehensive surveys, data for all bird species was collected. During survey site establishment visits, a 15-minute quiet period was taken at the point count center prior to starting the survey; subsequent visits only required a 5-minute quiet period. During the quiet period, the observer recorded general information about the survey location, weather, etc. During the point count, observers recorded the name of each species using six letter codes. Individuals of each species were tallied within the three different distance categories: < 50 meters, > 50 meters, and flyover. Birds seen at multiple distances were recorded only at the closest distance. Observers also recorded the confidence level of their observations and the type of detection (aural and/or visual). When individuals were detected at different confidence levels, the observer created distinct entries of the species and separated them by confidence. If an unknown species was detected, the observation was labelled as UNK, numbered, recorded with the technician’s best guess to species ID, and marked at low confidence (e.g. UNK1 – HOUFIN).
Riparian Birds - Sierra Nevada Foothills [ds303]

These data are summary statistics of abundances of birds counted within 100-m radius circles with 10-minute point counts at multiple sample points along 36 randomly selected watercourses in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Bird surveys were conducted between 25 March 2005 and 30 June 2005 along watercourses from Butte to Calaveras counties. These data represent 2,614 detections of 94 species at 144 different sample points along the 36 watercourses.
Site Establishment Survey - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2831]

The TSM study areas were the USDA-defined Great Valley (GV) and Mojave Desert (MD) ecoregions, truncated to California state boundaries. A grid of hexagons adapted from the USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis program, each having an approximate radius of 2,600 meters, was used as the sampling frame. Initially, a spatially-balanced, stratified random sampling approach was used to identify hexagons to be included in the study. Vegetation maps from a variety of sources were used to calculate the total cover of key lifeforms within each ecoregion. These lifeforms were determined based not only on distinct categories of vegetation, but also on habitats or features known or thought to be important to wildlife. A spatially-balanced random sample was drawn for the Mojave Desert ecoregion, while site selection in the Great Valley was more opportunistic based on the greater proportion of private land ownership.To select discrete survey locations within the hexagons, a finer-scale grid of approximately 2,400 points spaced 100 meters apart was created within each selected hexagon; for parcels that did not encompass an entire hexagon, the 100-meter grid was limited to the area within the parcel boundary. Generally, two survey points located 1,000-2,000 meters apart were selected in each hexagon. Initial points were identified by assigning random numbers to all of the grid points in each hexagon, and then selecting the lowest numbered points that met other constraints, including stratified sampling goals and land access restrictions. On rare occasions, more than two sites were located within a given hexagon, but the preferred practice was to avoid duplication or monitoring in adjacent hexagons. Study sites were not repeated between the two years, so that the entire monitoring effort comprised unique locations.
Time Constrained Search - 2017 - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2832]

Time constrained surveys for reptiles and amphibians were conducted at 184 Great Valley study sites, and 107 Mojave Desert sites, between March and June 2017. Whenever possible, three independent surveys of 30 minutes each were conducted over the course of the month-long survey period at each site. Time constrained searches were typically conducted after completion of avian point count surveys. Once the study site lifeform was determined, the observer began their search within the stand, but could move throughout the lifeform. In narrow riparian areas, observers could search the edges of these habitats in addition to the main lifeform. Observers were free to move about anywhere within the lifeform, making sure to check any cover object that was safe to inspect; this included rock crevices, burrows, downed logs, etc. Moved cover objects were to be returned exactly as they were found. When an observation was made, observers recorded the species (six-letter code if known, otherwise full common or scientific names), time of observation, age class (hatchling, juvenile, adult) if possible, confidence level, and a GPS location. Each subsequent TCS was conducted with the same amount of intensity as previous searches.
Transect Survey - Mojave Desert - 2017 - Terrestrial Species Stressor Monitoring [ds2834]

Visual Encounter Transect Surveys of reptiles, amphibians, and other vertebrate wildlife taxa were conducted at a subset of study sites in the Mojave Desert in 2017. A total of 52 transect surveys at 17 study sites were conducted between March and June 2017. For each survey, a single observer walked two 200-meter transects and recorded counts and distances of all wildlife observed. The two transects are laid out as a cross intersecting at a right angle, with this intersection occurring at survey site center. The exact orientation of the cross and the sinuosity of transects was left to the discretion of the surveyor(s) to optimize sampling of the site-designated lifeform and to facilitate ease of travel (e.g., barriers or steep slopes). In the case of a riparian lifeform site, one transect was aligned along or near the stream course, and the second along the gradient extending to either side of the stream course. In the case of a guzzler or wetland, transects were aligned along approximately perpendicular sides. A laser rangefinder was used to accurately measure the perpendicular distance from the transect to the location of each wildlife group at the instance of its initial observation. These data were used for distance sampling methods to estimate abundance, and for comparing 2016 and 2017 data. Whenever possible, these transect surveys overlapped spatially with Time Constrained Searches at the same location.
California Seed Zones

California seed zone boundaries were first proposed in 1946, revised, and published as a joint report between the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE in 1970. The 85 seed zones are defined by major areas in California having similar climatic, topographic, and soil conditions. These are areas where plant materials can be moved or transferred with minimal risk of being poorly adapted to a new location. Each seed zone is labelled by a three-digit identifier that reflects the layer’s creation. The first digit indicates the physiographic and climatic region. The second digit gives the subregion, which captures the next lower level of environmental changes known to affect growth and adaptability of plants. The last digit denotes the subzone. Subzones are limited to about 50 miles in latitude and further refine the uniformity of environment within each subregion. Where possible, boundaries follow natural or physical features. For more information, see the original publication: [https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/41438].
Round 1 Solicitation Electric Fuel Corridor Groups (updated December 2023)

This layer includes the groups for Round 1 of California's NEVI Funding Program. Data Dictionary: * Corridor Segment - A portion of a highway corridor. * Corridor Group - A group of one or more corridor segments. * Alternative Fuel Corridor - The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) designates a national network of plug-in electric vehicle (EV) charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling infrastructure along national highway system corridors. To designate these Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFC), FHWA solicits nominations from state and local officials and works with other federal officials and industry stakeholders. * Minimum Sites - The minimum number of project sites a corridor segment must have to be eligible for NEVI funding through California’s NEVI program solicitations. * Chargers Required - The minimum number of new chargers a corridor segment must have to be eligible for NEVI funding through California’s NEVI program solicitations. * Required Sites - Sites required along a corridor segment, if applicable. * Additional Note - Additional notes as written in the Solicitation Manual, if applicable.
NLCD 2016 Land Cover California Subset

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with several federal agencies, has developed and released five National Land Cover Database (NLCD) products over the past two decades: NLCD 1992, 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016. The 2016 release saw landcover created for additional years of 2003, 2008, and 2013. These products provide spatially explicit and reliable information on the Nation’s land cover and land cover change. To continue the legacy of NLCD and further establish a long-term monitoring capability for the Nation’s land resources, the USGS has designed a new generation of NLCD products named NLCD 2019. The NLCD 2019 design aims to provide innovative, consistent, and robust methodologies for production of a multi-temporal land cover and land cover change database from 2001 to 2019 at 2–3-year intervals. Comprehensive research was conducted and resulted in developed strategies for NLCD 2019: continued integration between impervious surface and all landcover products with impervious surface being directly mapped as developed classes in the landcover, a streamlined compositing process for assembling and preprocessing based on Landsat imagery and geospatial ancillary datasets; a multi-source integrated training data development and decision-tree based land cover classifications; a temporally, spectrally, and spatially integrated land cover change analysis strategy; a hierarchical theme-based post-classification and integration protocol for generating land cover and change products; a continuous fields biophysical parameters modeling method; and an automated scripted operational system for the NLCD 2019 production. The performance of the developed strategies and methods were tested in twenty composite referenced areas throughout the conterminous U.S. An overall accuracy assessment from the 2016 publication give a 91% overall landcover accuracy, with the developed classes also showing a 91% accuracy in overall developed. Results from this study confirm the robustness of this comprehensive and highly automated procedure for NLCD 2019 operational mapping. Questions about the NLCD 2019 land cover product can be directed to the NLCD 2019 land cover mapping team at USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov. See included spatial metadata for more details.
California General Plan Land Use

The following data is provided as a public service, for informational purposes only. This data should not be construed as legal advice. Users of this data should independently verify its determinations prior to taking any action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or any other law. The State of California makes no warranties as to accuracy of this data. General plan land use element data was collected from 532 of California's 539 jurisdictions. An effort was made to contact each jurisdiction in the state and request general plan data in whatever form available. In the event that general plan maps were not available in a GIS format, those maps were converted from PDF or image maps using geo-referencing techniques and then transposing map information to parcel geometries sourced from county assessor data. Collection efforts began in late 2021 and were mostly finished in late 2022. Some data has been updated in 2023. Sources and dates are documented in the "Source" and "Date" columns with more detail available in the accompanying sources table. Data from a CNRA funded project, performed at UC Davis was used for 7 jurisdictions that had no current general plan land use maps available. Information about that CNRA funded project is available here: https://databasin.org/datasets/8d5da7200f4c4c2e927dafb8931fe75d Individual general plan maps were combined for this statewide dataset. As part of the aggregation process, contiguous areas with identical use designations, within jurisdictions, were merged or dissolved. Some features representing roads with right-of-way or Null zone designations were removed from this data. Features less than 4 square meters in area were also removed.
Riparian Habitats - Sierra Nevada Foothills [ds304]

These data are habitat polygons within a 200-m radius around point locations where wildlife surveys were conducted along 19 randomly selected watercourses in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from Butte to Calaveras counties. These wildlife surveys included point counts of birds (from 10-minute counts) within 100-m radius circles, and playback surveys of hawks and owls. Bird point count surveys were conducted between 25 March 2005 and 30 June 2005, while the hawk and owl surveys were conducted between 28 March 2005 and 19 July 2005. These data are from 74 sample points along the 19 watercourses. Habitat polygons were delineated from DOQQs and then field verified in July-August 2005.
Wind Generation Time Interval Exploration Data

This is the data set behind the Wind Generation Interactive Query Tool created by the CEC. The visualization tool interactively displays wind generation over different time intervals in three-dimensional space. The viewer can look across the state to understand generation patterns of regions with concentrations of wind power plants. The tool aids in understanding high and low periods of generation. Operation of the electric grid requires that generation and demand are balanced in each period. The height and color of columns at wind generation areas are scaled and shaded to represent capacity factors (CFs) of the areas in a specific time interval. Capacity factor is the ratio of the energy produced to the amount of energy that could ideally have been produced in the same period using the rated nameplate capacity. Due to natural variations in wind speeds, higher factors tend to be seen over short time periods, with lower factors over longer periods. The capacity used is the reported nameplate capacity from the Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report, CEC-1304A. CFs are based on wind plants in service in the wind generation areas. 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. National, state, and local policies also set limits on energy generation and use. An example of resource planning in California is the [Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan]. 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.
Base Exclusions (Wind)

The base exclusions consist of two main categories of exclusion – the [protected area layer] and the [techno-economic exclusion layer]. The base exclusions form the fundamental exclusion set that the additional criteria of the Core and SB 100 Terrestrial Climate Resilience Study screens are added to. The merged footprints of these primary two layers are modified by the Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) development focus areas (DFAs) and variance process lands, and the general public lands in the DRECP. These areas allow for renewable energy applications and are therefore exempt (erased) from the base exclusions layer, even if the protected area layer or techno-economic exclusion layer identified the area as an exclusion. The DFAs are partitioned by technology type so that only the DFAs that allow wind energy are applied in this modification. The area of California remaining after removing the base exclusions is called the resource potential basemap. It forms the starting point (or base) used in renewable resource estimation and defines where environmental and land-use datasets can be applied in exploring implications. More information about this layer and its use in electric system planning is available in the [Land Use Screens Staff Report in the CEC Energy Planning Library]. Change Log: Version 1.1 (January 22, 2024 10:44 AM) * Layer revised with latest protected area layer, which allows for gaps to remain when combining all components.