Final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) that may be associated with several different best management practices (BMPs). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B.(. Williams, and S. Yee. Identifying and Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in Chesapeake Bay Watershed. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 26, (2022).

An summary of FEGS attributes for beneficiaries in the FEGS-CS for the purpose of analyzing the FEGS coverage of the EnviroAtlas. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Tashie, A., and P. Ringold. A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework. Ecosphere. ESA Journals, 10(3): e02665., (2019).

Data files provide the 1) baseline county values for each ecosystem service (County_Baseline_FEGS_Values.xlsx), 2) baseline county values for 2019 BMP implementation (County_BMP_2019.xlsx), 3) per acre values associated with BMP implementation for each ecosystem service (BMP_FEGS_Multipliers_PerAcre.xlsx), 4) descriptive connections between watershed outcomes and ecosystem services (FEGS_Outcomes_Connections.xlsx), and 5) descriptive connections between BMPs and ecosystem services or outcomes (BMP_FEGS_Outcome_Connections.xlsx). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Rossi, R., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, and S. Yee. Chesapeake Bay RESES. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2023.

List of keywords used to classify FEGS, Beneficiaries, and Environment in document analysis of estuary management programs, as well as counts of the number of plans which were flagged as mentioning each subclass of FEGS/Beneficiariies/Environment. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Yee, S., A. Sullivan, K. Williams, and K. Winters. Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Beneficiaries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Molecular Diversity Preservation International, Basel, SWITZERLAND, 16(13): 2351, (2019).

Transcripts from focus groups. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Weber , M., and P. Ringold. River metrics by the public, for the public. PLoS ONE. Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA, 14(5): e0214986, (2019).

Coastal ecosystem goods and services (EGS) have steadily gained traction in the scientific literature over the last few decades, providing a wealth of information about underlying coastal habitat dependencies. This meta-analysis summarizes relationships between coastal habitats and final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) users. Through a “weight of evidence” approach synthesizing information from published literature, we assessed habitat classes most relevant to coastal users. Approximately 2800 coastal EGS journal articles were identified by online search engines, of which 16% addressed linkages between specific coastal habitats and FEGS users, and were retained for subsequent analysis. Recreational (83%) and industrial (35%) users were most cited in literature, with experiential-users/hikers and commercial fishermen most prominent in each category, respectively. Recreational users were linked to the widest diversity of coastal habitat subclasses (i.e., 22 of 26). Whereas, mangroves and emergent wetlands were most relevant for property owners. We urge EGS studies to continue surveying local users and identifying habitat dependencies, as these steps are important precursors for developing appropriate coastal FEGS metrics and facilitating local valuation. In addition, understanding how habitats contribute to human well-being may assist communities in prioritizing restoration and evaluating development scenarios in the context of future ecosystem service delivery. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Littles, C., C. Jackson, T. DeWitt, and M. Harwell. Linking People to Coastal Habitats: A meta-analysis of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) on the coast. Ocean & Coastal Management. Elsevier, Shannon, IRELAND, 165: 356-369, (2018).

Plain text of focus group transcripts. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Weber , M., and P. Ringold. River metrics by the public, for the public. PLoS ONE. Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA, 14(5): e0214986, (2019).

HARV_POLY: This dataset represents completed harvest land treatments on BLM managed lands in the states of Oregon and Washington. Harvest treatments are the cutting and removal or trees or biomass.

HARV_POLY: This dataset represents completed harvest land treatments on BLM managed lands in the states of Oregon and Washington. Harvest treatments are the cutting and removal or trees or biomass.