http://www.natureser...dHucs/index.jsp

In Internet Explorer,
The Natureserve watershed click-able map cuts off the left and right edges of each map,
so finding the watershed you want is a pain.

For example: After clicking the zoom icon on the web page once and using the arrow keys on the web page,
the whole Mississippi Delta is missing from both maps of the region.

To fix use:
Page then Zoom then Zoom-in in the toolbar
OR
Ctrl + "+"

and give Internet Explorer time to add a slider bar to the bottom of the map.

You might have to Page Zoom more than once.

FAQ

Phil,

Thanks for that tip. I've always been annoyed how the viewable map is cut off and is not what the red box shows. Neat and helpful bit of info.

Thanks for the tip! That's gonna save me a lot of hassle. CTRL + works in Firefox, too.

It annoys me that Natureserve doesn't distribute their fish data as zipped shapefiles. I have repeatedly asked for this to be made available, as it is for amphibians, mammals and birds. Has anyone figured out how to quickly get this data into a shapefile? Perhaps we should create our own files and distribute them via NANFA.

I like your idea, Elassoman.

Use this link to get it out of the frame:
http://www.natureser...Hucs/master.htm

It annoys me that Natureserve doesn't distribute their fish data as zipped shapefiles. I have repeatedly asked for this to be made available, as it is for amphibians, mammals and birds. Has anyone figured out how to quickly get this data into a shapefile? Perhaps we should create our own files and distribute them via NANFA.

I've never worked with shapefiles, but I've been copying and pasting the Natureserve data into spreadsheets. Data can then be exported. That doesn't answer the "quickly" part of your question, though. Maybe a macro could be created to pull the data out. It would be awesome to be able to get the files via NANFA. I already know the HUC # of the data I want, I don't need to go clicking around a map to find it.

Why would having this as a downloadable shapefile be any more beneficial other than having it at your fingertips for the few of us that have GIS or know how to use it? I could see some data use agreement issues with distributing the data that way...I can also easily think of how the data could be linked and what it could be attributed to. For prividing information to the average internet user, a clickable interface is the easiest way to go.

For prividing information to the average internet user, a clickable interface is the easiest way to go.

True. But why not provide the advanced user the tools that he could use also?

True. But why not provide the advanced user the tools that he could use also?

It's probably a money issue.

It's probably a money issue.

That seems unlikely to me. There seems to be this inexplicable cloak of secrecy around this kind of information. I will provide an example. Most development projects in Pennsylvania require a so-called PNDI search. This stands for "Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index". It is accessible through http://www.naturalhe...ge.state.pa.us/ (you must sign up to use it). If there are any "hits", one must submit the information to the DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) for further review. If a protected species, or potential habitat for a protected species, is in the project area, you must take further steps. These will vary, depending on what may have been found. If it is a wetland species, for example, you can show that you have delineated wetlands, and avoided impacting them with your project. Or, you must re-design the project to avoid the impact (or abandon the project). I had a hit last fall, and had to hire a botanist to study my project area and prove that the possible RTE (rare, threatened, or endangered) species was absent. My question to the DCNR caseworker was, "why can't you just let me have those GIS layers that you talk about? That way, I can design my project to avoid areas where RTE species may exist." Answer: "I don't know. That's just the policy." My client spent quite a few thousand dollars proving that RTE wetland species would not be impacted (because we delineated and avoided wetlands), and quite a few thousand more on the botanical study to show that RTE upland species were not present in the project area. If I had access to those GIS layers, the project could (and would) have avoided potential RTE habitat altogether. But because the information is kept secret, designers' plans are a shot in the dark, followed by unnecessary documentation, studies, and redesigns to avoid impacts.

What I think it really is, is that some people think they are doing the world a favor by keeping this information under a tight lid. But the reality is, IMHO, that they are doing the world a disservice. When they keep this information secret, people cannot help but to impact these areas and species, and RTE species suffer as a result. If they think they are keeping information from poachers, sorry, but poachers know where to find what they want. They are keeping information from people who can use it beneficially, by studying the species, and by avoiding unintentional impacts. And they are costing people money, with redesigns and unnecessary biological studies. Just tell me what's to be avoided and where, and I'll make sure the designs for my clients' projects avoid these impacts, right from the start.

What a shame.

Have you tried asking local universities for the GIS layers you need? When I can't find one through state or fed agencies, that's where I look. Also, as a side note, I'm pretty much recreating the distributions of a lot of Western Gulf Slope fishes by HUCs, and am only using Natureserve as a rough guide and to note discrepancies. All of my data is coming from publications and museum collections because (unfortunately) I just can't trust the Natureserve data (due to lack of citations). Remaking those distributions has made me gain a lot of respect for whoever did it in the first place (even though they probably know some tricks I don't). It's just a shame that after putting that much work into it, they couldn't have added citations in for credibility.

Sorry for the delayed response. The response I've received from Natureserve for over three years is that the data will be made available after their own publications are finished. I don't think it is a money issue, because the amphibians and other animals are available through this format. The information would be very valuable for many scientific reasons, such as ecological niche modeling, ancestral range construction, and phylogeography. Matt is right, that to the average user, a clickable interface is good enough. It is just frustrating to recreate these layers in ArcGIS when you need them, knowing that someone at Natureserve could just send them to you.

I just realized that I've typed all this having not followed the link that was provided a few posts ago. I will try that now, perhaps my frustration will be relieved.

Interesting map but i found it very difficult to see New Hampshire on it, it took forever to get it as using the arrow to pan over (even after zooming in) skipped from new york to the ocean.

Sadly a couple rivers shown their (Ashuelot River, Cold River) were not clickable and the data for the upper connecticut overlapped them.

I also have some question on the validity of this information. Their was no mention of northern pike in the upper connecticut, but they did mention muskellunge (a species which most likely does not exist their, a couple hybrid tiger muskie have turned up once or twice a while back, but muskie are not an established feature).

I did find the mention of banded killiefish interesting, killies are one of the few "bait sized" fish to interest me after i read some entertaining stories of them jumping for food.

Interesting map but i found it very difficult to see New Hampshire on it, it took forever to get it as using the arrow to pan over (even after zooming in) skipped from new york to the ocean.

Sadly a couple rivers shown their (Ashuelot River, Cold River) were not clickable and the data for the upper connecticut overlapped them.

I have no trouble zooming in to New Hampshire or clicking any of its watersheds on the map. I don't see any Ashuelot River or Cold River, and their names don't appear in the HUC list at http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_rdb.html, so I don't know how you're seeing these on the clickable map. If these are minor tributaries, then click on the major river into which they drain. According to Wikipedia, it is a tributary to the Connecticut River. Based on that and this, I'm going to suggest that you want Middle Connecticut.