This dataset contains basic demographic and performance information for a small group of individuals. Each entry includes an# *** ID, name, age, country, and score***. It was created as a simple example for practicing data analysis, visualization, and basic machine learning tasks such as sorting, filtering, and calculating statistics. The dataset is designed to be lightweight and easy to understand, making it suitable for beginners learning data handling and exploratory analysis techniques.

This dataset contains the valuation template the researcher can use to retrieve real-time Excel stock price and stock price in Google Sheets. The dataset is provided by Finsheet, the leading financial data provider for spreadsheet users. To get more financial data, visit the website and explore their function. For instance, if a researcher would like to get the last 30 years of income statement for Meta Platform Inc, the syntax would be =FS_EquityFullFinancials("FB", "ic", "FY", 30) In addition, this syntax will return the latest stock price for Caterpillar Inc right in your spreadsheet. =FS_Latest("CAT") If you need assistance with any of the function, feel free to reach out to their customer support team. To get starter, install their Excel and Google Sheets add-on.

Introduction: I have chosen to complete a data analysis project for the second course option, Bellabeats, Inc., using a locally hosted database program, Excel for both my data analysis and visualizations. This choice was made primarily because I live in a remote area and have limited bandwidth and inconsistent internet access. Therefore, completing a capstone project using web-based programs such as R Studio, SQL Workbench, or Google Sheets was not a feasible choice. I was further limited in which option to choose as the datasets for the ride-share project option were larger than my version of Excel would accept. In the scenario provided, I will be acting as a Junior Data Analyst in support of the Bellabeats, Inc. executive team and data analytics team. This combined team has decided to use an existing public dataset in hopes that the findings from that dataset might reveal insights which will assist in Bellabeat's marketing strategies for future growth. My task is to provide data driven insights to business tasks provided by the Bellabeats, Inc.'s executive and data analysis team. In order to accomplish this task, I will complete all parts of the Data Analysis Process (Ask, Prepare, Process, Analyze, Share, Act). In addition, I will break each part of the Data Analysis Process down into three sections to provide clarity and accountability. Those three sections are: Guiding Questions, Key Tasks, and Deliverables. For the sake of space and to avoid repetition, I will record the deliverables for each Key Task directly under the numbered Key Task using an asterisk (*) as an identifier.

Section 1 - Ask:

A. Guiding Questions:
1. Who are the key stakeholders and what are their goals for the data analysis project? 2. What is the business task that this data analysis project is attempting to solve?

B. Key Tasks: 1. Identify key stakeholders and their goals for the data analysis project *The key stakeholders for this project are as follows: -Urška Sršen and Sando Mur - co-founders of Bellabeats, Inc. -Bellabeats marketing analytics team. I am a member of this team.

1. Identify the business task. *The business task is: -As provided by co-founder Urška Sršen, the business task for this project is to gain insight into how consumers are using their non-BellaBeats smart devices in order to guide upcoming marketing strategies for the company which will help drive future growth. Specifically, the researcher was tasked with applying insights driven by the data analysis process to 1 BellaBeats product and presenting those insights to BellaBeats stakeholders.

Section 2 - Prepare:

A. Guiding Questions: 1. Where is the data stored and organized? 2. Are there any problems with the data? 3. How does the data help answer the business question?

B. Key Tasks:

1. Research and communicate the source of the data, and how it is stored/organized to stakeholders. *The data source used for our case study is FitBit Fitness Tracker Data. This dataset is stored in Kaggle and was made available through user Mobius in an open-source format. Therefore, the data is public and available to be copied, modified, and distributed, all without asking the user for permission. These datasets were generated by respondents to a distributed survey via Amazon Mechanical Turk reportedly (see credibility section directly below) between 03/12/2016 thru 05/12/2016.
   *Reportedly (see credibility section directly below), thirty eligible Fitbit users consented to the submission of personal tracker data, including output related to steps taken, calories burned, time spent sleeping, heart rate, and distance traveled. This data was broken down into minute, hour, and day level totals. This data is stored in 18 CSV documents. I downloaded all 18 documents into my local laptop and decided to use 2 documents for the purposes of this project as they were files which had merged activity and sleep data from the other documents. All unused documents were permanently deleted from the laptop. The 2 files used were: -sleepDay_merged.csv -dailyActivity_merged.csv

2. Identify and communicate to stakeholders any problems found with the data related to credibility and bias. *As will be more specifically presented in the Process section, the data seems to have credibility issues related to the reported time frame of the data collected. The metadata seems to indicate that the data collected covered roughly 2 months of FitBit tracking. However, upon my initial data processing, I found that only 1 month of data was reported. *As will be more specifically presented in the Process section, the data has credibility issues related to the number of individuals who reported FitBit data. Specifically, the metadata communicates that 30 individual users agreed to report their tracking data. My initial data processing uncovered 33 individual ...

As there was no large publicly available cross-domain dataset for comparative argument mining, we create one composed of sentences, potentially annotated with BETTER / WORSE markers (the first object is better / worse than the second object) or NONE (the sentence does not contain a comparison of the target objects). The BETTER sentences stand for a pro-argument in favor of the first compared object and WORSE-sentences represent a con-argument and favor the second object. We aim for minimizing dataset domain-specific biases in order to capture the nature of comparison and not the nature of the particular domains, thus decided to control the specificity of domains by the selection of comparison targets. We hypothesized and could confirm in preliminary experiments that comparison targets usually have a common hypernym (i.e., are instances of the same class), which we utilized for selection of the compared objects pairs. The most specific domain we choose, is computer science with comparison targets like programming languages, database products and technology standards such as Bluetooth or Ethernet. Many computer science concepts can be compared objectively (e.g., on transmission speed or suitability for certain applications). The objects for this domain were manually extracted from List of-articles at Wikipedia. In the annotation process, annotators were asked to only label sentences from this domain if they had some basic knowledge in computer science. The second, broader domain is brands. It contains objects of different types (e.g., cars, electronics, and food). As brands are present in everyday life, anyone should be able to label the majority of sentences containing well-known brands such as Coca-Cola or Mercedes. Again, targets for this domain were manually extracted from `List of''-articles at Wikipedia.The third domain is not restricted to any topic: random. For each of 24~randomly selected seed words 10 similar words were collected based on the distributional similarity API of JoBimText (http://www.jobimtext.org). Seed words created using randomlists.com: book, car, carpenter, cellphone, Christmas, coffee, cork, Florida, hamster, hiking, Hoover, Metallica, NBC, Netflix, ninja, pencil, salad, soccer, Starbucks, sword, Tolkien, wine, wood, XBox, Yale.Especially for brands and computer science, the resulting object lists were large (4493 in brands and 1339 in computer science). In a manual inspection, low-frequency and ambiguous objects were removed from all object lists (e.g., RAID (a hardware concept) and Unity (a game engine) are also regularly used nouns). The remaining objects were combined to pairs. For each object type (seed Wikipedia list page or the seed word), all possible combinations were created. These pairs were then used to find sentences containing both objects. The aforementioned approaches to selecting compared objects pairs tend minimize inclusion of the domain specific data, but do not solve the problem fully though. We keep open a question of extending dataset with diverse object pairs including abstract concepts for future work. As for the sentence mining, we used the publicly available index of dependency-parsed sentences from the Common Crawl corpus containing over 14 billion English sentences filtered for duplicates. This index was queried for sentences containing both objects of each pair. For 90% of the pairs, we also added comparative cue words (better, easier, faster, nicer, wiser, cooler, decent, safer, superior, solid, terrific, worse, harder, slower, poorly, uglier, poorer, lousy, nastier, inferior, mediocre) to the query in order to bias the selection towards comparisons but at the same time admit comparisons that do not contain any of the anticipated cues. This was necessary as a random sampling would have resulted in only a very tiny fraction of comparisons. Note that even sentences containing a cue word do not necessarily express a comparison between the desired targets (dog vs. cat: He's the best pet that you can get, better than a dog or cat.). It is thus especially crucial to enable a classifier to learn not to rely on the existence of clue words only (very likely in a random sample of sentences with very few comparisons). For our corpus, we keep pairs with at least 100 retrieved sentences.From all sentences of those pairs, 2500 for each category were randomly sampled as candidates for a crowdsourced annotation that we conducted on figure-eight.com in several small batches. Each sentence was annotated by at least five trusted workers. We ranked annotations by confidence, which is the figure-eight internal measure of combining annotator trust and voting, and discarded annotations with a confidence below 50%. Of all annotated items, 71% received unanimous votes and for over 85% at least 4 out of 5 workers agreed -- rendering the collection procedure aimed at ease of annotation successful.The final dataset contains 7199 sentences with 271 distinct object pairs. The majority of sentences (over 72%) are non-comparative despite biasing the selection with cue words; in 70% of the comparative sentences, the favored target is named first.You can browse though the data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U8i6EU9GUKmHdPnfwXEuBxi0h3aiRCLPRC-3c9ROiOE/edit?usp=sharing Full description of the dataset is available in the workshop paper at ACL 2019 conference. Please cite this paper if you use the data: Franzek, Mirco, Alexander Panchenko, and Chris Biemann. ""Categorization of Comparative Sentences for Argument Mining."" arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06152 (2018).@inproceedings{franzek2018categorization, title={Categorization of Comparative Sentences for Argument Mining}, author={Panchenko, Alexander and Bondarenko, and Franzek, Mirco and Hagen, Matthias and Biemann, Chris}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Argument Mining at ACL'2019}, year={2019}, address={Florence, Italy}}

This is a google data analysis project covering the data from the data here. This data set was about FitBit data that was gathered from 2016.

The Data was collected from willing participants that had several factors measured. Including heartrate, time spent doing certain activities, when each measurement was, and many other things.

The location for the thumbnail and banner can be found here.

This dataset was created and deposited onto the University of Sheffield Online Research Data repository (ORDA) on 23-Jun-2023 by Dr. Matthew S. Hanchard, Research Associate at the University of Sheffield iHuman Institute.

The dataset forms part of three outputs from a project titled ‘Fostering cultures of open qualitative research’ which ran from January 2023 to June 2023:

· Fostering cultures of open qualitative research: Dataset 1 – Survey Responses · Fostering cultures of open qualitative research: Dataset 2 – Interview Transcripts · Fostering cultures of open qualitative research: Dataset 3 – Coding Book

The project was funded with £13,913.85 Research England monies held internally by the University of Sheffield - as part of their ‘Enhancing Research Cultures’ scheme 2022-2023.

The dataset aligns with ethical approval granted by the University of Sheffield School of Sociological Studies Research Ethics Committee (ref: 051118) on 23-Jan-2021.This includes due concern for participant anonymity and data management.

ORDA has full permission to store this dataset and to make it open access for public re-use on the basis that no commercial gain will be made form reuse. It has been deposited under a CC-BY-NC license.

This dataset comprises one spreadsheet with N=91 anonymised survey responses .xslx format. It includes all responses to the project survey which used Google Forms between 06-Feb-2023 and 30-May-2023. The spreadsheet can be opened with Microsoft Excel, Google Sheet, or open-source equivalents.

The survey responses include a random sample of researchers worldwide undertaking qualitative, mixed-methods, or multi-modal research.

The recruitment of respondents was initially purposive, aiming to gather responses from qualitative researchers at research-intensive (targetted Russell Group) Universities. This involved speculative emails and a call for participant on the University of Sheffield ‘Qualitative Open Research Network’ mailing list. As result, the responses include a snowball sample of scholars from elsewhere.

The spreadsheet has two tabs/sheets: one labelled ‘SurveyResponses’ contains the anonymised and tidied set of survey responses; the other, labelled ‘VariableMapping’, sets out each field/column in the ‘SurveyResponses’ tab/sheet against the original survey questions and responses it relates to.

The survey responses tab/sheet includes a field/column labelled ‘RespondentID’ (using randomly generated 16-digit alphanumeric keys) which can be used to connect survey responses to interview participants in the accompanying ‘Fostering cultures of open qualitative research: Dataset 2 – Interview transcripts’ files.

A set of survey questions gathering eligibility criteria detail and consent are not listed with in this dataset, as below. All responses provide in the dataset gained a ‘Yes’ response to all the below questions (with the exception of one question, marked with an asterisk (*) below):

· I am aged 18 or over · I have read the information and consent statement and above. · I understand how to ask questions and/or raise a query or concern about the survey. · I agree to take part in the research and for my responses to be part of an open access dataset. These will be anonymised unless I specifically ask to be named. · I understand that my participation does not create a legally binding agreement or employment relationship with the University of Sheffield · I understand that I can withdraw from the research at any time. · I assign the copyright I hold in materials generated as part of this project to The University of Sheffield. · * I am happy to be contacted after the survey to take part in an interview.

The project was undertaken by two staff: Co-investigator: Dr. Itzel San Roman Pineda ORCiD ID: 0000-0002-3785-8057 i.sanromanpineda@sheffield.ac.uk

Postdoctoral Research Assistant Principal Investigator (corresponding dataset author): Dr. Matthew Hanchard ORCiD ID: 0000-0003-2460-8638 m.s.hanchard@sheffield.ac.uk Research Associate iHuman Institute, Social Research Institutes, Faculty of Social Science

This report presents a detailed case study on Bellabeat, a high-tech company focused on women's health products. The analysis uses Google Sheets, SQL, and R to explore smart device usage data, identify user behavior trends, and provide actionable insights to guide future marketing strategies.

The HTML file below contains the full interactive report generated in RMarkdown.

Thanks to a variety of software services, it has never been easier to produce, manage and publish Linked Open Data. But until now, there has been a lack of an accessible overview to help researchers make the right choice for their use case. This dataset release will be regularly updated to reflect the latest data published in a comparison table developed in Google Sheets [1]. The comparison table includes the most commonly used LOD management software tools from NFDI4Culture to illustrate what functionalities and features a service should offer for the long-term management of FAIR research data, including:

• ConedaKOR
• LinkedDataHub
• Metaphacts
• Omeka S
• ResearchSpace
• Vitro
• Wikibase
• WissKI

The table presents two views based on a comparison system of categories developed iteratively during workshops with expert users and developers from the respective tool communities. First, a short overview with field values coming from controlled vocabularies and multiple-choice options; and a second sheet allowing for more descriptive free text additions. The table and corresponding dataset releases for each view mode are designed to provide a well-founded basis for evaluation when deciding on a LOD management service. The Google Sheet table will remain open to collaboration and community contribution, as well as updates with new data and potentially new tools, whereas the datasets released here are meant to provide stable reference points with version control.

The research for the comparison table was first presented as a paper at DHd2023, Open Humanities – Open Culture, 13-17.03.2023, Trier and Luxembourg [2].

[1] Non-editing access is available here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FNU8857JwUNFXmXAW16lgpjLq5TkgBUuafqZF-yo8_I/edit?usp=share_link To get editing access contact the authors.

[2] Full paper will be made available open access in the conference proceedings.

You can check the fields description in the documentation: current Keyword database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/keywords/?bash; Historical Keyword database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/history/keywords/?bash. You don’t have to download fresh data dumps in JSON or CSV – we can deliver data straight to your storage or database. We send terrabytes of data to dozens of customers every month using Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Microsoft Azure Blob, Eleasticsearch, and Google Big Query. Let us know if you’d like to get your data to any other storage or database.

UPDATE 2: Since I was having encoding errors when doing EDA, I theorized my problem was at the source of my dataset: Google Sheets. I had originally created a Google Sheets doc and exported it into .csv and .txt files. Maybe that was giving me my encoding errors. I created a new .txt doc ("harrypotter_dataset.txt") -manually, not exporting it this time- to test out this theory. Thank you for your patience with me.

UPDATE: I think it'd be easier if the index, budget, author, producer, etc. are the columns instead of rows. I updated this dataset to include a transposed version of the original documents. Thanks for your patience, as I am a beginner data analyst and still learning.

For this dataset, I switched the X and Y axis (Columns and Rows), since there are only 8 installments. I figured scrolling through vertically would be more natural and instinctive than horizontally.

For the books, I included statistics for the number of chapters and data for illustrators. For the movies; there are statistics for runtimes and budgets and data for producers, directors, etc. I did not include the number of pages because that would depend on which version or edition you are reading. There are VARIOUS among VARIOUS versions and editions of Harry Potter.

Larger beach properties are typically divided into zones, indicated with a ZN-xx designation, for ease of inspection and maintenance. These zones are sometimes further divided into sections for a particular street or beach segment, and it is those smaller sections that are depicted in this dataset. This dataset uses the standard NYC projection of NAD_1983_StatePlane_New_York_Long_Island_FIPS_3104_Feet. Lengths are in feet and areas in square feet. Data Dictionary: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YwneNR7WwLh5jZiI69LXWuW6yegeVo6HdiTpKTjI0tA/edit?usp=sharing

A statistical "almanac" for London. Data mostly comes from 3rd party sources, especially ONS.

All data has been uploaded to google docs (though spread across many spreadsheets so download-url links to listing page not the raw data).

Openness: ?

License isn't clear (ons data probably covered by click-use but other data comes from UN etc).

GreenThumb provides programming and material support to over 550 community gardens in New York City. The data contains garden information and is part of the GreenThumb Gardens Data Collection. Data Dictionary: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ItvGzNG8O_Yj97Tf6am4T-QyhnxP-BeIRjm7ZaUeAxs/edit#gid=33327664

Excel spreadsheets by species (4 letter code is abbreviation for genus and species used in study, year 2010 or 2011 is year data collected, SH indicates data for Science Hub, date is date of file preparation). The data in a file are described in a read me file which is the first worksheet in each file. Each row in a species spreadsheet is for one plot (plant). The data themselves are in the data worksheet. One file includes a read me description of the column in the date set for chemical analysis. In this file one row is an herbicide treatment and sample for chemical analysis (if taken). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Olszyk , D., T. Pfleeger, T. Shiroyama, M. Blakely-Smith, E. Lee , and M. Plocher. Plant reproduction is altered by simulated herbicide drift toconstructed plant communities. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, 36(10): 2799-2813, (2017).

You can check the fields description in the documentation: current Full database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/full/?bash; Historical Full database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/history/full/?bash.

Full Google Database is a combination of the Advanced Google SERP Database and Google Keyword Database.

Google SERP Database offers millions of SERPs collected in 67 regions with most of Google’s advanced SERP features, including featured snippets, knowledge graphs, people also ask sections, top stories, and more.

Google Keyword Database encompasses billions of search terms enriched with related Google Ads data: search volume trends, CPC, competition, and more.

This database is available in JSON format only.

You don’t have to download fresh data dumps in JSON – we can deliver data straight to your storage or database. We send terrabytes of data to dozens of customers every month using Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Microsoft Azure Blob, Eleasticsearch, and Google Big Query. Let us know if you’d like to get your data to any other storage or database.

Covid19Kerala.info-Data is a consolidated multi-source open dataset of metadata from the COVID-19 outbreak in the Indian state of Kerala. It is created and maintained by volunteers of ‘Collective for Open Data Distribution-Keralam’ (CODD-K), a nonprofit consortium of individuals formed for the distribution and longevity of open-datasets. Covid19Kerala.info-Data covers a set of correlated temporal and spatial metadata of SARS-CoV-2 infections and prevention measures in Kerala. Static releases of this dataset snapshots are manually produced from a live database maintained as a set of publicly accessible Google sheets. This dataset is made available under the Open Data Commons Attribution License v1.0 (ODC-BY 1.0).

Schema and data package Datapackage with schema definition is accessible at https://codd-k.github.io/covid19kerala.info-data/datapackage.json. Provided datapackage and schema are based on Frictionless data Data Package specification.

Temporal and Spatial Coverage

This dataset covers COVID-19 outbreak and related data from the state of Kerala, India, from January 31, 2020 till the date of the publication of this snapshot. The dataset shall be maintained throughout the entirety of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The spatial coverage of the data lies within the geographical boundaries of the Kerala state which includes its 14 administrative subdivisions. The state is further divided into Local Self Governing (LSG) Bodies. Reference to this spatial information is included on appropriate data facets. Available spatial information on regions outside Kerala was mentioned, but it is limited as a reference to the possible origins of the infection clusters or movement of the individuals.

Longevity and Provenance

The dataset snapshot releases are published and maintained in a designated GitHub repository maintained by CODD-K team. Periodic snapshots from the live database will be released at regular intervals. The GitHub commit logs for the repository will be maintained as a record of provenance, and archived repository will be maintained at the end of the project lifecycle for the longevity of the dataset.

Data Stewardship

CODD-K expects all administrators, managers, and users of its datasets to manage, access, and utilize them in a manner that is consistent with the consortium’s need for security and confidentiality and relevant legal frameworks within all geographies, especially Kerala and India. As a responsible steward to maintain and make this dataset accessible— CODD-K absolves from all liabilities of the damages, if any caused by inaccuracies in the dataset.

License

This dataset is made available by the CODD-K consortium under ODC-BY 1.0 license. The Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) v1.0 ensures that users of this dataset are free to copy, distribute and use the dataset to produce works and even to modify, transform and build upon the database, as long as they attribute the public use of the database or works produced from the same, as mentioned in the citation below.

Disclaimer

Covid19Kerala.info-Data is provided under the ODC-BY 1.0 license as-is. Though every attempt is taken to ensure that the data is error-free and up to date, the CODD-K consortium do not bear any responsibilities for inaccuracies in the dataset or any losses—monetary or otherwise—that users of this dataset may incur.

The website shows Corona statistics in the form of tables, charts, maps and time series for Austria and international countries. For this purpose, data from the following institutions are extracted and stored in a relational database: ECDC, OCHA, OWID, AGES, BMSGPK. All graphs are dynamically generated with Google Sheets every hour with up-to-date data from this database.

Secondary Data Speed Dating is a whirlwind introductory level one hour presentation that covers: how to locate existing data or datasets on a topic of research: data repositories, open data portals, literature searches, Google; where to locate learning resources for working with secondary data or datasets; a very brief overview of the merits and challenges of working with secondary data instead of doing original research. Google spreadsheet of learning resources for working with secondary datasets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CSDb-euz1BGu4Zfx5V_8CO_x0Iyg8LFeafYcaEKN6sA/edit#gid=0

Biology students’ understanding of statistics is incomplete due to poor integration of these two disciplines. In some cases, students fail to learn statistics at the undergraduate level due to poor student interest and cursory teaching of concepts, highlighting a need for new and unique approaches to the teaching of statistics in the undergraduate biology curriculum. The most effective method of teaching statistics is to provide opportunities for students to apply concepts, not just learn facts. Opportunities to learn statistics also need to be prevalent throughout a student’s education to reinforce learning. The purpose of developing and implementing curriculum that integrates a topic in biology with an emphasis on statistical analysis was to improve students’ quantitative thinking skills. Our lesson focuses on the change in the richness of native species for a specified area with the aid of iNaturalist and the capacity for analysis afforded by Google Sheets. We emphasized the skills of data entry, storage, organization, curation and analysis. Students then had to report their findings, as well as discuss biases and other confounding factors. Pre- and post-lesson assessment revealed students’ quantitative thinking skills, as measured by a paired-samples t test, improved. At the end of the lesson, students had an increased understanding of basic statistical concepts, such as bias in research and making data-based claims, within the framework of biology.

Primary Image: Website screenshot of an iNaturalist observation (Clasping Milkweed – Asclepias amplexicalis). This image is an example of a data entry on iNaturalist. The data students export from iNaturalist is made up of hundreds, or even thousands, of observations like this one. This image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 4.0 International license. Source: Observation by cassi saari, 2014.

The California Water Quality Status Report is an annual data-driven snapshot of the Water Board’s water quality and ecosystem data. This third edition of the report is organized around the watershed from land to sea. Each theme-specific story includes a brief background, a data analysis summary, an overview of management actions, and access to the raw data.

View the 2019 California Water Quality Status Report.

• Data for Fig. 2 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane is provided as a download below. The data can also be downloaded from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) website.
• Data for Fig. 6 Statewide Water Bodies Toxicity can be downloaded from the California Open Data Portal.
• Sediment load data for Fig. 7 Elk River is provided as a download below. Landslide susceptibility data is available on the California Geological Survey GIS server.
• Data for Fig. 8 Central Valley Water Board E. coli Monitoring Results can be downloaded from Google Sheets.
• Data for Fig. 9 Harmful Algal Bloom Incident Reports Map can be downloaded from the California Open Data Portal.
• Data for Fig. 19 Industrial Stormwater Assessment Tool can be downloaded from the California Open Data Portal (Monitoring Data, Facility Information), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment CalEnviroScreen 3.0 webpage, and the SWRCB 2012 Integrated Report webpage.
• Data for Fig. 20 is provided as a download below and is also available on the Stream Quality Index dashboard. Download the file from the dashboard for the most current data.