AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
Black Terns

These Black Tern layers from USFWS Upper Mississippi Joint Venture, have been added to the Great Lakes Airspace Map Decision Support Tool (GLAM DST), which is meant to help managers plan projects and conservation activities. The Common Tern layers are from four sources, BBS route data, Marsh bird monitoring program, eBird, and the Great Lakes Colonial waterbird survey. These tern layers can be used with DST migratory bird and bat predicted concentration areas (DST layers are radar-based for birds and acoustic-based for bats) and other publicly available layers or private project layers to pinpoint areas for management that would benefit migratory birds and/or bats as well as meeting other objectives.
Common Terns

These Common Tern layers from USFWS Upper Mississippi Joint Venture, have been added to the Great Lakes Airspace Map Decision Support Tool (GLAM DST), which is meant to help managers plan projects and conservation activities. The Common Tern layers are from four sources, BBS route data, Marsh bird monitoring program, eBird, and the Great Lakes Colonial waterbird survey. These tern layers can be used with DST migratory bird and bat predicted concentration areas (DST layers are radar-based for birds and acoustic-based for bats) and other publicly available layers or private project layers to pinpoint areas for management that would benefit migratory birds and/or bats as well as meeting other objectives.
Blue Winged Teal

This Blue-winged Teal distribution is a feature layer from the Great Lakes Joint Venture. It is included in the Great Lakes Airspace Map Decision Support Tool (GLAM DST), this tool is meant to help managers plan projects and conservation activities. The DST provides layers that predict areas of high bird and bat activity within the Great Lakes basin. Layers are radar-based for birds and acoustic-based for bats. These layers can be used in conjunction with publicly available layers or with private project layers to pinpoint areas for management that would benefit migratory birds and/or bats as well as meeting other objectives.
SantaRosaPlain_PBO_ActionArea

Santa Rosa Plain Programmatic Biological Opinion Action Area - Boundary for the Action Area influenced from the Conservation Strategy, designated CTS critical habitat, Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain, and the 2007 Programmatic Biological Opinion The action area is defined as all areas affected directly or indirectly by the action, and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402.02). The action area may include areas where effects of increased noise, suspended sediment, water quality, shading, and/or vessel traffic occur. Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action.
GT_local_population_CenterPoints

The gopher tortoise burrow locations from multiple sources that covered Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. Based on available data, there are an estimated 149,152 gopher tortoises across the five units. We delineated 823 local populations, and those were assessed as having 138 local populations with high resiliency, 180 with moderate resiliency, 423 with low resiliency, and 82 with unknown resiliency. The analysis unit with the largest number of local populations is Unit 5 while Unit 1 was assessed to have the smallest number of local populations. In terms of the estimated rangewide number of gopher tortoises, most gopher tortoises are found in the eastern portion of the range, with only 8 percent of the estimated rangewide population in the western portion of the range.
GT_analysis_units_W_E_new

Ecoregions by state were extracted from the seamless national shapefile. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 104 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 84 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Literature cited: Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152p. Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. Comments and questions regarding Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, Dynamac Corporation, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov
BLM Sagebrush Focal Areas

This dataset is a modified version of the FWS developed data depicting “Highly Important Landscapes”, as outlined in Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 and provided to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial analysis Lab on October 29th 2014. Other names and acronyms used to refer to this dataset have included: Areas of Significance (AoSs - name of GIS data set provided by FWS), Strongholds (FWS), and Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs - BLM). The BLM will refer to these data as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs). Data were provided as a series of ArcGIS map packages which, when extracted, contained several datasets each. Based on the recommendation of the FWS Geographer/Ecologist (email communication, see data originator for contact information) the dataset called “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” was utilized as the source for subsequent analysis and refinement. Metadata was not provided by the FWS for this dataset. For detailed information regarding the dataset’s creation refer to Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 or contact the FWS directly. Several operations and modifications were made to this source data, as outlined in the “Description” and “Process Step” sections of this metadata file. Generally: The source data was named by the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab to identify polygons as described (but not identified in the GIS) in the FWS memorandum. The Nevada/California EIS modified portions within their decision space in concert with local FWS personnel and provided the modified data back to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab. Gaps around Nevada State borders, introduced by the NVCA edits, were then closed as was a large gap between the southern Idaho & southeast Oregon present in the original dataset. Features with an area below 40 acres were then identified and, based on FWS guidance, either removed or retained. Finally, guidance from BLM WO resulted in the removal of additional areas, primarily non-habitat with BLM surface or subsurface management authority. Data were then provided to each EIS for use in FEIS...
SE AK Potential New Fish Passage Sites

An analysis completed by the Palmer Soil and Water Conservation District shows every overlap of all known trails, roads, paths, etc., and water ways. Further analysis is being completed to narrow this list down to remove false points, points at too steep of gradients for fishes, and previously known points. This layer serves as a great point to begin to see what unknown passages there are in Southeast, as well as to highlight areas of future work.
Intern Feature Layer Public

This feature layer depicts location and other details about U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service internships that are hosted through our partners (e.g. Student Conservation Association, American Conservation Experience, Hispanic Access Foundation, etc.) in one central location so that we are able to share these opportunities with potential applicants and the public. This map is mostly auto-populated by [financial assistant intake requests] to NWRS Division of Realty, Budget, Performance, and Workforce (Youth Financial Assistance team) on SharePoint. However, for any internship opportunities that are not captured through that process can be added to this map via the Survey123 form on the [Youth SharePoint site]. Questions about this dashboard/map can be directed to [Rachel_F_McCracken@fws.gov]
Highlands Conservation Values Assessment (view layer), US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region

This dataset depicts the Conservation Values Assessment portion of the New York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, December 2002, NA-TP-02-03), and the Highlands Regional Study: Connecticut and Pennsylvania 2010 update (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Newton Square, PA, November 2010, NA-TP-01-11). These data represent the relative value of land with respect to biological, forest, water, recreational, agricultural, and scenic resources. This dataset will be synthesized with other agency datasets in the Highlands Conservation Act web mapping applications hosted on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Highlands Conservation Act website ([https://www.fws.gov/program/highlands-conservation-act-grant]). More information about the Highlands Conservation Act can be found on the website listed in the previous sentence, or here: [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-108publ421]. Scale: Data are characterized within 27x27 square meter pixels. Accuracy: This dataset is not intended to be used for assessing fine scale parcel conservation value, particularly at a resolution below the minimum pixel size of 27x27 square meters. Further, these data are a synthesis of resource values and should not be applied to interpreting the value of a particular resource component. Source: This dataset comes from Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region.
Completed Highlands projects to date 17-Sep-19, US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region

This dataset depicts the land conservation projects completed under the Highlands Conservation Act, and will be synthesized with other agency datasets in the Highlands Conservation Act web mapping applications hosted on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Highlands Conservation Act website ([https://www.fws.gov/program/highlands-conservation-act-grant]). More information about the Highlands Conservation Act can be found on the website listed in the previous sentence, or here: [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-108publ421]. Scale:These points are intended to represent the general location of land conservation projects within the Highlands region, and are not intended to accurately depict the exact boundary or center point of a property at any scale. Accuracy: This properties are represented as points. Points are generally taken from near the center of the property but are not intended to represent the true center point of the property. Source: This dataset comes from Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region.
ABF Biodiversity

For an additional biodiversity layer, we used an additive benefit function zonation (Belote et al. 2021). This method took 1697 suitable species ranges (CONUS GAP 2018), each coarsened to ~5km resolution, calculated biodiversity prioritization based on beta diversity. Then using the ABF method, which is a zonation complementarity-based model that iteratively removes grid cells based on core-area zonation (more heavily rates species richness), it assigned priorities to grid cell locations that best represent species composition (maximizing gamma diversity by prioritizing sites with high complementarity). We reclassified the raster with the top third of values (greater than .794957) = 1, other values = 0, converted to apolygon layer, and extracted values of 1.
global human modification

Kennedy et al. (2019) provided a cumulative measure of human modification of terrestrial lands based on modeling the physical extents of 13 anthropogenic stressors and their estimated impacts using spatially explicit global datasets with a median year of 2016. They quantified the degree of land modification and the amount and spatial configuration of low modified lands (i.e. natural areas relatively free from human alteration)across all ecoregions and biomes. We reclassified this layer based on the lower third (.33) of the least modified places, converted to a polygon, and used this as a third indicator of structural intactness.
Delaware Watershed National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grants, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funded Projects, 2023, FWS Northeast Region

n 2018, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation launched the Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The fund represents the first step in implementing a strategy developed by partners with guidance from the Service to focus conservation in four key areas: clean water, habitat, recreation, and flow management. This map displays projects that have been awarded funding to date to help conserve and connect lands and waterways that support native fish, wildlife, and plants, and contribute to the vitality of the communities in the watershed. This dataset represents the 6projects, out of the total 36, that were awarded Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funds. BIL awarded $4.5 million to fund innovative projects that use nature-based infrastructure to support restoration efforts in the Delaware watershed. All 36 projects funded in 2023 can be found here: [https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=5be3206e81064ab49a2f08ecbc7adc88]
Delaware Watershed National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grants, 2023, Northeast Region

In 2018, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation launched the Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The fund represents the first step in implementing a strategy developed by partners with guidance from the Service to focus conservation in four key areas: clean water, habitat, recreation, and flow management. This map displays projects that have been awarded funding to date to help conserve and connect lands and waterways that support native fish, wildlife, and plants, and contribute to the vitality of the communities in the watershed. This dataset represents 36 projects that will use the collective $14.75 million available through the fund to move the needle in areas that are critical to the long-term health of the watershed. Included in this total is $4.5 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds to support innovative projects that use nature-based infrastructure to restore the watershed. In 2023, we prioritized funding projects that support high-performing science and innovation concepts, build capacity among grantees and partners, and implement nature-based to improve fish and wildlife habitat and connect people with nature in the Delaware River watershed.
Western_SARP_AOP_Stream_Crossing_Survey_Form_-_Stakeholder_View

This is the feature service connected to a survey123 survey used by SARP and partners to assess road stream crossings for aquatic organism passage within inland waters (non-tidal) in the Western United States. This survey protocol and the associated fields of this service was developed by the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC) and adapted for use in the Western United States by SARP. The data collected within this form is used in SARP's Aquatic Barrier Prioritization Tool (https://connectivity.sarpdata.com). Manual and paper form available at [this link]. This data layer can be used to better understand the specific information associated with fish passage including photos for points surveyed. Identifying the locations of road/stream crossings are important for locating potential fish barriers. Not every road crossing will be an issue for fish, so it is important to survey these sites to determine barrier severity. This protocol allows resource managers to identify opportunities to restore streams for aquatic organisms and partner with landowners.
Federal Highlands Boundary for Highlands Conservation Act, US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region

This dataset depicts the Federal Highlands region and will be synthesized with other agency datasets in the Highlands Conservation Act web mapping applications hosted on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Highlands Conservation Act website ([https://www.fws.gov/program/highlands-conservation-act-grant]). More information about the Highlands Conservation Act can be found on the website listed in the previous sentence, or here: [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-108publ421]. Scale:The area encompasses the towns and municipalities that comprise the Highlands region of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania as defined in the New York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, December 2002, NA-TP-02-03), and the Highlands Regional Study: Connecticut and Pennsylvania 2010 update (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Newton Square, PA, November 2010, NA-TP-01-11). Accuracy: This area needs to delineate the townships and municipalities within the Highlands Region. This gives enough detail to determine if a particular town is part of the Highlands region. Source: This dataset comes from Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region.
ORCH_GIS_Layers

Fpur Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) geospatial layers, obtained from Brian Bangs at Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, showing: 1) historical distribution (polygon); 2) distribution at time of listing [1993] (point); 3) distribution at time of downlisting [2010] (point); and 4) distribution at time of delisting [2015] (point). To be used by Sarah Levy (R1 External Affairs) for the creation of an R1 Ecological Services StoryMap highlighting delisted and downlisted species.
CWTD_GIS_Layers

2 CWTD GIS layers obtained from Jennifer Siani at OFWO (Feb. 28) showing: 1) historical distribution (polygon); and 2) distribution at time of delisting [as of 12/2015] (polygon). To be used by Sarah Levy (R1 External Affairs) for the creation of an R1 Ecological Services StoryMap highlighting delisted and downlisted species.
NWRS_Urban_Map_20170228

Urban NWRs, Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships, Urban Treaty Bird Cities, Regional Priority Urban Wildlife Refuges. The Urban Wildlife Conservation Program improves lives by expanding access to green space, education and outdoor recreation for Americans living in and around cities. Program members work to clear social and historical barriers and foster new connections that advance conservation and strengthen communities. Learn more about the [Urban Wildlife Conservation Program]. Data owner: Angelina Yost, National Urban/Vision Coordinator, National Wildlife Refuge System Data steward: Roy Hewitt, Digital Platforms Lead, National Wildlife Refuge System
Wolf_Creek_Stocking_Locations_2022a

Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery produces approximately 1 million brown, brook, cutthroat and rainbow trout every year. Fish are stocked into over 100 different public fishing waters in cooperation with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. The majority of the fish are stocked in waters managed by the federal government. No private waters are stocked. This map allows you to easily navigate to a stocked location near you!
FWS R5  NEFO Penobscot watershed

This layer was used in an educational [StoryMap] created by US Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Program in collaboration with students at William and Mary. Layer created by Kathryn Lee, William & Mary collaborator to USFWS. The layer shows the Penobscot Watershed in Maine, used to visualize the area in which multiple restoration projects were implemented as part of a NRDAR settlement. This layer was extracted from the original datasets: [USGS National Hydrology Dataset] courtesy of United States Geological Survey (USGS). The NHD is available as a file geodatabase download, which maintains the richness of the complex NHD [database model], including multiple feature datasets, feature classes, event feature classes, attribute tables, relationship classes, domains, and feature-level metadata. The NHD file geodatabase download contains NHD data in the Hydrography feature dataset. It also includes the [WBD] in a second feature dataset. For more information contact Anne Condon, anne_condon@fws.gov
SALSPatchRanks_PAD2_ME_Statelands_patchID

Protect state lands within SALS top 10% patches in ME This tool identifies the suite of patches (8680) with potential to support Saltmarsh Sparrows in the near and long term. The patches are ranked according to a formula that assesses the relative importance of a variety of factors known to positively or negatively influence Saltmarsh Sparrow populations (see Influence Factors tab). Patches in darker green colors are assumed to provide higher quality habitat than patches in lighter green colors and indicate important areas to focus conservation attention. This prioritization does not factor current density or abundance of Saltmarsh Sparrows into the results. Rather, it ranks patches according to their suitability to provide high quality Sparrow habitat according to expert opinion. THESE DATA HAVE BEEN REPLCE BY THE https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=be7290ec39084f62874dcde6316a0bd3