AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
Northwestern Pond Turtle Occurrences

This form is designed to capture location, size class, date, abundance, and observer information for any NWPTs seen incidentally while conducting other field work. The form will be made publicly available so that outside entities can record their incidental turtle data here as well. This data will not be publicly shared however it can be requested from the USFWS for certain approved uses. These data will help aid in the recovery of the species by increasing our knowledge of where the species occurs and how it uses its habitat.
RPBB_HPZModel_Update

The Minnesota-Wisconsin USFWS Field Office has adapted a habitat connectivity model that considers the likelihood of B. affinis movement based on the most recent National Land Cover Database maps. This model allows us to assess the likelihood of bumble bee movement away from the locations of known records based on the manner in which various land uses and conditions may affect those movements. The polygons generated from the B. affinis habitat connectivity model suggest areas with the highest potential for the species to be present based on typical bumble bee foraging distances and suitable habitat. We have adapted the innermost ‘ring’ around each B. affinis record, dated 2007-"current", to produce polygons that describe the area where there is highest potential for the species to be present (i.e., High Potential Zones). These zones although not of uniform size, have discrete boundaries that will be used by FWS field offices and served online via the FWS Information for Planning and Conservation website (IPaC, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) to assist action agencies determine whether their actions are likely to may overlap with current species occurrences. As a balance between typical foraging distances and potential dispersal movements, high potential zones provide a reasonable basis for describing where the species is likely to be present and where federal agencies should cooperate with the FWS to evaluate the potential effects of their actions. In addition to typical foraging distances, however, we should also consider movements that rusty patched bumble bees may make to establish new home ranges through dispersal. Similar to the process used to model the High Potential Zones, the model produces a series of irregular rings or strata around likely dispersal zones for each record that represent successively decreasing likelihoods of movement by a bumble bee away from the point of observation based on land classifications. We then use the maximum dispersal distance of 6.2 mi (10 km) as a guide to further refine the probability of species occurrence and to identify what we refer to here as Primary Dispersal Zone. We have adapted the first four ‘rings’ around each B. affinis record, dated 2007-"current", to produce polygons that describe the area where there is a reasonable potential for the species to be present (i.e., Primary Dispersal Zones). Similarly, we have also modeled additional areas around slightly older records (i.e., 2000-2006 records, Uncertain Sites); these areas are called Uncertain Zones. Both the Primary Dispersal Zones and Uncertain Zones are used when determining where non-lethal surveys are recommended and where a scientific recovery permit for surveys might be recommended.
RPBB_Priority_Grid_Update

10 x10 kilometer grids identifying the survey priority ratings and geographical extent of the rusty patched bumble bee to be used in conjunction with our online survey guidance available at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Survey_Protocols_RPBB_12April2019.pdf [.] Attribute table for shapefile can be found at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4927a7a146e84cefa8daadcec852b538. We encourage people to do bee surveys. We are particularly interested in surveys near recent records of the rusty patched bumble bee (in or near High and Low Potential Zones), but are also interested in surveys across the entire historical range of the species. Bumble bee surveys can provide baseline data, even if rusty patched bumble bee are not present. Bumble bee community data and negative data (surveys where RPBB was not detected) is all important as we plan for recovery.
FWS_ACJV_CTDEEP_WIldlifeImpoundments_2026

Wildlife impoundments from Connecticut's wildlife protection and preservation efforts are multifaceted, involving state-wide initiatives, laws, and programs. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) manages over 230,000 acres of state-owned Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), which provide important habitat for wildlife species and are regulated to ensure sustainable hunting and fishing practices. DEEP also maintains a list of threatened and endangered species, works with private landowners to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), and has a network of licensed wildlife rehabilitators to care for injured or orphaned native wildlife. Laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Animal Welfare Act, and Wild Bird Conservation Act are in place to protect wildlife and regulate activities that may impact these species. DEEP offers educational programs on wildlife conservation and conducts scientific research to inform conservation efforts.
Grasslands (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator represents grassland health within the Midwest Landscape. It prioritizes areas based on the percentage of perennial grasses and forbs within an area. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – 20-40% perennial grass and forbs * 2 – 40-60% perennial grass and forbs * 3 – 60-80% perennial grass and forbs * 4 – >80% perennial grass and forbs Selection This indicator was chosen as a targetable, important feature of the MLI goals that will be used to track conditions over time and prioritize areas for conservation. Indicators were defined through elicitation and prioritization exercises with federal and state participants. Criteria for the indicators includes 1) actionable, 2) measurable, 3) relevant to multiple groups across the region, and/or 4) representative of other social and/or environmental values. Input Data & Mapping Steps This indicator originates from the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP) cover data. To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, and selected and reclassified band 4 of RAP cover data into 5 classes: NoData – 0-20% perennial grass and forbs, 1 – 20-40% perennial grass and forbs, 2 – 40-60% perennial grass and forbs, 3 – 60-80% perennial grass and forbs, 4 – 80-100% perennial grass and forbs. Finally, we removed highly altered areas using our Highly Altered Areas mask. For full mapping details, please refer to the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint Development Process]. For a complete download of all Blueprint input and output data, visit the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Data Download.]
Great Lakes Shoreline and Dune Habitat (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator represents shoreline and dune health based on the naturalness of shoreline features and dune habitat. It prioritizes areas based on shoreline type (natural or artificial), landcover type (Great Lakes Dune or Great Lakes Dune Grassland), and Coastal Barrier Resources System designation. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Natural shoreline, Coastal Barrier Resources System area, or dune habitat Selection This indicator was chosen as a targetable, important feature of the MLI goals that will be used to track conditions over time and prioritize areas for conservation. Indicators were defined through elicitation and prioritization exercises with federal and state participants. Criteria for the indicators includes 1) actionable, 2) measurable, 3) relevant to multiple groups across the region, and/or 4) representative of other social and/or environmental values. Input Data & Mapping Steps This indicator originates from the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Framework (GLAHF) Harmonized Shoreline Classification, the LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer, and USFWS Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) designations. To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, buffered the Harmonized Shoreline layer by 90m, converted buffered shoreline data to a 30m raster, and reclassified the raster into a binary: Artificial shoreline – NoData, Natural shoreline – 1. Pixels classified as "Great Lakes Dune" or "Great Lakes Dune Grassland" were extracted from the LANDFIRE dataset. Coastal Barrier Resources System polygons were converted to a 30m raster. The natural shoreline raster, extracted dune habitat pixels, and CBRS raster were mosaicked to create a final raster layer: NoData - Artificial shoreline, not dune habitat, 1 - Natural shoreline, CBRS area, or dune habitat. Finally, highly altered areas were removed from the layer using our Highly Altered Areas mask. For full mapping details, please refer to the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint Development Process]. For a complete download of all Blueprint input and output data, visit the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Data Download.]
Game Species (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition Game Species identifies the prevalence of and access to socially important game species. It prioritizes areas based on species richness of commonly hunted species. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Game species richness = 1-2 species * 2 – Game species richness = 3 species * 3 – Game species richness = 4 species * 4 – Game species richness = 5 species * 5 – Game species richness = 6 species * 6 – Game species richness = 7-10 species Selection This indicator was chosen as a targetable, important feature of the MLI goals that will be used to track conditions over time and prioritize areas for conservation. Indicators were defined through elicitation and prioritization exercises with federal and state participants. Criteria for the indicators includes 1) actionable, 2) measurable, 3) relevant to multiple groups across the region, and/or 4) representative of other social and/or environmental values. Input Data & Mapping Steps This indicator originates from the USGS Gap Analysis Project (GAP) and the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR). To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: selected GAP models for terrestrial game species listed in the FHWAR, projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, mosaicked all species GAP models into a single species richness raster, and reclassified the raster into the following classes: 1 – Game species richness = 1-2 species, 2 – Game species richness = 3 species, 3 – Game species richness = 4 species, 4 – Game species richness = 5 species, 5 – Game species richness = 6 species, and 6 – Game species richness = 7-10 species. Finally, we removed highly altered areas using our Highly Altered Areas mask. For full mapping details, please refer to the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint Development Process]. For a complete download of all Blueprint input and output data, visit the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Data Download.]
Drinking Water - Surface Water (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator identifies the quality and availability of surface drinking water from surface sources for people within the Midwest Landscape. It prioritizes areas based on supply and demand of drinking water, plus the presence of threats to the water supply. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Less important watersheds, not a natural asset * 2 – Less important watersheds, natural assets * 3 – Median importance watersheds, not a natural asset * 4 – Median importance watersheds, natural assets * 5 – More important watersheds, not a natural asset * 6 – More important watersheds, natural assets Selection This indicator was chosen as a targetable, important feature of the MLI goals that will be used to track conditions over time and prioritize areas for conservation. Indicators were defined through elicitation and prioritization exercises with federal and state participants. Criteria for the indicators includes 1) actionable, 2) measurable, 3) relevant to multiple groups across the region, and/or 4) representative of other social and/or environmental values. Input Data & Mapping Steps This indicator originates from the USDA Forest Service National Forests to Faucets 2.0 Assessment. To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, converted the input data to a 30m raster based on the importance score of each watershed, classified the raster into three categories, and emphasized natural assets within each watershed, leading to a raster with the following categories: 1 – Less important watersheds, not a natural asset, 2 – Less important watersheds, natural assets, 3 – Median importance watersheds, not a natural asset, 4 – Median importance watersheds, natural assets, 5 – More important watersheds, not a natural asset, 6 – More important watersheds, natural assets. Finally, we removed highly altered areas from this layer using our Highly Altered Areas mask. For full mapping details, please refer to the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint Development Process]. For a complete download of all Blueprint input and output data, visit the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Data Download.]
FWS MAPLand Access Easement

The MAPLand Act requires agencies to define a GIS transfer spatial data layer depicting access easements to federal land. The MAPLand Act Easement Areas layer depicts areas that represents federal interests in non-federal land, also known as easements, that may be used to provide public recreational access that are granted to, or reserved and managed by the following agencies: BLM, NPS, FWS, USBR, USACE and FS. The intent of a public access easement is to allow for ingress and egress for the general public to utilize or travel through a piece of property to access federal interests on non-federal land or to allow for the public to travel through non-federal land to reach adjacent public land.
Drinking Water - Groundwater (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator identifies the quality and availability of drinking water from groundwater sources for people within the Midwest Landscape. It prioritizes areas based on proximity to regionally extensive aquifer systems that have the potential to be used as a drinking water source. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Principal, alluvial, or glacial aquifer, not a natural asset * 2 – Principal, alluvial, or glacial aquifer, natural asset Selection This indicator was chosen as a targetable, important feature of the MLI goals that will be used to track conditions over time and prioritize areas for conservation. Indicators were defined through elicitation and prioritization exercises with federal and state participants. Criteria for the indicators includes 1) actionable, 2) measurable, 3) relevant to multiple groups across the region, and/or 4) representative of other social and/or environmental values. Input Data & Mapping Steps This indicator originates from the USGS Principal Aquifers of the United States and the USGS Alluvial and Glacial Aquifers. To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, merged the aquifer layers into a single polygon layer, convered the data to a 30m binary raster, and emphasized natural assets within each aquifer, leading to a raster with the following categories: 1- Principal, alluvial, or glacial aquifer, not a natural asset, and 2 - Principal, alluvial, or glacial aquifer, natural asset. Finally, we removed highly altered areas from this layer using our Highly Altered Areas mask. For full mapping details, please refer to the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint Development Process]. For a complete download of all Blueprint input and output data, visit the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Data Download.]
FWS Gates and Access - Public View

***THIS ITEM IS PUBLIC AND READ ONLY*** The Gate and Access feature layer is a spatial inventory of exterior and interior gates and access points that exist on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. Gates and access points may allow or prevent the ingress and egress of public use or support grazing management or related activities. This layer reflects current gate and access conditions and should be updated to reflect change. This is a read-only AGOL View of [FWS_HQ_Tran_Gate_Access]. Content can be added/edited by joining the [FWS Asset Editing Group] if a member of the FWS Organization. This public view only shows records that meet the following criteria: 1. Record Status = "Valid" 2. Public Viewable = "Yes" Data Set Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resource Program Center, GIS Team Lead, [richard_easterbrook@fws.gov] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Catalog (ServCat) Record - [https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/140664]
Nutrient Reduction (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator represents the minimization of nutrient loading that leads to issues in downstream waters (e.g. harmful and nuisance algal blooms) in both the Gulf and the Great Lakes. It prioritizes areas based on a catchment's contribution to the loading of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediments into water. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Low nutrient load, not a natural asset * 2 – Low nutrient load, natural assets * 3 – Medium nutrient load, not a natural asset * 4 – Medium nutrient load, natural assets * 5 – High nutrient load, not a natural asset * 6 – High nutrient load, natural assets Selection This indicator was chosen as a targetable, important feature of the MLI goals that will be used to track conditions over time and prioritize areas for conservation. Indicators were defined through elicitation and prioritization exercises with federal and state participants. Criteria for the indicators includes 1) actionable, 2) measurable, 3) relevant to multiple groups across the region, and/or 4) representative of other social and/or environmental values. Input Data & Mapping Steps This indicator originates from the USGS 2012 SPARROW Model for the Midwest. To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, joined the nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment data with catchment boundaries to spatially depict the nutrient loading of each catchment, mosaicked the results of each nutrient into a single raster, and emphasized natural assets within each catchment in the final raster resulting in the following values: 1 – Low nutrient load, not a natural asset, 2 – Low nutrient load, natural assets, 3 – Median nutrient load, not a natural asset, 4 – Median nutrient load, natural assets, 5 – High nutrient load, not a natural asset, 6 – High nutrient load, natural assets. Finally, we removed highly altered areas using our Highly Altered Areas mask. For full mapping details, please refer to the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint Development Process]. For a complete download of all Blueprint input and output data, visit the [Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Data Download.]
FWS_R3_ES_Michigan_March2026_Info_for_Insecticide_Applicators_Simplify view

This layer provides a resource about sensitive insect species for insecticide applicators in Michigan. Insect species are critical for a healthy ecosystem. Insects pollinate fruits, flowers, and vegetables, decompose organic waste so nutrients can be reused by plants, and are integral to nearly all food webs. Consequently, it is very important to protect our native insect species, including threatened and endangered insects. When planning an application, applicators must comply with state and federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Many insecticide labels also have legally binding restrictions controlling their use in areas with sensitive species or specific types of habitats. Applicators can use this resource to obtain information to avoid impacting federally listed insect species. This information is specific to insect species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act and bald eagles. Separate from federally listed species, information is provided for additional insects of special conservation concern. This map does not show areas where insecticide application is restricted; rather it shows areas where coordination before application helps reduce potential impacts to these protected species. More information can be found in the StoryMap this item supports: [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8a371d4283e04a6ca3c0323b84d846eb.] This layer is only meant to be used as part of this StoryMap and should not be downloaded or used independently.
DRAFT WBPHS vector files for design team review_2026

Vector shapefiles of WBPHS past transects and extents depicting areas surveyed during various year of the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey. These layers are being made publicly available solely for use of the collaborative survey evaluation and design team. This 2026 WBPHS survey review team includes external and Canadian partners. NOT AUTHORITATIVE DATA. DO NOT USE.
JV8 Delivery Areas

[DESCRIPTION]Joint Venture Eight (JV8, jv8.org), Great Plains Grassland Migratory Bird Habitat Joint Venture, Delivery Areas. Delivery Areas were defined by each of the eight participating Joint Ventures, identifying current delivery areas and areas of future investment potential. These area are described in the current JV8 Business Plan published May 2025 as 'A Business Plan To Recover North America's Central Grasslands: Strategies, Funding, And Partnerships Needed To Save One Of The World's Most Endangered Ecosystems.[/DESCRIPTION] [CONTACTS]For inquiries about the JV8 Priority Areas and the JV8 Business Plan, please contact Ali Duvall, JV8 Coordinator, (406) 370-5047, aliduvall@ecoalliancesforchange.com For technical issues regarding geospatial data and services, please contact Roger Grosse, RWBJV GIS Specialist, 308-382-8112, Roger_Grosse@fws.gov[/CONTACTS] [METADATA]These data reference a data and metadata distribution on ScienceBase. Please see the [ScienceBase link] for the full metadata and convenient data download.[/METADATA] [DMP]For internal FWS staff, please reference this [Data Management Plan].[/DMP]
FWS_NAWCA_Coastal_Zone_2026_update_DRAFT

This data is for locating proposed NAWCA projects in relation to the US Coastal Zone and the NAWCA National Priority Bird Areas in Technical Assessment Question #3. How it works: Go to “Online mapping tool” tab (above), type your project location using a nearby place name or coordinates (decimal degrees) into the search button, negative longitude first (for example: -75.8, 35.7) or pan and zoom to your project area. You can also toggle layers on and off, change the basemap and print. This map is for locating proposed NAWCA projects in relation to the US Coastal Zone and the NAWCA National Priority Bird Areas in Technical Assessment Question #3. How it works: Go to “Online mapping tool” tab (above), type your project location using a nearby place name or coordinates (decimal degrees) into the search button, negative longitude first (for example: -75.8, 35.7) or pan and zoom to your project area. You can also toggle layers on and off, change the basemap and print.