AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
Target Ranges Map _ Fall 2025_WFL1

Wildlife Restoration funds (manufacturer’s federal excise taxes) generated from the sale of firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment, support the construction, operation, and maintenance of over 850 public target ranges in the United States. This represents a significant investment in safe, structured environments where the public may participate in all kinds of target shooting. In the last six months, there are 9 new ranges being built as well as 8 ranges being upgraded or expanded. This dataset is a compilation of the firearms, archery, and combined (both firearms & archery) ranges that have received funding through the Wildlife Restoration Act. The data is provided by each Region every six months to fulfill a Director's Request. Contact: Elena Campbell (elena_campbell@fws.gov)
RCT_DRAFT_20251230 view

This map service supports the River Conditions Tool (https://uppermissouriheadwaters.org/UMHW_RiverConditions/index.html). Data creation involved input from watershed coordinators from the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin and Upper Yellowstone watersheds, then complication from USFWS R6 Science Applications and Montana State University. Leveraging the investment of the USFWS Region 6 Science Applications’ funded project Building Large Scale Drought Resiliency in the Missouri Headwaters Basin, the tool further supports stakeholders in drought management planning by improving access to US Geological Survey, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and Montana Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation Services (DNRC) river condition data. In collaboration with MT DNRC, this data drives functionality similar to the River Conditions tool on the Big Hole River Conditions web page for eight basins within the Missouri Headwaters Basin. The tool is to be embedded on websites for easy access to real-time stream conditions such as temperature and flow, and river status (e.g., restrictions, closures).
FWS R1 OFWO Draft Barred Owl Management Strategy General Management Areas

General Management Areas (GMAs) represent the primary focus of barred owl management across most physiographic provinces identified in the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan ([USFWS 2011]). These areas were delineated using landscape-scale GIS data and ecological considerations, including spotted owl site density, habitat quality, barred owl density, connectivity, and risk of catastrophic events such as wildfire. GMAs are generally large enough to support 200–300 spotted owl sites, based on home range sizes and overlap assumptions, though actual size varies by province due to topography and habitat conditions. GMAs may include small portions of adjacent provinces for logistical reasons and exclude towns and heavily populated areas where barred owl removal would not occur. Tribal lands were included only upon request by Tribes (e.g., Hoopa Valley, Yurok, Yakama Nation). Within GMAs, barred owl management will occur only on lands of willing landowners or managers and will avoid areas within 0.25 miles of occupied dwellings, campgrounds, and other locations with regular human use. At any one time, barred owl management within a province is limited to a maximum of 50% of the combined GMA area to maintain redundancy and reduce risk from catastrophic events. GMAs provide the framework for creating smaller FMAs during implementation, and their boundaries may shift over time in response to habitat changes or catastrophic events. This dataset shows the mapped GMAs developed by the interagency, intergovernmental team to guide implementation of the Draft Barred Owl Management Strategy. Please see the [Strategy] for additional details and [https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/178520] for a downloadable dataset.
At_Risk_Species_Data_Layer_07_23_25_View

This web application was developed to track At-risk species (ARS) – both their status and the Service’s progress on evaluating the species according to the National Listing Workplan This finder also provides the user opportunities to explore other information on these species and to promote collaborative pro-active conservation. This finder includes species on the current and previous workplans with ranges that overlap the Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and U.S. Virgin Islands). The finder incorporates any species overlapping the Southeast regardless of which Region leads the Species Status Assessment Report or who is the species lead within the Service.
Development_Src_v2_R_A

Source conservation efforts layers for reporting in the Conservation Efforts Database utilizing AGOL's limit usage functionality. The CED (Conservation Efforts Database https://conservationefforts.org/) is implementing a new option in July of 2019 for CED data providers to report conservation efforts that are conducted on private lands. This option provides spatial ambiguity to alleviate concerns of too much spatial detail representing private landowners’ efforts. This new option will allow CED data providers to pick a predetermined spatial SRU (Sagebrush Reporting Unit) instead of submitting the explicit effort boundary. These SRU are to be large enough to provide spatial ambiguity and obscure private landowner locations. This SRU data is in the format of a GIS polygon layer and available in the summer of 2019 from our USGS partner’s lek cluster layer and BLM HAF data modified by Oregon and Idaho layers.
GUSG_Src_Dev_R_A

Gunnison Sage Grouse source conservation efforts layers for reporting in the Conservation Efforts Database utilizing AGOL's limit usage functionality. The CED (Conservation Efforts Database https://conservationefforts.org/) is implementing a new option in July of 2019 for CED data providers to report conservation efforts that are conducted on private lands. This option provides spatial ambiguity to alleviate concerns of too much spatial detail representing private landowners’ efforts. This new option will allow CED data providers to pick a predetermined spatial SRU (Sagebrush Reporting Unit) instead of submitting the explicit effort boundary. These SRU are to be large enough to provide spatial ambiguity and obscure private landowner locations. This SRU data is in the format of a GIS polygon layer and available in the summer of 2019 from our USGS partner’s lek cluster layer and BLM HAF data modified by Oregon and Idaho layers.
YCT_CED_HydroFramework_AllnoMask_ra

CED Wild Trout hydro layers to support the CED wild trout module. Hosted feature layer includes 2 layers that support database organization, mapping, summarizations and reporting. Current coverage includes participating Management Units. The spatially explicit, web-based Conservation Efforts Database is capable of (1) allowing multiple-users to enter data from different locations, (2) uploading and storing documents, (3) linking conservation actions to one or more threats (one-to-many relationships), (4) reporting functions that would allow summaries of the conservation actions at multiple scales (e.g., management zones, populations, or priority areas for conservation), and (5) accounting for actions at multiple scales from small easements to statewide planning efforts. In recognition of the need to conserve healthy wild trout habitat to provide for the long-term conservation of its inhabitants, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and United States Geological Survey (USGS) developed the Conservation Efforts Database version 2.0.0 (CED). The purpose of the CED is to efficiently capture the unprecedented level of conservation plans and actions being implemented throughout wild trout habitat and designed to capture actions. Understanding the distribution and type of conservation actions happening across the landscape will allow visualization and quantification of the extent to which threats are being addressed.
GUSG Ancillary Layers

CED Gunnison Sage Grous ancillary layers to support the CED GUSG module. Hosted feature layer includes 1 layer that provides context of GUSG range. Current coverage includes areas of Colorado and Utah. The spatially explicit, web-based Conservation Efforts Database is capable of (1) allowing multiple-users to enter data from different locations, (2) uploading and storing documents, (3) linking conservation actions to one or more threats (one-to-many relationships), (4) reporting functions that would allow summaries of the conservation actions at multiple scales (e.g., management zones, populations, or priority areas for conservation), and (5) accounting for actions at multiple scales from small easements to statewide planning efforts. In recognition of the need to conserve healthy wild trout habitat to provide for the long-term conservation of its inhabitants, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and United States Geological Survey (USGS) developed the Conservation Efforts Database version 2.0.0 (CED). The purpose of the CED is to efficiently capture the unprecedented level of conservation plans and actions being implemented throughout wild trout habitat and designed to capture actions. Understanding the distribution and type of conservation actions happening across the landscape will allow visualization and quantification of the extent to which threats are being addressed.
At_Risk_Species_Data_Layer_07_23_25_Simple_VIEW

his web application was developed to track At-risk species (ARS) – both their status and the Service’s progress on evaluating the species according to the National Listing Workplan This finder also provides the user opportunities to explore other information on these species and to promote collaborative pro-active conservation. This finder includes species on the current and previous workplans with ranges that overlap the Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and U.S. Virgin Islands). The finder incorporates any species overlapping the Southeast regardless of which Region leads the Species Status Assessment Report or who is the species lead within the Service.
ebd_mall_acjv_impound_agol

This layer is part of a web map was developed by the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) to display existing spatial layers with mapped waterfowl impoundments in the ACJV geography (group layer “Impoundments 2015, 2018, DNREC 2025) and to incorporate partner input on locations of impoundments that are not yet mapped within this layer. To help identify impoundments, the map displays layers with eBird checklist data (v Nov 2025) from American Black Ducks (ABDU) and Mallards (MALL) that contained the word ”impoundment" in either the species comments or the locality name within the eBird data. The layer “Impoundments Polygons from Partners” is an editable layer that allows partners to digitize locations of impoundments and add basic information to the attributes field. The overarching goal is to develop a more complete spatial inventory of waterfowl impoundments throughout the ACJV to help inform conservation and restoration priorities.
Federal Highlands Conservation Act Boundary

This dataset depicts the Federal Highlands region boundary for the Highlands Conservation Act. This boundary was most recently updated in January 2025 and includes all areas eligible for funding via the Highlands Conservation Act Grant Program ([https://www.fws.gov/program/highlands-conservation-act-grant]). 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), and updated in 2024 to include municipalities proposed for inclusion by the Highlands states with concurrence of the municipality and approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as authorized in 2022. Source: This dataset comes from the Office of Conservation Investment, US Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region.
Ridges to Rivers RCPP Boundary

This layer was derived from the Watershed Boundary Dataset (described below) and the boundary for the state of Tennessee. The general area was selected and approved by the partners of the Ridges to Rivers Regional Conservation Partnership Program. The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" “Standard” (https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. This dataset represents the hydrologic unit boundaries to the 12-digit (6th level) for the entire United States. Some areas may also include additional subdivisions representing the 14- and 16-digit hydrologic unit (HU). At a minimum, the HUs are delineated at 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000-scale in Hawaii, Pacific basin and the Caribbean, and 1:63,360-scale in Alaska, meeting the National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Higher resolution boundaries are being developed where partners and data exist and will be incorporated back into the WBD. WBD data are delivered as a dataset of polygons and corresponding lines that define the boundary of the polygon. WBD polygon attributes include hydrologic unit codes (HUC), size (in the form of acres and square kilometers), name, downstream hydrologic unit code, type of watershed, non-contributing areas, and flow modifications. The HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. WBD line attributes contain the highest level of hydrologic unit for each boundary, line source information and flow modifications.
WildTrout_NA_SRC_Prod_R_A

Wild Trout source conservation efforts layers for reporting in the Conservation Efforts Database utilizing AGOL's limit usage functionality. The CED (Conservation Efforts Database https://conservationefforts.org/) is implementing a new option in July of 2019 for CED data providers to report conservation efforts that are conducted on private lands. This option provides spatial ambiguity to alleviate concerns of too much spatial detail representing private landowners’ efforts. Source conservation efforts layers for reporting in the Conservation Efforts Database utilizing AGOL's limit usage functionality.
Stream Crossing Sites - Alabama

This dataset represents possible stream crossings by roads in Alabama and surrounding states counties that are overlapped by a SHU/SRRU. The crossings were identified by intersecting the 2010 Tiger line road layers with the NHD HiRes stream layer. Each crossing was giving a Crossing ID. Crossing ID's were created using the FIPS code with the addition of a 4 digits in this fashion: 01003-0000. The layer was then modified to include the stream_crossing_id created by the Database of Stream Crossings in the United State by the USGS. The dataset has not been QC'd to determine if all potential crossing do exist. It was created as a means to easily find crossings and apply an ID for crossing surveys. Sites that do not exist are removed from the database as they are found.
SWFL_RW_Pr40_May1_June30_2024

The SWFL satellite model outputs a continuous range of model probabilities (Hatten and Paradzick, 2003). In this layer, a probability threshold was set at 40 percent. Thus, areas with model probabilities less than 40% were considered less suitable breeding habitat and were excluded from the map; model probabilities greater than 40% were converted to a value of one and displayed in the map. At a 40-percent cutpoint (binary habitat map), 88 percent (667) of flycatcher territories were located inside predicted habitat in 2014, whereas 12 percent (91) were located outside predicted habitat (omission) (Hatten, 2016). For a complete description of methods and interpretation of maps, see Hatten and Paradzick, 2003; Hatten, 2016. The layer title (SWFL_RW_Pr40_May1_June30_2024) is interpreted as follows: SWFL = Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; RW = Rangewide application of satellite model (56 Landsat-8 scenes) ; Pr40 = binary habitat map, with probabilities greater than 40% aggregated to a value of 1; locations with a value less than 40% are not shown on the map; May1_June30 = range of dates that an image mosaic was created from Landsat 9 imagery, with the least cloudy images selected; 2024 = year of image selection; Version 5 (v5) is the mask that was used to mask out background noise (i.e., non-riparian features that could confuse the model).
CED Wild Trout Not Applicable and Source Data (Dev RA)

The CED Cutthroat Module is designed to capture any action related to the conservation, enhancement, restoration, or recovery of native, inland cutthroat trout or the habitats and waters that they depend on. The CED Cutthroat Module is the first of its kind, designed to collect information on population demographics, genetics, habitat condition, and conservation actions. Wild Trout source conservation efforts layers for reporting in the Conservation Efforts Database utilizing AGOL's limit usage functionality. The CED (Conservation Efforts Database https://conservationefforts.org/) is implementing a new option in July of 2019 for CED data providers to report conservation efforts that are conducted on private lands. This option provides spatial ambiguity to alleviate concerns of too much spatial detail representing private landowners’ efforts. Source conservation efforts layers for reporting in the Conservation Efforts Database utilizing AGOL's limit usage functionality.
KKCFP FBH View Layer

This is a survey to be used in-house to discover barriers blocking upstream and downstream passage of fish in Alaska. The survey collects data of crossings over a waterway that is fish bearing. Alaska is a state that has seen significant increase in population in the past 30 years and will continue to see an increase in its population. This leads to a greater system and network of roads. Some of these crossings could cause adverse effects on fish passage, blocking or impeding fish movements through out the system. Through data collection of crossing location, type, size, material, etc. , we can begin to highlight potential threats. This will help further understand our current barriers to fish in the state, and provide us with data on unknown barriers worthy of our conservation efforts. This format of data collection will help streamline our culvert database and associated site photos.
CED_WildTrout_Indexes_YCT

CED Wild Trout index layers to support the CED wild trout module. Hosted feature layer includes 3 layers that support database organization, mapping, summarizations and reporting. This geospatial layer is a spatial index for the CED (Conservation Efforts Database https://conservationefforts.org/), serving as a spatial framework for summary reports by area (a.k.a. polygon). In addition, this SRU data is an option for data providers to provide spatial ambiguity to alleviate concerns of too much spatial detail representing private landowners’ efforts. This option allows CED data providers to pick a predetermined spatial SRU (Sagebrush Reporting Unit) instead of submitting the explicit effort boundary. These SRU are to be large enough to provide spatial ambiguity and obscure private landowner locations.
Aquatic Strategic Habitat Units (v1.0) for USFWS, Ecological Services, Tennessee

Intention for Development It was the desire of the Tennessee Ecological Service staff to increase collaboration across conservation programs and state boundaries for the recovery of federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act. Sharing spatially explicit priorities in this way can enhance collaboration and be an efficient communication tool to a variety of audiences. Staff value strong partnerships and aim to restore, connect, and conserve landscapes throughout Tennessee. Staff also recognize that the Service is a learning organization and in order to achieve long-term success, we must strategically leverage durable outcomes for both species and people, and align our mission with the mission of others. This is viewed as an interative product and can be managed adaptively as new information becomes available. Feedback Questions and feedback on the Aquatic SHUs are encouraged. Email Emily Granstaff (emily_granstaff@fws.gov) with questions or feedback. Mapping Steps used to create this layer are summarized below. Step 1: Major Drainage Divisions * Start with HUC-4 for major drainage divisions. * Include [Alabama Strategic Habitat Units] extending across state lines unless there"s a compelling reason not to. * Select all HUC12s within the retained Alabama SHUs and create a layer for later use. Step 2: Designated Aquatic Critical Habitat (CH) * Create a feature class/layer for [designated aquatic CH]. * Select all HUC12 watersheds containing designated aquatic CH and create a layer for later use. Step 3: Federally Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species (Recent Observations) * Select all aquatic federally Threatened and Endangered species with records since 2000 from the Biotics database. * Available by requesting from the [TDEC Natural Heritage Program] * Select all HUC12 watersheds containing these records and create a layer for later use. Step 4: All Federal Aquatic Species * Select all aquatic TE species regardless of observation date. * Select all HUC12 watersheds containing these records and create a layer for later use. Step 5: At-risk Aquatic Species (Recent Observations) * Select all at-risk aquatic species with records since 2000. * Select all HUC12 watersheds containing these records and create a layer for later use. Step 6: All At-risk Aquatic Species * Select all at-risk aquatic species regardless of observation date. * Select all HUC12 watersheds containing these records and create a layer for later use. Step 7: Non-essential Experimental Populations and Scenic River Designations * Create/display layers for stream reaches with 10(j) rule designating Non-essential Experimental Populations and National/State Scenic River Designations. * Select all HUC12 watersheds containing these records and create layers for later use. Step 8: Combine Layers * Combine all selected HUC12s from previous steps into a single layer. * Include fields for HUC4, HUC6, HUC8, HUC10, HUC12, watershed name, AL SHU, designated CH, federal aquatic species, at-risk aquatic species, NEP, and scenic river designations.
Haines_Culvert_Surveys_

This layer contains a cubset of Fish Barrier Hunter surveys collected with TWC around the Haines Borough. Original description from the Fish barrier Hunter Survey follows: This is a survey to be used in-house to discover barriers blocking upstream and downstream passage of fish in Alaska. The survey collects data of crossings over a waterway that is fish bearing. Alaska is a state that has seen significant increase in population in the past 30 years and will continue to see an increase in its population. This leads to a greater system and network of roads. Some of these crossings could cause adverse effects on fish passage, blocking or impeding fish movements through out the system. Through data collection of crossing location, type, size, material, etc. , we can begin to highlight potential threats. This will help further understand our current barriers to fish in the state, and provide us with data on unknown barriers worthy of our conservation efforts. This format of data collection will help streamline our culvert database and associated site photos.