AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
US Counties Monarch and Milkweed

This table includes a list of counties across the contiguous United States. Each county is given a score based on the [USGS Monarch Conservation County Ranking tool]. Input data used to evaluate counties includes monarch presence, and milkweed presence, summarized by county. Each county is then given a ranking based on how it compares to other counties within the same Monarch Conservation Unit ("quantile" field of the table). This table is used as an input to the Monarch Conservation Tool v.1, which combines national and regional data layers to allow users to explore opportunity areas for monarch butterfly conservation. Additionally, users can filter by state and county to their areas of interest, as well as overlay their own data on the map. This tool can be used for refinement of existing and future conservation opportunities, strategic planning, and resource allocation efforts.
RWBJV Platte River Conservation Areas

This data is a subset of records from the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Project Tracking Database. Data was compiled from a variety of sources including the Protected Area Database (PAD-US), Natural Conservation Service Easements, and contribution by partners. These are the unrestricted records associated within 3-miles of the Central Platte River channel from the towns of Lexington to Aurora, Nebraska. The purpose of this data is to give Vision for an Ecologically Sound Platte River Basin (VESPR) partners an idea of what areas are currently under conservation or management to assist with future conservation and management decisions and measure progress toward conservation goals.
ARSN Fish Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)

Fish IBI - Index of Biological Integrity scores in and around Strategic Habitat Units (SHU) in Alabama. These fish IBI's were compiled from member organizations of the Alabama Rivers and Streams Network. This does not represent all IBI's done in the state. This dataset is displayed on the Alabama Rivers and Streams Network Strategic Habitat Unit Mapper Experience page Dashboard. The information available from this dataset includes: 1. Site 2. Latitude/Longitude 3. Date 4. IBI Score 5. IBI Ranking The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a well-known indexing procedure commonly used by academia, agencies, and groups to assess watershed condition. This index has been used in throughout the United States and many countries internationally, and has proven to be a reliable means of assessing the effect of human disturbance on streams and watersheds.
US Counties Monarch and Milkweed Presence view

This layer includes a list of counties across the contiguous United States. Each county is given a score based on the [USGS Monarch Conservation County Ranking tool]. Input data used to evaluate counties includes monarch presence, and milkweed presence, summarized by county. Each county is then given a ranking based on how it compares to other counties within the same Monarch Conservation Unit ("quantile" field of the table). This table is used as an input to the Monarch Conservation Tool v.1, which combines national and regional data layers to allow users to explore opportunity areas for monarch butterfly conservation. Additionally, users can filter by state and county to their areas of interest, as well as overlay their own data on the map. This tool can be used for refinement of existing and future conservation opportunities, strategic planning, and resource allocation efforts.
Draft Midwest Grasslands and Savannas Indicator for HWG Review

This DRAFT indicator represents grasslands and savannas in the midwestern United States. It considers grassland and savanna locations, likely locations managed for biodiversity, and surrounding pollinator buffers. It also incorporates other potential grassland and savanna locations within natural and altered landscapes, and restoration opportunities within historic locations based on past fire intervals and historic ecosystem predictions. This indicator combines data from multiple sources, including the National Land Cover Database, LANDFIRE biophysical settings, and the Protected Areas Database (PAD-US). The data was created following the methods of the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS). This layer was created for review, and will be considered as an input in the 2024 Midwest Conservation Blueprint. As a draft, this layer is for review only and should not be used for any mapping or analysis.
America the Beautiful Challenge Grants (2022 and 2023) view2

The America the Beautiful Challenge is a public-private grant program for ecosystem restoration projects that have landscape scale impacts by investing in watershed restoration, resilience, equitable access, and corridors and connectivity. This collaborative approach among federal, state, Tribes, and NGO organizations promotes locally-led conservation as put forth in the America the Beautiful Initiative. Points were generated from polygons submitted by grantees. If there was one polygon, the point was placed in the centroid of the polygon. If there were multiple polygons that were within close proximity to each other, one point was generated as a representative point of the multiple polygons. If there were multiple polygons that were far away from each other, multiple points were created.
Tennessee's SWAP Conservation Opportunity Areas (2015)

For the [2015 Tennessee State Wildlife Action Plan] update, the designation of “Conservation Opportunity Areas” (COAs) is a new approach to help focus the conservation efforts, not only of the [Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency], but also of a wide range of other agency and nongovernmental partners. The identification of COAs is a recommended best practice for SWAP updates (AFWA 2012). While designing the COAs for Tennessee, the planning team considered three major attributes: Species of Greatest Conservation Need habitat priority, the problems affecting the habitats, and the on the-ground opportunities to implement conservation actions. The planning team used the GCN habitat priority maps as the background data for identifying COAs. The boundary outlines of the COAs were then drawn to capture a geographic footprint where one or more conservation actions are needed to address a specific issue (e.g. agricultural best management practices, expanded conservation areas, urban stormwater management, or habitat restoration). The planning team also used expert knowledge on partnerships which are active and working in different areas to inform the boundaries, and capture the list of partners in each Conservation Opportunity Area Summary. The COA boundary designations do not carry any new legal, regulatory, or jurisdictional authorities, nor do they place any restrictions on land uses or activities occurring within these areas. COAs are intended to foster partnership collaborations, investments and voluntary actions to conserve habitat within a given region of the state. This general approach to COA development is consistent with other states such as Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. Another important consideration is that COAs are not intended to be fixed, limiting geographic boundaries. As more projects are designed and executed with partners, changes to the COA designations may be useful to better represent new information or the footprint of a particular project opportunity. In addition, achieving habitat conservation objectives will require adequate consideration of all terrestrial, aquatic, and subterranean priorities regardless of whether they are physically located within a COA. For more information on the COAs, see the [2015 Tennessee State Wildlife Action Plan].
NCTC_ACJV_NAWCAdata_2024

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) grant program that provides matching funds to organized partnerships to protect, restore, and enhance lands that benefit wetland-associated migratory birds and other wildlife. By protecting and restoring wetlands and uplands, NAWCA supports intact, functioning ecosystems, which provide many services to society such as clean drinking water and flood protection. These direct economic benefits support multi-billion dollar industries, including tourism, commercial fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. Also, many NAWCA projects provide public access and support important traditions such as hunting, fishing, birdwatching, family farming, and cattle ranching https://acjv.org/funding/the-north-american-wetlands-conservation-act/ The NAWCA program funds projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico through competitive grants. Grant requests must be matched by partner contributions at least a 1-to-1 ratio. In the past two decades, NAWCA has provided $1.4 billion in grants to fund 2,644 projects in the United States. More than 5,600 partners have contributed another $3 billion in matching funds to conserve 33.4 million acres of habitat. In the ACJV, partners have a demonstrated success in receiving NAWCA funding. Since 1991, ACJV staff have worked with over 500 partners to protect, restore, or enhance over 2 million acres of priority habitats. Partners have received over $228 million dollars in grants which have been matched by $1.3 billion in matching funds. These grants represent almost 1/3 of the grants awarded in the United States!
USA_Counties

U.S. Counties - Generalized provides 2020 U.S. Census codes and population information, and generalized county (or county equivalent) boundaries to improve draw performance and be used effectively at a national level. U.S. Counties - Generalized represents the counties (or county equivalents) of the United States in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. U.S. Counties - Generalized are polygons containing population totals from the 2020 Census. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2019, primarily as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).
Recreation Resource Priorities, Highlands Region

This layer represents recreational resource priorities in the Highlands region. This layer is intended to inform the [Highlands Conservation Act Grant Program]. The Highlands Conservation Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the States of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania (Highland States) to preserve and protect high priority conservation land in the Highlands region. This layer was developed in 2024 as part of an updated Highlands mapping process facilitated by the USFWS in partnership with the Highlands Science Advisory Team and Steering Committee. Values range from 0 to 4, with 4 being highest priorities for recreation opportunities in the Highlands Region. The layer prioritizes areas that are known to have recreational access for both trails and water recreation for fishing and boating. Trails were buffered by 150 feet and 300 feet and ranked 1 and 2 respectively. Fishing and boating access areas were buffered by 300 feet and ranked 2. Data for trails, fishing, and boating areas were obtained from publicly available state datasets.
BRAT_HUC8_easiest_and_straightforward_miles

This layer depicts BRAT easiest and straightforward miles that fall within Sagebrush core and growth habitat are scored based on how many miles per HUC 8. A total score is created by binning and scoring 1-5 where 5 is the most miles. The Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT) downloads for the state of Idaho were incorporated into the analysis. The results for perennial streams were queried to include only the streams categorized in the BRAT analysis as Easiest- low hanging fruit, or Straightforward with the purpose of selecting streams where it might be easiest to provide process-based restoration. After the BRAT data was filtered on these categories it was clipped to find only the streams that were falling within Sagebrush Core and Growth areas or a 500ft buffer of Core and Growth Areas. The resulting BRAT streams that fit these two criteria – in Easiest or Straightforward areas and within a 500ft boundary of Sagebrush Core and Growth areas were summed based on stream miles per HUC. They were binned into 5 categories using Quantile and scored 1-5 with the HUCs having the most stream miles for potential restoration receiving a 5, and those with the least stream miles receiving a 1. These steps were taking for both HUC 8 and HUC12.
FWS_R7_Realty_NonDevelopment_Easement_feature_layer

This layer depicts the non-development easements within National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska that are administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This is one of four conservation easement layers that are shown in the FWS Alaska Region Land Mapper. The U.S. Fish & wildlife Service, Region 7 (Alaska) Land Mapper is an online mapping application that depicts land ownership and other related features within and adjacent to the sixteen National Wildlife Refuges within Alaska. Users can selectively display and query the various data layers to get information relevant to the Refuges. This can be useful for trip planning, field work, hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. Additionally, the Mapper provides links to downloadable maps of the Refuges.
LA MS CDN Protection Decision Support Tool

FOR non-AGOL ACCOUNT HOLDERS, DOWNLOAD THIS GEOSPATIAL DATA HERE: https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/search?tags=lmvjv The Forest Protection DST of the LA MS CDN is constructed to help partners define a strategy for identifying and addressing delivery priorities in the Network area, particularly related to protection of extant forest. The DST combines best available landscape design data in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley that collectively consider multiple priorities for bottomland hardwood protection - Ducks Unlimited's Land Protection Model and the LMVJV's Forest Protection Model. This DST revision incorporates both updated data and newly revised data in this dual modeling approach. The incorporated data models include: newly updated DU MAV Land Protection Model (2015) and newly created MAV LA MS MAV CDN Forest Protection Model (Lower MS Valley Joint Venture, 2019). Although inputs used in the revision are considered the highest resolution data (30m x 30m pixels) available, and fully consistent with landscape level conservation uses, final outputs are actually presented in the form of priority clusters or neighborhoods, produced through GIS focal neighborhood analysis. Since conservation activities do not typically occur at scales as small as 900 meters2 (or less than one-quarter acre), utilizing neighborhood analysis is helpful for finding where high priority pixels are more densely associated. Thus, the approach better assists in identifying priority areas where conservation actions might be focused as oppose to working with or attempting to target priority pixels.
Chesapeake WILD Program Grant Projects, 2023

Signed into law in October 2020, the Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Defense (Chesapeake WILD) Act directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and implement the non-regulatory Chesapeake WILD Program. Chesapeake WILD was established for the following purposes: 1. Coordination among federal, state, local, and regional entities to establish a shared vision for sustaining natural resources and human communities throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, 2. Engagement of diverse agencies and organizations to build capacity and generate funding that address shared restoration and conservation priorities, and 3. Collaboration to administer a grant program and implement projects to conserve, steward, and enhance fish and wildlife habitats and related conservation values. This dataset represents the 25 projects awarded more than $7.4 million that generated $12 million in match from the grantees, providing a total conservation impact of $19.4 million for conservation investments support unmet place-based needs that align with five shared pillars. Spatial data are collected from grantees in a polygon geometry. The accuracy of polygons that are submitted depend on the methodology used by grantees to create them. Some grantees have a GIS team that uploads detailed project footprints developed by experienced GIS analysts. Others create project footprints during the grant application process using a map-based online drawing tool. All polygons are reviewed and approved by relevant program staff to ensure proper scale. Points are generated from polygons submitted by grantees. If there is one polygon, the point is placed in the centroid of the polygon. If there are multiple polygons that are within close proximity to each other, one point is generated as a representative point of the multiple polygons. If there are multiple polygons that are far away from each other, multiple points are created (the centroid of each of the polygons). Consequently, polygons are recommended for quantitative analyses requiring a high spatial resolution, and points are recommended for mapping the general location of many projects over large areas. - this means there are some duplicate points on the map. Please take the accuracy, methodology, and guidelines into consideration as you conduct your analyses. These data are intended for your internal analysis and the use case outlined above only. Spatial data should not be shared with other third party entities without approval from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. If you have any questions about the data, please feel free to contact to Mike Lagua (Michael.Lagua@nfwf.org).
Chesapeake WILD Program Grant Projects, 2024

Signed into law in October 2020, the Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Defense (Chesapeake WILD) Act directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and implement the non-regulatory Chesapeake WILD Program. Chesapeake WILD was established for the following purposes: 1. Coordination among federal, state, local, and regional entities to establish a shared vision for sustaining natural resources and human communities throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, 2. Engagement of diverse agencies and organizations to build capacity and generate funding that address shared restoration and conservation priorities, and 3. Collaboration to administer a grant program and implement projects to conserve, steward, and enhance fish and wildlife habitats and related conservation values. This dataset represents 30 projects awarded more than $8.9 million that generated $13.7 million in match from the grantees, providing a total conservation impact of $22.6 million for conservation investments support unmet place-based needs that align with five shared pillars. Spatial data are collected from grantees in a polygon geometry. The accuracy of polygons that are submitted depend on the methodology used by grantees to create them. Some grantees have a GIS team that uploads detailed project footprints developed by experienced GIS analysts. Others create project footprints during the grant application process using a map-based online drawing tool. All polygons are reviewed and approved by relevant program staff to ensure proper scale. Points are generated from polygons submitted by grantees. If there is one polygon, the point is placed in the centroid of the polygon. If there are multiple polygons that are within close proximity to each other, one point is generated as a representative point of the multiple polygons. If there are multiple polygons that are far away from each other, multiple points are created (the centroid of each of the polygons). Consequently, polygons are recommended for quantitative analyses requiring a high spatial resolution, and points are recommended for mapping the general location of many projects over large areas. - this means there are some duplicate points on the map. Please take the accuracy, methodology, and guidelines into consideration as you conduct your analyses. These data are intended for your internal analysis and the use case outlined above only. Spatial data should not be shared with other third party entities without approval from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. If you have any questions about the data, please feel free to contact to Mike Lagua (Michael.Lagua@nfwf.org).
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary

This layer represents the boundary of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. and supports roughly 3,600 species of plants and animals, including 348 species of finfish, 173 species of shellfish, and 2,700 species of plants. Nearly one million waterfowl winter on and near the bay – approximately one-third of the Atlantic Coast’s migratory population. The birds stop to feed and rest during their annual migration along the Atlantic Flyway. This boundary was extracted from the USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset using the hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for use in the Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Defense Program, known as Chesapeake WILD. For more information on Chesapeake WILD visit [https://www.fws.gov/program/chesapeake-wild]. HUCs have two to eight digit numbers based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is delineated in the HUC 4 (four digit) layer. For more information about hydrologic units visit [https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html].
Longleaf Pine Priority DSM for the Texas Longleaf Implementation Team

FOR non-AGOL ACCOUNT HOLDERS, DOWNLOAD THIS GEOSPATIAL DATA HERE: https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/search?tags=lmvjv Priority model for the restoration and protection of Longleaf Pine for the Texas Longleaf Implementation Team area in SE Texas. Prioritization is based upon four principle inputs and is confined to a probably maximum historical range for Pinus palustris in the area. The inputs were partner defined and provided and the data include public and private lands with extant longleaf pine forests used as anchor sites, a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Wild Turkey Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) model, longleaf pine suitable soils acquired from USDA SSURGO soils database, and an Open Pine Decision Support Model (2011) created by the Lower MS Valley Joint Venture partnership.