AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
Hazard & Disaster Protection - Pollution (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator represents the protection of communities vulnerable to impacts of hazards and other community-level stressors, which can include natural disasters (e.g. flooding, wildfire, etc.) or human-caused pollution. It prioritizes areas based on the presence and amount of air and water pollutants. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Lower risk of air or water pollution, not a natural asset * 2 – Lower risk of air or water pollution, natural asset * 3 – Medium risk of air or water pollution, not a natural asset * 4 – Medium risk of air or water pollution, natural asset * 5 – Higher risk of air or water pollution, not a natural asset * 6 – Higher risk of air or water pollution, 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 EPA Cumulative Respiratory Risk from Air Toxins and EPA Total Permitted Discharges. 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 polygon input data layers to 30m rasters, mosaicked the air toxins and permitted discharges rasters into a single layer representing overall pollution risk, and emphasized natural assets within the most vulnerable areas for a raster with the following values: 1 – Lower risk of air or water pollution, not a natural asset, 2 – Lower risk of air or water pollution, natural asset, 3 – Medium risk of air or water pollution, not a natural asset, 4 – Medium risk of air or water pollution, natural asset, 5 – Higher risk of air or water pollution, not a natural asset, and 6 – Higher risk of air or water pollution, natural asset. 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.]
Hazard & Disaster Protection - Tree Canopy (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator represents the protection of communities vulnerable to impacts of hazards and other community-level stressors, which can include natural disasters (e.g. flooding, wildfire, etc.) or human-caused pollution. It prioritizes areas based on tree canopy cover need in populated areas based on existing tree canopy, surface temperature, socioeconomic factors, and health factors. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Moderate tree canopy need, not a natural asset * 2 – Moderate tree canopy need, natural assets * 3 – High tree canopy need, not a natural asset * 4 – High tree canopy need, natural assets * 5 – Highest tree canopy need, not a natural asset * 6 – Highest tree canopy need, 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 American Forests Tree Equity Score. 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 polygon layer to a 30m raster, and classified the raster into four classes: NoData – Most equitable areas, low tree canopy need (Tree Equity Score of 90-100), 1 – Moderate need (Tree Equity Score of 80-89), 3 – High need (Tree Equity Score of 70-79), 5 – Highest need (Tree Equity Score of 0-69). Next, we emphasized natural assets within each Tree Equity need category, resulting in a raster with values ranging from 1-6. 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.]
Hazard & Disaster Protection - Natural Hazards (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator represents the protection of communities vulnerable to impacts of hazards and other community-level stressors, which can include natural disasters (e.g. flooding, wildfire, etc.) or human-caused pollution. It prioritizes areas based on the predicted annual economic loss from riverine and coastal flooding, drought, and wildfires. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Lower risk of loss, not a natural asset * 2 – Lower risk of loss, natural asset * 3 – Medium risk of loss, not a natural asset * 4 – Medium risk of loss, natural asset * 5 – High risk of loss, not a natural asset * 6 – High risk of loss, 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 FEMA Coastal Flooding, Drought, Riverine Flooding, and Wildfire data layers. 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 all input polygons to 30m rasters, mosaicked all rasters together to get a sum of expected annual losses from natural disasters, and emphasized natural assets within vulnerable areas for a raster with the following values: 1 – Lower risk of natural hazards, not a natural asset, 2 – Lower risk of natural hazards, natural asset, 3 – Medium risk of natural hazards, not a natural asset, 4 – Medium risk of natural hazards, natural asset, 5 – High risk of natural hazards, not a natural asset, and 6 – High risk of natural hazards, natural asset. 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.]
Tribal Conservation Sovereignty (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator identifies the ability of Tribal Nations to have access to, and control of, their natural and cultural resources. It prioritizes areas based on the locations of Tribal Nations trust and fee lands. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Tribal trust or fee land, not a natural asset * 2 – Tribal trust or fee land, 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 Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Area Representations. 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 land area representation polygons into a binary 30m raster, and emphasized natural assets within Tribal lands, resulting in the following values: 1 – Tribal trust or fee land, not a natural asset, 2 – Tribal trust or fee land, natural asset. 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.]
Potential Access to Recreation (Midwest Conservation Blueprint 2026 Indicator)

Definition This indicator identifies accessibility gaps to green space and outdoor recreation in populated areas within the Midwest Landscape. It prioritizes areas currently lacking access to parks within a 10-minute walk based on population density, community health, pollution burden, and more. Pixels can take the following values: * 1 – Lower priority, not a natural asset * 2 – Lower priority, natural assets * 3 – Medium priority, not a natural asset * 4 – Medium priority, natural assets * 5 – High priority, not a natural asset * 6 – High priority, 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 Trust for Public Land's ParkServe dataset. To create this layer, MLI partners, members, and staff completed the following mapping steps: projected all input data to NAD83 (2011) UTM Zone 15N, erased existing parks and 10-minute walk service areas from the Park Priorities data, converted the resulting Park Priorities polygons to a 30m raster, and emphasized natural assets within Park Priority areas. The final raster had the following values: 1 – Lower priority, not a natural asset, 2 – Lower priority, natural assets, 3 – Medium priority, not a natural asset, 4 – Medium priority, natural assets, 5 – High priority, not a natural asset, and 6 – High priority, 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.]
Spring 2026 WR_Funded Target Ranges_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 800 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 3 new ranges being built as well as 22 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. Last Updated March 2026. Contact: Elena Campbell (elena_campbell@fws.gov)
ACJV NWI Coastal Zone focus

This data set represents the extent, approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States and its Territories. These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). The National Wetlands Inventory - Version 2, Surface Waters and Wetlands Inventory was derived by retaining the wetland and deepwater polygons that compose the NWI digital wetlands spatial data layer and reintroducing any linear wetland or surface water features that were orphaned from the original NWI hard copy maps by converting them to narrow polygonal features. Additionally, the data are supplemented with hydrography data, buffered to become polygonal features, as a secondary source for any single-line stream features not mapped by the NWI and to complete segmented connections. Wetland mapping conducted in WA, OR, CA, NV and ID after 2012 and most other projects mapped after 2015 were mapped to include all surface water features and are not derived data. The linear hydrography dataset used to derive Version 2 was the U.S. Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Specific information on the NHD version used to derive Version 2 and where Version 2 was mapped can be found in the 'comments' field of the Wetlands_Project_Metadata feature class. Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and near shore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. By policy, the Service also excludes certain types of "farmed wetlands" as may be defined by the Food Security Act or that do not coincide with the Cowardin et al. definition. Contact the Service's Regional Wetland Coordinator for additional information on what types of farmed wetlands are included on wetland maps. This dataset should be used in conjunction with the Wetlands_Project_Metadata layer, which contains project specific wetlands mapping procedures and information on dates, scales and emulsion of imagery used to map the wetlands within specific project boundaries.
Chesapeake WILD Program Grant Projects, 2025

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 29 (of 33) projects awarded $6.9 million that generated $6.1 million in match from the grantees, providing a total conservation impact of $12.9 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).
NWI_ACJV_E2EM_PEM_LEM_REM_simplified

This data set represents the extent, approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States and its Territories. These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). The National Wetlands Inventory - Version 2, Surface Waters and Wetlands Inventory was derived by retaining the wetland and deepwater polygons that compose the NWI digital wetlands spatial data layer and reintroducing any linear wetland or surface water features that were orphaned from the original NWI hard copy maps by converting them to narrow polygonal features. Additionally, the data are supplemented with hydrography data, buffered to become polygonal features, as a secondary source for any single-line stream features not mapped by the NWI and to complete segmented connections. Wetland mapping conducted in WA, OR, CA, NV and ID after 2012 and most other projects mapped after 2015 were mapped to include all surface water features and are not derived data. The linear hydrography dataset used to derive Version 2 was the U.S. Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Specific information on the NHD version used to derive Version 2 and where Version 2 was mapped can be found in the 'comments' field of the Wetlands_Project_Metadata feature class. Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and near shore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. By policy, the Service also excludes certain types of "farmed wetlands" as may be defined by the Food Security Act or that do not coincide with the Cowardin et al. definition. Contact the Service's Regional Wetland Coordinator for additional information on what types of farmed wetlands are included on wetland maps. This dataset should be used in conjunction with the Wetlands_Project_Metadata layer, which contains project specific wetlands mapping procedures and information on dates, scales and emulsion of imagery used to map the wetlands within specific project boundaries.
ConstructionSitesHR2023

This layer shows all active construction sites across Alaska funded by the Southern Alaska Fish and Wildlife Field Office Habitat Restoration Branch. These projects are active in FY23, and are being implemented with the goal to improve fish passage by creating unimpeded movement for fish and other aquatic organisms throughout these road stream crossings. This data is intended to give context to the associated [ArcGIS Dashboard] to track daily reporting of the construction at these sites to allow tracking of project accomplishments, manage photos, and allow outreach to those off-site.
Paunsaugunt Recovery Unit

This is the boundary for the Paunsaugunt Recovery Unit for the Utah prairie dog. The Paunsaugunt Recovery Unit is primarily in Garfield County, with small areas in Piute and Kane Counties. There are 15,620 ac (6,321 ha) of mapped habitat in the Paunsaugunt RU (UDWR 2010a). Approximately 30% of the mapped habitat occurs on Federal lands (Table 2), primarily the Dixie National Forest. The Paunsaugunt RU contains up to 20% of all adult Utah prairie dogs (Table 3). In any given year, 18-38% of the individual adults occur on public lands (Table 5). Spring counts vary from 654 to 2,205 adult prairie dogs (Table 3). The area experienced an increase to 1,153 prairie dogs counted in 2007, but decreased to 835 in 2010 (Table 3). Average prairie dog density in the Paunsaugunt RU was 0.34 prairie dogs per acre from 2000-2007 (USFWS 2007). See the 2012 Revised Recovery Plan ([https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/1203012_UTPD_RevisedRecoveryPlan_Final.pdf)] for more details.
Awapa Recovery Unit

This is the boundary for the Awapa Recovery Unit for the Utah prairie dog. The Awapa Plateau Recovery Unit encompasses portions of Garfield, Piute, Sevier, and Wayne Counties. There are 27,195 ac (11,005 ha) of mapped habitat in the Awapa Plateau RU (UDWR 2010a). Approximately 68% of the mapped habitat occurs on Federal lands (Table 2). The Awapa Plateau RU contains approximately 10% of all adult Utah prairie dogs (Table 3). In any given year, 30-70% of the RU’s individual adults occur on public lands (Table 4). Spring counts on the Awapa Plateau have varied since 1976 with low counts of 201 adult prairie dogs in 1976 and 1982 and a high count of 1,145 adult prairie dogs in 1989 (Table 3). From 2006-2008, the spring counts showed an increase from 343-769 adult prairie dogs, but decreased to 614 in 2010 (Table 3). Average prairie dog density in the Awapa Plateau RU was 0.06 prairie dogs per acre from 2000-2007 (USFWS 2007). See the 2012 Revised Recovery Plan ([https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/1203012_UTPD_RevisedRecoveryPlan_Final.pdf)] for more details.
West Desert Recovery Unit

This is the boundary for the West Desert Recovery Unit for the Utah prairie dog. The West Desert Recovery Unit is primarily in Iron County, but extends into southern Beaver County and northern Washington County. There are 16,841 ac (6,815 ha) of mapped habitat in the West Desert RU (UDWR 2010a). Approximately 39% of the mapped habitat occurs on Federal lands. The West Desert RU contains over 70% of all adult Utah prairie dogs (Table 3). In any given year, 10-20% of the individual adults occur on public lands (Table 6). The West Desert population has fluctuated between less than 1,000 and 4,778 adult Utah prairie dogs (Table 3). Peaks of greater than 4,000 animals occurred in 1989, 2000, and 2005-2010. Between 2000 and 2003, the West Desert RU spring counts showed a decrease from 4,521-2,523 prairie dogs; however, the population rebounded to over 4,000 adult prairie dogs counted each year from 2005 through 2010 (Table 3). Average prairie dog density in the West Desert RU was 0.78 prairie dogs per acre from 2000-2007 (USFWS 2007). See the 2012 Revised Recovery Plan ([https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/1203012_UTPD_RevisedRecoveryPlan_Final.pdf)] for more details.
Hanford Reach Roads Network

Overview This feature service represents the road infrastructure within the Hanford Reach National Monument and the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge area. It consists of spatial data depicting various road segments characterized by maintenance status, road surface types, condition, administrative control, and usage patterns. This layer contains detailed information about individual road segments within the protected areas. It includes attributes such as road name, maintenance schedule, surface condition, number of lanes, access restrictions, and administrative ownership. The layer supports analysis of road quality and accessibility for management and planning purposes. Geographic Coverage The service covers transportation roads specifically situated in the Hanford Reach area, including the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. This location is in the state of Washington, USA.