AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
FWS_R5_FR_LGLFWCO_EDM_Invertebrate_Surveillance_PublicView

Benthic invertebrate surveys are a component of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Lower Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office (LGLFWCO) Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Early Detection and Monitoring (EDM) program. Benthic invertebrate surveys were included in the EDM program starting in 2012 with the goal of detecting novel AIS invertebrate species by sampling a diversity of habitats with a wide array of gear types. Surveys occurred annually from 2012 - present. Sampling focuses on harbors, rivers, and streams of the lower Great Lakes (Erie and Ontario) as determined by a [risk-based prioritization framework for AIS in the Great Lakes]. Benthic invertebrates are collected using a variety of sampling gears with the most utilized including: colonizers (rock bags and Hester-Dendy samplers), sweep nets, petite ponars and benthic sleds. The survey design targets the following three general taxon: Amphipoda, Bivalvia, and Gastropoda. These taxon are targeted due to the potential invasiveness and level of concern of species within those taxa as determined by [Ecological Risk Screening Summaries (ERSS)]. The sampling season is typically between July and October - not all locations are sampled on a similar temporal scale, particularly those locations on the fringes of the programs surveillance range. Sampling strategies are analyzed and designed to capture the maximum species richness at locations with the assumption that capturing an abundance of species, including singletons and doubletons, could lead to detecting rare novel AIS species if present. Samples are preserved using 95% ethanol (EtOH) which allows for tissue preservation. The samples are then picked and sorted in-house (LGLFWCO) by the three aforementioned general taxon. Currently, taxonomic identifications have also been conducted in-house using available keys for benthic invertebrates. The information within this dataset is geospatial in nature and documents benthic invertebrate sampling events. Both abiotic and biotic data is collected for each individual sampling event. It is possible that over time, the tools, gears, and instruments used to collect information have changed or been modified. The EDM program is adaptive in nature and standardization, although important for comparisons, is not the primary intention of this AIS sampling strategy. Therefore, in some instances, the general statements made above regarding sample procedures may not apply. Also, identifying aquatic invertebrates such as amphipods, bivalves, and gastropods are difficult - especially when tasked with discovering novel AIS with limited support from reference materials (keys, voucher specimens, etc.). Because of this, some specimens collected cannot be assigned to the species level. Furthermore, due to these difficulties, identifications within this data set may be inaccurate and those records will remain within this data set unless otherwise detected and removed.
FWS CNLM Glacial Heritage Discovery Trail Sites

Glacial Heritage Discovery Trail for Prairie Appreciation Day. Glacial Heritage Discovery Trail for Prairie Appreciation Day. Meant to go with this story map: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=739521362e694c22b399b6228f713348 Get to know the South Sound Prairies. To learn more about other Prairie Species go here: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=83b64cb7c194404fa5f0f024a5eab328 To learn more about the Washington Office of the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), please go to here: https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/index.cfm
GUSG Range

This dataset shows the boundaries of occupied, potential, and vacant/unknown habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado and Utah. Dataset was initially developed for the 2005 Gunnison sage grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan, and was last edited for Colorado in 2018. This layer used for work with the CED (Conservation Efforts Database [https://conservationefforts.org/]). Updated habitat boundaries for Colorado were provided by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Kathy Griffin 1/8/2020. Habitat boundaries for Utah remain unchanged from the 2005 Rangewide Conservation Plan, Gunnison sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. Occupied Habitat: Areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years.
FWS HQ ES National Wetlands Inventory Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency that provides information to the public on the extent and status of the Nation's wetlands. The Service's strategic plan for our vast national wetland data holdings is focused on the development, updating, and dissemination of wetlands data and information to Service resource managers and the public. This data set represents the extent, approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Certain wetland habitats may be excluded 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.
FWS_ACJV_NE_marsh_digitized_ditches_2022

Ditches were mapped within a subset of the Priority Saltmarsh Sparrow patches identified by the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (2022; available at [https://acjv.org/saltmarsh-sparrow/restoration-priorities/]) which are based on the National Wetland Inventory Estuarine Emergent Wetland (E2EM) delineation. A total of 17 patches were comprehensively mapped for major/primary ditches and 1 patch [Barnstable Marsh, MA] was partially mapped for major/primary ditches. The mapping procedure followed two main steps: 1) obtain historical and current imagery and topographic maps of priority marshes for restoration identified by the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture to benefit the Saltmarsh Sparrow, and 2) digitize the locations of ditches in these marshes based on visible signatures. Each marsh had at least 10 years of historical aerial imagery available and the oldest year of clear/quality imagery ranged from 1931 to 1985. When identifying ditches, we always referred to the oldest year of clear/quality imagery in conjunction with recent imagery. We only digitized ditches for which we could see a visible signature in at least one year of aerial imagery; we did not infer the location of a ditch without a visible indication of its presence. For example, if a ditch appeared to end in the middle of a marsh, we mapped it as such and did not assume it continued to the marsh edge or nearest water feature. Aerial imagery (of any year) was used as the primary source of information when identifying ditches. Topographic maps were used as supporting information in specific cases: 1) If we were uncertain of the full original extent of a ditch due to low image resolution or other factors, 2) If we observed an unusual interruption in the “normal” grid pattern of ditches, or 3) If we observed an area of unusually low ditch density. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) containing the full methodology can be accessed at: [https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/150234]
Glacial Heritage, Thurston County, WA Prairie Appreciation Day points

Glacial Heritage Discovery Trail for Prairie Appreciation Day. Glacial Heritage Discovery Trail for Prairie Appreciation Day. Meant to go with this story map: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=739521362e694c22b399b6228f713348 Get to know the South Sound Prairies. To learn more about other Prairie Species go here: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=83b64cb7c194404fa5f0f024a5eab328 To learn more about the Washington Office of the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), please go to here: https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/index.cfm
North American Central Grasslands

The Central Grasslands Roadmap was determined by a sub-committee of the CGR metrics group including experts on birds, other wildlife, and landscapes. It is based on three datasets: the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Great Plains ecoregion boundary, grassland Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, and grassland Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Regions. In general, the CGR boundary covers the maximum extent of the three datasets. The goal with the boundary was to represent all sub-habitats within the Great Plains and areas critical for migratory and resident avian species.
SantaRosaPlain_PotentialEffectsDeterminations2

Influenced by analysis of the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, Figure 3. Converted to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act terminology. Assists people in determining if project action will likely to adversely affect California Tiger Salamander, Sebastopol Meadowfoam, Sonoma Sunshine, and Burke's Goldfields. May affect, and is likely to adversely affect means that listed resources are likely to be exposed to the action or its environmental consequences and will respond in a negative manner to the exposure.
Wildlife and Habitat Risk Map for Wind Energy Projects in Arkansas

This mapping project is a collaboration among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and staff from the Arkansas Game and Fish and Natural Heritage Commissions. It provides general information on the potential environmental risk to species of concern and sensitive habitats from proposed wind energy projects in Arkansas. The purpose of the map is to assist wind energy developers with appropriate siting of proposed wind energy projects as described in the Service’s 2012 Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines ([Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines | FWS.gov]), particularly during Tiers 1 (Preliminary Site Evaluation) and 2 (Site Characterization) of the decision framework. The map provides general guidance and should not be used for final decision-making. According to the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, environmental risks include direct impacts e.g., collisions with turbines and associated infrastructure, habitat loss or degradation from turbines and infrastructure, habitat fragmentation, displacement or behavioral changes, and indirect impacts e.g., reduced nesting and breeding densities and the social ramifications of those reductions, loss or modification of foraging habitat, loss of population vigor and overall population density, increased isolation between habitat patches, loss of habitat refugia; attraction to modified habitats, effects on behavior, physiological disturbance, and habitat unsuitability. The assigned environmental risk categories and corresponding colors presented in the map represent the Service’s estimation of the relative environmental risk to species of concern and sensitive habitats within an area. Regardless of the environmental risk associated with a particular area, wind energy developers should coordinate with the Service and other appropriate Federal and State agencies and follow the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines to inform the siting and development of any proposed wind energy project. The boundaries of various layers on the map do not necessarily reflect the mobility of a species of concern, or the potential for interaction with a wind project. In all cases, Tiers 1 and 2 of the decision framework are recommended to ensure that no known species of concern or sensitive habitats will be impacted by the proposed project. If Tier 1 or 2 reveal potential impacts to species of concern or sensitive habitats, then Tier 3 (Field Studies to Document Site Wildlife and Habitat and Predict Project Impacts) of the decision framework may be needed. For the purpose of this project, species of concern include the following: Federally listed species, migratory birds including areas with high densities of migratory waterfowl, Bald and Golden Eagles, state wildlife action plan terrestrial species, and G1–3 plant species. Other areas identified as having environmental risk include Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission Natural Areas, glades, and areas designated as critical habitat for Federally listed species.
Form_ACJV Tidal Marsh Habitat Inventory VIEW

We are developing a catalog of salt marsh restoration, management, and enhancement projects throughout the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) region. Results will be publicly available and can be used to identify partners working on similar projects, accelerate the pace of learning, assess gaps that must be filled, and catalyze additional salt marsh resiliency work to benefit high priority bird species. This includes any projects beginning or in progress since January 2016. We are developing a catalog of salt marsh restoration, management, and enhancement projects throughout the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) region. Results will be publicly available and can be used to identify partners working on similar projects, accelerate the pace of learning, assess gaps that must be filled, and catalyze additional salt marsh resiliency work to benefit high priority bird species. This includes any projects beginning or in progress since January 2016.
SEI 1998-2001 Q5sc3 Tiled

Sage Ecological Integrity Layer 1998-2001 Q5sc3. This data was compiled as a part of a landscape conservation design effort for the sagebrush biome, and are the result of applying a spatially explicit model that assessed geographic patterns in sagebrush ecological integrity and used these results to identify Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas (ORAs). Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. The data represents the estimated integrity of sagebrush ecosystems, estimated from a spatial model that assigns high integrity is areas with abundant big sagebrush and perennial grass/forb cover and with minimal annual grass/forb cover, minimal conifers, and minimal human modification. This spatial model was applied over the entire sagebrush biome for several time periods and were estimated for 5 historical time periods between 1998 and 2020, and for one future time period (2030-2060). For each time period, input data were derived from satellite imagery, and the spatial model used those input values to estimate sagebrush ecological integrity. This approach to estimating ecological integrity was developed by consultation with experts from across the biome, allowing for the relationship between integrity and plant cover to vary among regions, as described in Doherty et al (2022). These data can be used to inform and prioritize conservation and restoration efforts across the sagebrush biome. Related report with figures: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081
SEI 1998-2001 Q5s Tiled

Sage Ecological Integrity Layer 1998_2001 Q5s. This data was compiled as a part of a landscape conservation design effort for the sagebrush biome, and are the result of applying a spatially explicit model that assessed geographic patterns in sagebrush ecological integrity and used these results to identify Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas (ORAs). Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. The data represents the estimated integrity of sagebrush ecosystems, estimated from a spatial model that assigns high integrity is areas with abundant big sagebrush and perennial grass/forb cover and with minimal annual grass/forb cover, minimal conifers, and minimal human modification. This spatial model was applied over the entire sagebrush biome for several time periods and were estimated for 5 historical time periods between 1998 and 2020, and for one future time period (2030-2060). For each time period, input data were derived from satellite imagery, and the spatial model used those input values to estimate sagebrush ecological integrity. This approach to estimating ecological integrity was developed by consultation with experts from across the biome, allowing for the relationship between integrity and plant cover to vary among regions, as described in Doherty et al (2022). These data can be used to inform and prioritize conservation and restoration efforts across the sagebrush biome.
SEI 1998-2001 annual G 560m Tiled

Sage Ecological Integrity Layer 1998-2001 annual G 560m. This data was compiled as a part of a landscape conservation design effort for the sagebrush biome, and are the result of applying a spatially explicit model that assessed geographic patterns in sagebrush ecological integrity and used these results to identify Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas (ORAs). Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. The data represents the estimated integrity of sagebrush ecosystems, estimated from a spatial model that assigns high integrity is areas with abundant big sagebrush and perennial grass/forb cover and with minimal annual grass/forb cover, minimal conifers, and minimal human modification. This spatial model was applied over the entire sagebrush biome for several time periods and were estimated for 5 historical time periods between 1998 and 2020, and for one future time period (2030-2060). For each time period, input data were derived from satellite imagery, and the spatial model used those input values to estimate sagebrush ecological integrity. This approach to estimating ecological integrity was developed by consultation with experts from across the biome, allowing for the relationship between integrity and plant cover to vary among regions, as described in Doherty et al (2022). These data can be used to inform and prioritize conservation and restoration efforts across the sagebrush biome. Related report with figures: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081
SEI 1998-2001 H 560m Tiled

Sage Ecological Integrity Layer 1998-2001 H 560m. This data was compiled as a part of a landscape conservation design effort for the sagebrush biome, and are the result of applying a spatially explicit model that assessed geographic patterns in sagebrush ecological integrity and used these results to identify Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas (ORAs). Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. The data represents the estimated integrity of sagebrush ecosystems, estimated from a spatial model that assigns high integrity is areas with abundant big sagebrush and perennial grass/forb cover and with minimal annual grass/forb cover, minimal conifers, and minimal human modification. This spatial model was applied over the entire sagebrush biome for several time periods and were estimated for 5 historical time periods between 1998 and 2020, and for one future time period (2030-2060). For each time period, input data were derived from satellite imagery, and the spatial model used those input values to estimate sagebrush ecological integrity. This approach to estimating ecological integrity was developed by consultation with experts from across the biome, allowing for the relationship between integrity and plant cover to vary among regions, as described in Doherty et al (2022). These data can be used to inform and prioritize conservation and restoration efforts across the sagebrush biome. Related report with figures: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081
SEI 1998-2001 Q2 Tiled

Sage Ecological Integrity Layer 1998-2001 Q2. This data was compiled as a part of a landscape conservation design effort for the sagebrush biome, and are the result of applying a spatially explicit model that assessed geographic patterns in sagebrush ecological integrity and used these results to identify Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas (ORAs). Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. Our overall objective in this study was to characterize geographic patterns in ecological integrity of sagebrush ecosystems. The data represents the estimated integrity of sagebrush ecosystems, estimated from a spatial model that assigns high integrity is areas with abundant big sagebrush and perennial grass/forb cover and with minimal annual grass/forb cover, minimal conifers, and minimal human modification. This spatial model was applied over the entire sagebrush biome for several time periods and were estimated for 5 historical time periods between 1998 and 2020, and for one future time period (2030-2060). For each time period, input data were derived from satellite imagery, and the spatial model used those input values to estimate sagebrush ecological integrity. This approach to estimating ecological integrity was developed by consultation with experts from across the biome, allowing for the relationship between integrity and plant cover to vary among regions, as described in Doherty et al (2022). These data can be used to inform and prioritize conservation and restoration efforts across the sagebrush biome. Related report with figures: [https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081]