Description: This dataset displays polygon data for Global Important Bird Areas in the Mississippi River Basin.From its start in Europe in the 1980s, the Important Bird Areas concept has been a success, leading to the recognition and protection of some 3,500 sites worldwide. American Bird Conservancy's Important Bird Areas Program was launched in 1995 and has concentrated on identifying and documenting the very top sites throughout all 50 states - those of significance on a global level. Many kinds of sites are represented: National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and Forests, state lands, conservation organization lands, and some private lands. Some of these sites are important because they are links along a migratory pathway. Other sites are important quite independent of any other site, and a few - most notably several in Hawaii - support species found nowhere else on earth.Using objective scientific information and relying on the recommendations of experts throughout the U.S., ABC has developed a list and set of descriptions of 500 of these internationally significant sites. For a site to be included, it must, during at least some part of the year, contain critical habitat that supports (1) a significant population of an endangered or threatened species (2) a significant population of a U.S. WatchList species (3) a significant population of a species with a limited rang or (4) a significantly large concentration of breeding, migrating or wintering birds, including waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds, raptors or landbirds.
Description: This dataset displays polygon data for Corridors and Key Habitat Areas in the United States.-Key Migration Corridors where bird risk will differ from season to season, and may also differ from year to year among specific locations within the corridor.-Key Habitat Areas for birds on the Red WatchList (plus both widespread eagle species, and Ferruginous Hawk), where the species may not be present year round. Birds are likely to be most at risk from wind development where their optimal habitat is found within the tinted area.
Name: LMVJV Louisiana-Mississippi Conservation Delivery Network Focus Areas
Display Field: HU_10_NAME
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Focus area boundaries for the Louisina-Mississippi Conservation Delivery Network (MAV portion of both states) developed from assessment of the Delivery Prioritization Planning Tool.For more information visit: http://www.lmvjv.org/pages/CDNs/LA-MS_CDN.htm
Name: The Nature Conservancy - Ecoregional Rollup (MRB)
Display Field: Name
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This dataset is made up of features aggregated from Ecoregional Assessments as well as other planning methodologies used across The Nature Conservancy to identify areas of biodiversity significance and prioritize conservation action. More information about ecoregional assesments and other conservation planning methodologies is available at The Nature Conservancy's Conservation Gateway, the Ecoregional Assessment Status Tool (EAST), and at http://maps.tnc.org. This dataset provides a vision for conservation success for ecological systems, natural communities and species representative of an ecoregion by showing the boundaries of areas that The Nature Conservancy has prioritized for conservation within the Mississippi River Basin.
Description: Boundary of Longleaf Pine Critical Conservation Area. Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs) are designated by the Secretary of Agriculture and represent an opportunity for many stakeholders to come together at a regional level to address common natural resource goals while maintaining or improving agricultural productivity. Partners, working closely with producers and communities, define and propose projects that will achieve regional natural resource goals while also meeting complementary local conservation priorities. CCAs receive 35 percent of annual RCPP funding. Each CCA has an overarching goal that includes addressing priority resource concerns that are common throughout the area.Overall Longleaf Pine Goal: With support of partners, increase the longleaf pine acreage goal from 3.4 to 8 million acres by 2025.For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/?cid=stelprdb1254129
Description: Boundary of Mississippi River Basin Critical Conservation Area. Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs) are designated by the Secretary of Agriculture and represent an opportunity for many stakeholders to come together at a regional level to address common natural resource goals while maintaining or improving agricultural productivity. Partners, working closely with producers and communities, define and propose projects that will achieve regional natural resource goals while also meeting complementary local conservation priorities. CCAs receive 35 percent of annual RCPP funding. Each CCA has an overarching goal that includes addressing priority resource concerns that are common throughout the area.Overall Mississippi River Basin Goal: Reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads from private lands.For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/?cid=stelprdb1254130
Description: Boundary of Prairie Grasslands Critical Conservation Area. Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs) are designated by the Secretary of Agriculture and represent an opportunity for many stakeholders to come together at a regional level to address common natural resource goals while maintaining or improving agricultural productivity. Partners, working closely with producers and communities, define and propose projects that will achieve regional natural resource goals while also meeting complementary local conservation priorities. CCAs receive 35 percent of annual RCPP funding. Each CCA has an overarching goal that includes addressing priority resource concerns that are common throughout the area.Overall Prairie Grasslands Goal: Restore and protect native prairie grasslands and wetlands, and promote sustainable use of soil and water resources to mitigate flooding, drought and overdraft of the Ogallala Aquifer.For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/?cid=stelprdb1254132
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Targeted Honeybee Effort. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/plantsanimals/pollinate/?cid=stelprdb1263263
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Targeted Monarch Butterfly Effort. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/plantsanimals/pollinate/?cid=nrcseprd402207
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Driftless Area Landscape Conservation Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=stelprdb1117519
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Gulf of Mexico Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=stelprdb1046039
Name: Illinois River Sub-Basin and Eucha-Spavinaw Lake Watersheds
Display Field: Region
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Illinois River/Eucha-Spavinaw Watersheds Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=nrcsdev11_023909
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Ogallala Aquifer Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=stelprdb1048809
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Longleaf Pine Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=nrcsdev11_023913
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=steldevb1027669
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Northern Plains Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=steldevb1027669
Name: Prairie Pothole Wetland and Grassland Retention
Display Field: BCR_NAME
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Boundary of USDA-NRCS Prairie Pothole Wetland and Grassland Retention Project. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=stelprdb1245865
Name: Working Lands For Wildlife - Species Focal Areas
Display Field: New_ID
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Working Lands For Wildlife Species Focal Areas overlapping the Mississippi River Basin. For more information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=stelprdb1046975
Description: The U.S. Forest Service and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service are working together to improve the health of forests where public and private lands meet. Through the Joint Chiefs’ Landscape Restoration Partnership, the two USDA agencies are restoring landscapes, reducing wildfire threats to communities and landowners, protecting water quality and enhancing wildlife habitat. More information: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nj/home/?cid=stelprdb1244394
Name: Eastern Meadowlark BBS relative abundance and distribution
Display Field:
Type: Raster Layer
Geometry Type: null
Description: Abundance and distribution interpolated from BBS counts (1995-2004). Mapped areas include herbaceous grassland and pasture/hay, NLCD 1992.
Description: Critical habitat lines - Mississippi River BasinWhen a species is proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider whether there are areas of habitat believed to be essential the species’ conservation. Those areas may be proposed for designation as “critical habitat.” Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Act. It is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. An area is designated as “critical habitat” after the Service publishes a proposed Federal regulation in the Federal Register and receives and considers public comments on the proposal. The final boundaries of the critical habitat are also published in the Federal Register.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: The data found in this file were developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service field offices. For more information please refer to the species level metadata found with the individual shapefiles. The ECOS Joint Development Team is responsible for creating and serving this conglomerate file. No data alterations are made by ECOS.
Description: Critical habitat polygons - Mississippi River BasinWhen a species is proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider whether there are areas of habitat believed to be essential the species’ conservation. Those areas may be proposed for designation as “critical habitat.” Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Act. It is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. An area is designated as “critical habitat” after the Service publishes a proposed Federal regulation in the Federal Register and receives and considers public comments on the proposal. The final boundaries of the critical habitat are also published in the Federal Register.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: The data found in this file were developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service field offices. For more information please refer to the species level metadata found with the individual shapefiles. The ECOS Joint Development Team is responsible for creating and serving this conglomerate file. No data alterations are made by ECOS.
Name: USFWS Region 3 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Focus Areas
Display Field: FA_NAME
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish Wildlife Program Strategic Habitat Conservation Focus Areas. These polygons were designed to assist with prioritizing projects as a decision making tool for habitat restoration on private lands.
Name: Colorado - Priority Watersheds for Tier 1 Aquatic SGCN
Display Field: HU_10_NAME
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This data set is a complete digital hydrologic unit boundary layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the entire United States. This data set consists of geo-referenced digital data and associated attributes created in accordance with the "Federal Guidelines, Requirements, and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset; Chapter 3 of Section A, Federal Standards, Book 11, Collection and Delineation of Spatial Data; Techniques and Methods 11-A3" (04/01/2009). http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html . Polygons are attributed with hydrologic unit codes for 4th level sub-basins, 5th level watersheds, 6th level subwatersheds, name, size, downstream hydrologic unit, type of watershed, non-contributing areas and flow modification.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Name: Colorado - Priority Habitat for Tier 1 Terrestrial Animal and Plant SGCN
Display Field: state
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: These are the original hexagons created for the 2013 Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) for Colorado, but the attributes have been updated with the 2015 revision to reflect the revised (2015 SWAP Revision) list of Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), and to incorporate updated occurrence data and improved distribution data for some species. CNHP developed species distribution models for 17 Tier 1 SGCN. Both documented and modeled distribution data for Tier 1 animal and plant SGCN have been combined at the resolution of 640 acre hexagons across the state. Each hexagon is then placed into one of six CHAT priority categories based on rules developed by the Western Governor's Association CHAT member organizations. Use field [hexScoreCat] to duplicate the CHAT map in the 2015 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan revision. CHAT Category Criteria 1 At least one T, E, G1, or G2 species with documented occurrence, or at least two G3 species with documented occurrence 2 At least one document occurrence of a C or G3 species, or at least two documented occurrences of a G4 species 3 Modeled distribution of at least one G3 species, or documented occurrence of at least one G4 species 4 Modeled distribution of at least one C or G4 species, or documented occurrence of at least one G5 species 5 Modeled distribution of at least one G5 species
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: Hexagons created by:
Michael Houts
GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist
Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism
Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program
Kansas Biological Survey
785-864-1515
mhouts@ku.edu
Description: Conservation Opportunity Areas are places in Illinois: with significant existing or potential wildlife and habitat resources; where partners are willing to plan, implement, and evaluate conservation actions; where financial and human resources are available; and where conservation is motivated by an agreed-upon conservation purpose and set of objectives.To create a list of places in the state fitting this description, scientists with Illinois Natural History Survey identified priority areas for conservation, using a variety of tools, such as Audubon’s Important Bird Areas and The Nature Conservancy’s portfolio sites. The centerpiece of their analyses, however, was a dataset showing the state’s key blocks of habitat (called hubs) and the corridors that connect them. The Illinois Natural History Survey then convened conservation partners to review the analyses of key habitat and sites to ascertain whether these sites represented the above definition for a Conservation Opportunity Area. Specifically, conservation partners evaluated whether conservation partners exist, resources were available to do the work, and whether conservation partners had an agreed-upon conservation purpose and set of objectives.
Description: Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) are intended to guide conservation activities at a landscape level. Landscape conservation is a developing theme across the country and throughout Indiana. Building off the successes of other Indiana landscape initiatives, like Goose Pond Fish and Wildlife Area and the Healthy Rivers Initiative, Indiana DFW has identified opportunities on the landscape to focus conservation efforts over the next decade. These COA were identified as a way to direct actions toward specific areas on Indiana’s landscape.
Description: High Opportunity Areas for Cooperative Conservation Actions - Data layers representing a broad array of wildlife and biodiversity plans, programs and priority areas prepared by natural resource entities were combined to identify priority areas for conservation actions. The areas on the map indicate areas identified as a priority for action by one or more of the plans referenced above. Darker shading/higher values indicate(s) areas where progressively more of the plans have overlapping priorities and indicate where partnering to maximize the effect of resources should be possible.
Description: This data set is a complete digital hydrologic unit boundary layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the State of Kansas. This data set consists of geo-referenced digital data and associated attributes created in accordance with the "FGDC Proposal, Version 1.0 - Federal Standards For Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries 3/01/02 "(http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/huc_data.html). Polygons are attributed with hydrologic unit codes for 4th level sub-basins, 5th level watersheds, 6th level subwatersheds, name, size, downstream hydrologic unit, type of watershed, non-contributing areas and flow modification. Arcs are attributed with the highest hydrologic unit code for each watershed, linesource and a metadata reference file.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: Funding for the Kansas Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) was provided by the USDA-NRCS and the Kansas
Water Office. Representatives from NRCS and USGS contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality
review of the dataset.
Description: Ecological Focus Areas (EFA), geographically explicit areas in which to address conservation issues, represent landscapes where conservation actions can be applied for maximum benefit to all Kansas wildlife. Each EFA includes a suite of SGCN and priority habitats and a unique set of conservation actions designed to address the specific resource concerns facing these species and habitats. Each EFA also includes one or more protected areas that can serve as demonstration sites for conservation actions.
Description: The Wildlife Action Network is composed of mapped terrestrial and aquatic habitats, buffers, and connectors that represent a diversity of quality habitats that support Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). The Network is made up of mapped habitat representing viable or persistent populations and “richness hotspots” of Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Added to this information are other data on the relative condition of habitat including spatially prioritized and connected Sites of Biodiversity Significance, Lakes of Biological Significance, and Streams with “exceptional” Indices of Biological Integrity. Consideration should be given to projects or activities that could result in the loss, degradation or fragmentation of habitat within the Wildlife Action Network, as habitat loss was identified as a substantial contributor to SGCN population declines.IMPROVEMENTS ARE UNDERWAY THAT WILL ALLOW USERS TO GET ATTRIBUTES ON THE COMPONENTS THAT MAKE UP THE NETWORK – SO PLEASE CHECK FOR UPDATES TO THE SHAPEFILE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
Name: Minnesota Pheasant Action Plan - Habitat Complexes
Display Field: Name
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Areas identified in the Minnesota Pheasant Action Plan to target habitat enhancement and protection in complexes at least 9 square miles in size where a goal of 40 percent permanent protection can be met within the timeframe of the plan. The complexes identify the best places for pheasant production and focused protection efforts on those areas to create permanent habitat complexes. Ranking of the complexes was based on current conditions. For instance, if a complex is at 38% permanent protection, it scores very high since with only a little effort 40% protection can be achieved, conversely. A place that was 20% scored low. The complexes identify the best places for pheasant production and focused protection efforts on those areas to create permanent habitat complexes.
Name: Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan - Core Areas
Display Field: Name
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Data Sources: Native prairie data was provided by the Minnesota Biological Survey, February 2015. The land cover analysis is based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population Evaluation Team's 2014 re-anlaysis of the National Land Cover Database's 2011 data.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: This data was developed by the Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Team for the 2015 revision of the Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan. Technical support was provided by The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota. Contact Steve Chaplin (schaplin@tnc.org) at TNC for additional information.
Name: Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan - Strategic Habitat Complexes
Display Field: Name
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Data Sources: Native prairie data was provided by the Minnesota Biological Survey, February 2015. The land cover analysis is based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population Evaluation Team's 2014 re-anlaysis of the National Land Cover Database's 2011 data.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: This data was developed by the Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Team for the 2015 revision of the Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan. Technical support was provided by The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota. Contact Steve Chaplin (schaplin@tnc.org) at TNC for additional information.
Name: Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan - Corridors
Display Field: Name
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Data Sources: Native prairie data was provided by the Minnesota Biological Survey, February 2015. The land cover analysis is based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population Evaluation Team's 2014 re-anlaysis of the National Land Cover Database's 2011 data.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: This data was developed by the Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Team for the 2015 revision of the Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan. Technical support was provided by The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota. Contact Steve Chaplin (schaplin@tnc.org) at TNC for additional information.
Name: Mississippi - Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: COA
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs) are large, loosely defined, geographic areas within Mississippi that have been identified by MDWFP as priority areas for implementing conservation actions recommended in Mississippi’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). They may contain priority habitats or Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), represent areas that have unique habitats (e.g. prairies) within them but they are composed of many different habitats, or may have been chosen because they have a wide range of SGCN, or include areas that are particularly important to one SGCN.
Name: Missouri - Aquatic Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: Name
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This dataset represents the reference watershed associated with the Aquatic Stream Reach Conservation Opportunity Areas identified by the 2015 update to Missouri's State Wildlife Action Plan
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: Missouri Department of Conservation
Name: Missouri - Terrestrial Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: Shape_Leng
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This dataset represents the Terrestrial Conservation Opportunity Areas identified by the 2015 update to Missouri's State Wildlife Action Plan.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: Missouri Department of Conservation
Description: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy - Tier One Aquatic Focus Areas. Focus Areas were developed using USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Units (HUC) as base layer. Each HUC was ranked using both quantitative and qualitative criteria and using the ranks revised based on peer review and expert opinion. For methodology relating to this ranking please visit the Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Management Strategy website at http://fwp.mt.gov/specieshabitat/strategy/default.html. In some cases adjacent HUCs were combined to form an aquatic focus area.
Name: Montana - Terrestrial Conservation Focus Areas
Display Field: cfwcsname
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This layer depicts U.S. Forest Service ecological subsections, which were used to define potential geographic focus areas for the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wildlife Action Plan. Each subsection was ranked using both quantitative and qualitative criteria and using the ranks revised based on peer review and expert opinion. For methodology relating to this ranking please visit the Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Management Strategy website at http://fwp.mt.gov/specieshabitat/strategy/default.html.
Description: This metadata record describes a shapefile depicting Nebraska's Biologically Unique Landscapes (BULs) as identified in conjunction with the development of a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan (Schneider et al 2005, aka the Natural Legacy Plan, and its subsequent revision in 2010/2011) for the state. The following summary of how BULs were defined is copied directly from Chapter 3, page 15 of that Schneider et al 2005: "One of the goals of the Natural Legacy Project is to identify a set of priority landscapes that, if properly managed, would conserve the majority of Nebraska's biological diversity. These landscapes, which we are calling Biologically Unique Landscapes, were selected based on known occurrences of at-risk species and ecological communities. In addition to at-risk species, these landscapes support a broad array of common species. The following sections describe the approach we used to identify the at-risk species, ecological communities and biologically unique landscapes." Initial efforts to implement the Natural Legacy Plan focused on nine Biologically Unique Landscapes (BULs) that had 'Flagship Initiatives' underway. Flagship Initiatives are coordinated efforts that include conservation actions on private and public lands, education and outreach, and monitoring and research. As part of the revision of the Natural Legacy Plan in 2010, six boundaries were modified. The changes were approved in 2011.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: Aditya Peri, Data Manager for the Nebraska Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) at the time of the shapefiles' creation, did the editing to create the 2005 version of the data.
Name: North Carolina SWAP Priority Watersheds (HUC-12)
Display Field: HUC_8
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Conservation priorities have been identified for each river basin at the cataloging unit or stream reach scale and were categorized using two tiers to indicate relative importance when considering the limited resources available for conservation initiatives. The recommendations were developed by Commission biologists through review of their field data as well as data from several agencies and research organizations. The review considered a combination of factors such as the presence of federal- or state-listed species; distribution of priority species; high species diversity; unique habitats, or high-quality habitats in the subbasin; and the importance of the watershed to downstream populations. Priority areas identified are represented by 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed boundaries and characterized as Tier 1 (highest priority) and Tier 2 (high priority) recommendations for conservation. This dataset includes only those priority watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin.
Description: This data layer depicts North Dakota Game and Fish Department Wildlife Action Plan focus areas. Focus Areas typically exhibit unique or easily identifiable differences in vegetation, soils, topography, hydrology or land use. Focus Areas are highly variable in size and often represent an area of native vegetation or a natural community type rare to North Dakota. Most of the 100 Species of Conservation Priority can be linked to Focus Areas. The purpose of the data is to provide a comprehensive list and spatial location of North Dakota wildlife action plan focus areas. This dataset is primarily used as a framework data layer for use in GIS and other mapping applications and does not represent a land survey of the focus areas.
Description: The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provides this geographic data "as is." DNR makes no guarantee or warranty concerning the accuracy of information contained in the geographic data. DNR further makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the condition of the product, or its fitness for any particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of DNR, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by DNR regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. In no event shall the DNR have any liability whatsoever for payment of any consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, any loss of profits arising out of use of or reliance on the geographic data.
Name: Pennsylvania - Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: coaname
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This layer displays Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA’s), which are places in Pennsylvania that represent clusters of Species, as well as most critically imperiled plants and their associated habitats where collaborative conservation action should be targeted. The COAs are intended to complement, not replace, other conservation planning efforts, by providing specific recommendations focused on Species and their habitats.
Name: South Dakota - Aquatic Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: AESTPNAME
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: The goal of delineating Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs) was to use relevant variables to map areas in South Dakota where increased emphasis on habitat conservation, protection, or management will benefit rare species and remaining intact native habitats. Identified areas may include lands owned or managed by federal, state, tribal, or private entities and areas that may already be managed to maximize species and habitat diversity. The COA maps are not intended to display a land acquisition blueprint, but are an attempt to identify areas that would help fulfill the specific objectives for terrestrial and aquatic systems in South Dakota, as described in the Wildlife Action Plan.The Missouri River Gap Analysis Program (MOGAP) aquatic riverine classification hierarchy was adopted as the geographic framework for developing COAs. From this classification system, Aquatic Ecological System (AES)-Types were selected as the abiotic conservation targets in the selection process for identifying COAs. To fully address the biotic targets, aquatic SGCN were used as the primary focus within the COA selection process.Combinations of factors were used to develop a conservation strategy. This strategy was used to identify and map a statewide map of COAs that collectively represent all of the distinct riverine ecosystems within South Dakota and the full array of SGCN distributions.Basic Elements of the Conservation Strategy:• Develop separate COAs for each Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU);• Identify at least one COA for each AES-Type within each EDU;• When an EDU was composed of a single AES-Type, identify one COA for individual AESs representing separate stream classes (i.e. upper, middle, lower):o Upper: includes headwater, creek and small river stream classes.o Middle: includes headwater, creek, and medium or large river stream classes.o Lower: includes headwater, creek, and great river stream classes.Through this conservation strategy we provided an ecosystem approach to biological conservation and represented a wide spectrum of the diversity of macrohabitats across South Dakota. This strategy was developed to represent multiple populations for SGCN to select a wide range of COAs for protecting these species throughout South Dakota. We then established quantitative and qualitative assessment criteria for selecting COAs at the AES level.For additional information regarding COA Selection Criteria, please review Chapter 6.5 of the 2014 South Dakota Wildlife Action Plan found at http://www.gfp.sd.gov.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Diversity Staff and GIS Team.
Name: South Dakota - Terrestrial Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: OBJECTID
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: The goal of delineating Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs) was to use relevant variables to map areas in South Dakota where increased emphasis on habitat conservation, protection, or management will benefit rare species and remaining intact native habitats. Identified areas may include lands owned or managed by federal, state, tribal, or private entities and areas that may already be managed to maximize species and habitat diversity. The COA maps are not intended to display a land acquisition blueprint, but are an attempt to identify areas that would help fulfill the specific objectives for terrestrial and aquatic systems in South Dakota, as described in the Wildlife Action Plan.The goal of the terrestrial COA exercise was to attempt to provide for the 10% representation goals for each ecological site type within each Major Land Resource Area (MLRA).Current COA selections do not not depict the current situation, but rather shows areas that may need more attention to management or protection to meet the terrestrial COA goal of providing for 10% representation for all ecological site types within each MLRA. The utility of terrestrial COAs will depend on future involvement of land and resource managers, landowners, and others to identify specific areas that are matched to local land management, participation in specific conservation initiatives or government programs, and wildlife conservation needs.Data sources and manipulation:1. A grid of 1-mile radius hexagons was created to cover South Dakota.2. Ecosite data were provided by EMRI (private contractor).3. Land protection data, including ownership or permanent easement status, were collected from state and federal agencies and non-government organizations.4. Public lands and conservation easements were combined as the Protected Land variable and overlaid with the hexagon grid. Percent area of protected land was calculated for each hexagon.5. Large Intact Blocks were taken from a Western Governor's Association exercise to determine large areas of South Dakota that were relatively intact and had low levels of human impacts (Sasmal et al. 2014). Additional information on the WGA effort is available at: http://www.westgovchat.org/. 6. a. Species data points were collected from a variety of sources to create the Species Richness variable;b. NatureServe Explorer (http://www.natureserve.org/) provided separation distance values for suitable habitat for all species used in the species richness analysis;c. Buffers were created for each species using the separation distance values; andd. Buffers were then overlaid with the hexagon layer to determine the number of species found within each hexagon.For additional information regarding COA Selection Criteria, please review Chapter 6.4 of the 2014 South Dakota Wildlife Action Plan found at http://www.gfp.sd.gov.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Diversity Staff and GIS Team.
Description: The Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs) for Tennessee capture populations of GCN species and high quality habitats, and as appropriate, define the geographically relevant framework for achieving conservation outcomes. The COAs currently designed for Tennessee are large geographies, with the expectation that further prioritization and goal setting for specific habitat outcomes can be achieved within them through collaborations with partners on shared objectives. While designing the COAs for Tennessee, the planning team considered three major attributes: GCN habitat priority, the problems affecting the habitats, and the on-the-ground opportunities to implement conservation actions.
Description: The Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment (VaNLA) was a landscape-scale GIS analysis that identified, prioritized, and linked important lands to form natural land networks throughout Virginia. Using land cover data derived from satellite imagery, the VaNLA identified large, unfragmented cores, patches of natural land with at least 100 acres of interior cover. Cores provide habitat for a wide range of species, from interior-dependent forest species to habitat generalists, as well as for species that utilize marsh and maritime habitats. The most ecologically significant cores were linked by landscape corridors. Lower-ranked cores and fragments of natural land that intersected landscape corridors were added as corridor nodes to complete the natural land networks. Collectively, these networks can be viewed as a minimal coarse filter, to which additional cores and rare or sensitive species habitats should be added for more comprehensive biodiversity conservation in Virginia.
Description: HUC-12 watersheds were used to delineate 21 areas of more concentrated conservation focus for West Virginia's State Wildlife Action Plan. Other spatial datasets, such as landscape integrity, were integrated in the delineation process. In the aggregate, the Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) cover roughly half the state. They vary in size, land ownership, land use, habitat extent, stresses, potential conservation actions, and potential partners (both public and private). The CFAs identification and treatment in the West Virginia SWAP are at the strategic level. Subsequent to United States Fish and Wildlife Service approval of the West Virginia SWAP, the WVDNR are committed to planning and adaptive management at the individual CFA level.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Elkins Operations Center, PO Box 67, Elkins, WV 26241, Ph: (304) 637-0245.
Name: Wisconsin - River Conservation Opportunity Areas
Display Field: rivsysname
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolyline
Description: River Conservation Opportunity Areas represent areas of the state where organizations and individuals working on the conservation of SGCN and their habitat would be most likely to successfully implement the conservation actions summarized in the Wildlife Action Plan for taxonomic and natural community groups. Providing information to help people make decisions about “where” to implement conservation actions is an important related aspect of conservation actions. Although most COAs have been given boundaries, they are indeed “fuzzy”, meaning their application can vary considerably according to context or conditions and they are not fixed or definitive—they will move, depending on the objectives.
Description: These boundaries are simplified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Real Estate Interest data layer containing polygons representing tracts of land (parcels) in which the Service has a property interest. The Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge has been omitted. Interior boundaries between parcels were dissolved to produce a single set of simplified external boundaries for each feature. These are resource grade mapping representations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service boundaries. For legal descriptions of the land represented here contact the USFWS Realty Office. This map layer was compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although these boundaries represent lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not all areas are open to the public. Some fragile habitats need to be protected from human traffic and some management areas are closed. The public is urged to contact specific Refuges or other conservation areas before visiting.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Division of Realty, Cadastral Data Working Group
Name: National Conservation Easement Database - MRB (2016)
Display Field: sitename
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Conservation easements within the Mississippi River Basin (MRB).The National Conservation Easement Database (NCED) is a collaborative venture to compile easement records (both spatial and tabular) from land trusts and public agencies throughout the United States in a single, up-to-date, sustainable, GIS compatible, online source. The goal of the NCED is to provide a comprehensive picture of the privately owned conservation easement lands, recognizing their contribution to America's natural heritage, a vibrant economy, and healthy communities. Conservation easements are legal agreements voluntarily entered into between landowners and conservation entities (agencies or land trusts) for the express purpose of protecting certain societal values such as open space or vital wildlife habitats. In some cases landowners transfer "development rights" for direct payment or for federal and state tax benefits.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: The NCED project partners would like to thank the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities for their leadership and forethought for putting the NCED team together and for the initial funding that allowed the NCED to be formed. Additional support for the NCED project was provided by the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation; the Knobloch Family Foundation; the Graham Foundation and the USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. We would also like to thank Greg Schildwachter for his leadership skills in guiding the project partners through the initial two-year journey. While the NCED partners were responsible for aggregating conservation easements from across the country, the NCED database would not have been successful without the cooperation of many federal, state, and local agencies, regional and state data repositories, and individual land trusts. We would like to thank the many state and federal agencies and local land trusts that took part in this endeavor. In addition, we would like to provide specific acknowledgement of the following organizations for their provision of state-wide, regional or national data: COMap - Colorado State University; Clemson University, David Holman - Greater Chicago area protected lands; Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; Florida Natural Areas Inventory; GreenInfo - California Protected Areas Database; Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory; Kentucky Natural Heritage Program; Maine State Planning Office; Maryland Environmental Trust; Montana Natural Heritage Programs, University of Montana in partnership with the Montana State Library; Nebraska Natural Heritage Program, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; The Nature Conservancy; Utah Conservation Data Center, State of Utah Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources; Virginia Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conservation and Recreation; Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Forest Service.
Description: Protected lands within the Mississippi River Basin (MRB).The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public open space and voluntarily provided, private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastral Theme (http://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html). PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural, recreational or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase maps and describes public open space and other protected areas. Most areas are public lands owned in fee; however, long-term easements, leases, and agreements or administrative designations documented in agency management plans may be included. The PAD-US database strives to be a complete “best available” inventory of protected areas (lands and waters) including data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The dataset is built in collaboration with several partners and data providers (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/stewards/). See Supplemental Information Section of this metadata record for more information on partnerships and links to major partner organizations. As this dataset is a compilation of many data sets; data completeness, accuracy, and scale may vary. Federal and state data are generally complete, while local government and private protected area coverage is about 50% complete, and depends on data management capacity in the state. For completeness estimates by state: http://www.protectedlands.net/partners. As the federal and state data are reasonably complete; focus is shifting to completing the inventory of local gov and voluntarily provided, private protected areas. The PAD-US geodatabase contains over twenty-five attributes and four feature classes to support data management, queries, web mapping services and analyses: Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Fee, Easements and Combined. The data contained in the MPA Feature class are provided directly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov ) tracking the National Marine Protected Areas System. The Easements feature class contains data provided directly from the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, http://conservationeasement.us ) The MPA and Easement feature classes contain some attributes unique to the sole source databases tracking them (e.g. Easement Holder Name from NCED, Protection Level from NOAA MPA Inventory). The "Combined" feature class integrates all fee, easement and MPA features as the best available national inventory of protected areas in the standard PAD-US framework. In addition to geographic boundaries, PAD-US describes the protection mechanism category (e.g. fee, easement, designation, other), owner and managing agency, designation type, unit name, area, public access and state name in a suite of standardized fields. An informative set of references (i.e. Aggregator Source, GIS Source, GIS Source Date) and "local" or source data fields provide a transparent link between standardized PAD-US fields and information from authoritative data sources. The areas in PAD-US are also assigned conservation measures that assess management intent to permanently protect biological diversity: the nationally relevant "GAP Status Code" and global "IUCN Category" standard. A wealth of attributes facilitates a wide variety of data analyses and creates a context for data to be used at local, regional, state, national and international scales. More information about specific updates and changes to this PAD-US version can be found in the Data Quality Information section of this metadata record as well as on the PAD-US website, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/history/.) Due to the completeness and complexity of these data, it is highly recommended to review the Supplemental Information Section of the metadata record as well as the Data Use Constraints, to better understand data partnerships as well as see tips and ideas of appropriate uses of the data and how to parse out the data that you are looking for. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/. To find more data resources as well as view example analysis performed using PAD-US data visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/resources/. The PAD-US dataset and data standard are compiled and maintained by the USGS Gap Analysis Program, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ . For more information about data standards and how the data are aggregated please review the “Standards and Methods Manual for PAD-US,” http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/standards/ .
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP). May 2016. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS), version 1.4 Combined Feature Class
Description: Sum of all conservation focus areas (CFA) for a particular area (UPDATED TO INCLUDE CONSERVATION PRIORITIES DELINEATED IN LATEST STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS (ca. 2015/2016)). These focus areas include both those delineated at the state scale as well as regionally. States focus areas are included for all states in the Mississippi River Basin that have delineated focus/opportunity areas. States that are not included either have not delineated focus areas or were in the process of developing them at the time of data collection. States where CFA are pending: Texas and Wyoming. States where CFA have not been identified: Georgia; Maryland; Michigan; New Mexico; New York; and Oklahoma. Regional focus area include those delineated by: The Nature Conservancy; Bobwhite Conservation Initiative; Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Ducks Unlimited; Joint Ventures; National Audubon Society; American Bird Conservancy; USDA-NRCS; and USFWS.
Definition Expression: N/A
Copyright Text: The Conservation Fund, 2016. Point of Contact: Michael Schwartz | Email: MichaelSchwartz@conservationfund.org | Phone: 304-876-2815