Forest Preserve District of Cook County boundaries. To view or use these shapefiles, compression software and special GIS software, such as ESRI ArcGIS, is required.

Trails within the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. To view or use these shapefiles, compression software and special GIS software, such as ESRI ArcGIS, is required.

Shelters within the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. To view or use these shapefiles, compression software and special GIS software, such as ESRI ArcGIS, is required.

DEFINITION:This is the County Forests layer dissolved by county from a stand (or forest management) layer used in the Wisconsin Forest Inventory & Reporting System (WisFIRS) and intended for cartographic representation of county forests in Wisconsin."County forests" include all county lands entered and participating under ch. 77 on October 2, 1963, and all county lands designated as county forests by the county board or the forestry committee and entered under the county forest law and designated as "county forest lands" or "county special use lands" as hereinafter provided.GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT:Statewide (Only 30 counties that have County Forest Lands).SOURCE SCALE:VariedPURPOSE/BACKGROUND:The purpose of county forests is to provide a permanent program of county forests and to enable and encourage the planned development and management of the county forests for optimum production of forest products together with recreational opportunities, wildlife, watershed protection and stabilization of stream flow, giving full recognition to the concept of multiple-use to assure maximum public benefits; to protect the public rights, interests and investments in such lands; and to compensate the counties for the public uses, benefits and privileges these lands provide; all in a manner which will provide a reasonable revenue to the towns in which such lands lie. This layer was created to provide a more accurate representation of county forests beyond simply identifying PLSS quarter-quarter sections containing County Forests. The “PLSS method” of representation may overlap private or other ownership types.This GIS layer was created by dissolving managed stand information from the WisFIRS Public Lands Management application. Stands coded as private (998 = inholding) or non-DNR (999, 9999 = non-DNR, Fed, etc.) were removed from the dissolve. The layer used to create this data is continually edited. CONTACT PERSON(S):GIS contact Laura Waddle, DNR-IT, (608) 320-4648, Laura.Waddle@Wisconsin.govProgram contact Doug Brown, Forestry Field Operations, (715) 966-0157, Douglas.Brown@wisconsin.govUPDATE FREQUENCY:Annual. Edits to County Forest stand information in WisFIRS used to generate the county forest feature class may occur at any time during the year; however, we will compile this layer annually. The GIS layer was last updated on September 6, 2024.PROJECTION:NAD_1983_HARN_Wisconsin_TM (Meters)WKID: 3071 Authority: EPSGATTRIBUTES:Field Descriptions:FR_PROP_CO: Forestry Property Code assigned by DNR Forestry.PROP_NAME: Name of the property. Usually “County Name” County ForestCHANGE_DT: Date of most data update.CHANGE_BY: Name of person to do most recent data update.COLL_CODE: Collection method code. For example, OTH001 (other collection method).COLL_TEXT: Description of collection method.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:For more information on the Wisconsin County Forests program, refer to the official website: https://www.wisconsincountyforests.com/USER ADVISORY:The completed treatments data in WisFIRS may not be entirely complete. The majority of treatments completed in the field have been entered into WisFIRS; however, there are some treatments that have not been recorded as completed in WisFIRS - particularly those implemented prior to October 2014. Additionally, not all treatments that have been completed in WisFIRS as tabular records of completed treatments have been mapped spatially in the WisFIRS GIS application – particularly those implemented prior to October 2014. Overall, most completed treatments have been recorded and mapped, but it is important to recognize that there are treatments that have not been accounted for in WisFIRS.

description: Groves within the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. To view or use these shapefiles, compression software and special GIS software, such as ESRI ArcGIS, is required.; abstract: Groves within the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. To view or use these shapefiles, compression software and special GIS software, such as ESRI ArcGIS, is required.

High Quality Successional and Native Forests of Tallahassee and Leon County, Florida. This feature class was created as part of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Mapping Project.The Native and High Quality Successional Forests were mapped in GIS as part of a larger Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) mapping project, which was a collaborative effort between the city and county growth management departments, the planning department and TLCGIS. This project was driven out of a need for better data that was standardized county-wide to support environmental resource planning, protection and regulation, etc. It was also needed to support public works and emergency management. Additionally, the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element Objectives and Policies required compilation and maintenance of maps of conservation and preservation features, effective 1990--the same year that the GIS Interlocal office was created. Prior to this in 1988, the original ESA data layers were mapped by environmental professionals and stormwater engineers working in what was then called the Leon County Department of Public Works. The data was drawn onto USGS quad maps (base) using mylar overlays (scale 24,000)--drainage basins were also mapped. It was supported by a Department of Community Affairs grant, and there was assistance from the FSU Geography Department. The Native and HQS Forests were identified using DOT Vegetation Inventory Maps, USFS Soils and Vegetation maps, some aerial photo review, and ground truthing.In 1996 a proposal was brought to the GIS Executive Committee by the departments as an ESA Remap Project that would map the layers (also Greenways) at larger scales of 1,200 and 2,400 using the new GIS base map. The project was funded by the TLCGIS. The layers were mapped by OPS environmental/biology students and graduates with oversight by the departments.Native and HQS Forests originally mapped on the quad maps were then heads up digitized into the GIS using base map data and two sets of digital aerial photos from '94 & '96. Hard copy aerials from '37 and '76 were also used for comparison. In the southeastern US mixed hardwood/beech-magnolia forests have a fairly distinct spectral signature on the false color infrared imagery which staff learned and were trained to recognize, with ground truthing where possible (property owners were called for access). The upland pine/longleaf and pine oak hickory signatures were not as easy to identify. The goal of the ESA Remap was to identify forests that had been continually forested since at least '37 (less so for longleaf forests where bulk of the diversity is in the groundcover). The soil and contour layers, with the aerials were used to find additional areas that hadn't been previously mapped. So, essentially it was a process of identifying a specific signature and also the environmental conditions (soils, slope, aspect, topography) that would have supported or allowed a forest type to have been protected throughout history. For example, beech-magnolia forests are often found on steep slopes that were historically difficult to access for logging or around wetland/floodplain areas that would have potentially limited logging due to saturated soils. Florida Natural Areas Inventory Element Occurrence data and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Closing the Gaps data were also used.

The 2008 forest layer was modified using 2015 air photos, generally at the 3000’ scale. Using WSSC’s grid, various editors modified the layer on a grid-by-grid basis. Each grid also received a second review to ensure unified standards. The forest edge generally follows the edge of the forest floor. Forest quality was not determined, so this layer includes existing forest areas with a forest floor that are a minimum 50-feet wide with at least 10,000 sqft, and forests that were either planted or began to regenerate in or before 2008.Areas that were generally excluded from the forest layer include:Structures with driveways and surrounding maintenance/uses.Lawns and other uses that exclude the forest floor.New corridors of disturbance such as for utility maintenance.Ponds and large bodies of water.Unmaintained areas with no visible trees growing within the vegetation.Areas that could be included within the forest:Trails- Unpaved roads on private property with no shoulder maintenance.Small structures with an intact surrounding forest floor. Natural forest gaps if no more that 30-50-feet wide and surrounded by a 300-foot margin of forest.For more information, contact: GIS Manager Information Technology & Innovation (ITI) Montgomery County Planning Department, MNCPPC T: 301-650-5620

Forest conservation easements protect land for existing and future forests by limiting certain activities. A forest conservation easement is a perpetual property right granted to the Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission that runs with the title of the land. Its terms, conditions, and area (shown on a record plat or recorded by a metes and bounds description), are recorded in the County’s land records. Most commonly, the agreement prohibits removing vegetation or changing the natural character of the land without written permission from Montgomery Planning. Forest conservation easements cover forest retention or planting areas and unforested high priority areas, all of which are identified on a forest conservation plan. To date, the county has protected over 10,500 acres – approximately 3.5 percent of the county – through more than 3,500 forest conservation easements. Category I easements are the most protective type. They prohibit clearing of any tree, bush, or vegetation. They prohibit construction, paving or grading of the ground. They also prohibit the dumping of unsightly materials (trash, ash, non-biodegradable materials, etc). Diseased or hazardous trees or tree limbs may be removed to prevent possible property damage or personal injury, but only after a reasonable notice is given to the Planning Board. Category I easements do not prohibit entry into the easement; homeowners are allowed access in and out of the easement, but they are not allowed to alter the natural landscape. The standard Category I legal description is available to view at the County Circuit Court Land Records Department under Liber 13178 Folio 412. Not all Category I easements are placed over existing forest. The purpose of a Category I easement is to preserve and protect existing and future forest. In some cases, through the development process, it may be determined that a developer needs to meet their forest mitigation requirements through on-site or off-site planting. In these cases, an easement will be placed over land that isn’t currently forested. These areas are typically adjacent to existing forest, stream valleys, or other areas that can be enhanced by additional forest cover. Maintenance is required, such as mowing once or twice a year to keep weeds in check until the trees are large enough to shade them out. If there are no suitable areas on the property being developed, an option for developers is to select an offsite location for protection. These easement areas can include both retention of existing forest and planting of new forest. Alternatively, developers can opt to buy into forest mitigation banks, which can involve retention of existing forest or planting of new forest at the bank location. Category II/Tree Save easements are typically placed over an area that is not forest, but features large specimen trees that are desired to remain. In a Category II easement area, activities such as mowing and clearing of understory are allowed, provided they do not damage or kill the large trees covered by the easement. Similar to Category I easements, activities such as construction, paving and grading of land are prohibited. These easements are extremely important in protecting large trees that may not be inside forest area. The standard Category II legal description is available to view at the County Circuit Court Land Records Department under Liber 13178 Folio 421. Other types of Forest Conservation Easements also protect forest and natural features throughout the county. These easements were created prior to the enactment of the Forest Conservation Law in 1992. As a part of development, conservation easements were often required over sensitive natural land. Unlike standard Category I and II Conservation easements, these easements typically have varying allowances regarding the forest on a property. The language of some of them can be more protective than others, so each easement should be taken at a case-by-case basis. Generally, though, the purpose of each of these easements is to maintain and protect the scenic beauty and natural condition of the land through preservation of forest and other natural features.For further details: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/environment/forest-conservation-and-trees/conservation-easements/ For more information, contact: GIS Manager Information Technology & Innovation (ITI) Montgomery County Planning Department, MNCPPC T: 301-650-5620

This layer file consists of three related datasets:
- Statutory boundary polygons of State Forests
- Lands managed by the Division of Forestry within the statutory boundaries, known as Management Units
- Lands managed by the Division of Forestry outside of the statutory boundaries, known as Other Forestry Lands

State Forests - Statutory Boundaries:
This theme shows the boundaries of those areas of Minnesota that have been legislatively designated as State Forests ( http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_forests/index.html )

Minnesota's 58 state forests were established to produce timber and other forest crops, provide outdoor recreation, protect watersheds, and perpetuate rare and distinctive species of native flora and fauna. The mapped boundaries are based on legislative/statutory language and are described in broad terms based on legal descriptions. Private or other ownerships included inside a State Forest boundary are typically NOT identified in legislative language and subsequently are NOT mapped in this layer. It is important to note that these data do not represent public ownership. State Forest boundaries often include private land and should not be used to determine ownership. Ownership information can be found in State Surface Interests Administered by MNDNR or by Counties ( https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/plan-stateland-dnrcounty ) and the GAP Stewardship 2008 layer ( http://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/plan-gap-stewardship-2008 ).

Data has been updated during 2009 by the MNDNR Forest Resource Assessment office.

State Forests - Management Units
This theme shows the land owned and managed by the Division of Forestry within the Statutory Boundaries. The shapes were derived mostly from county parcel data, where available, and from plat maps and other ownership resources. This data presents an approximate location of the land ownership and is intended for cartographic purposes only. It is not survey quality and should never be used to resolve land ownership disputes.

State Forests - Other Forest Lands
This theme shows State Forest lands outside of the State Forest Statutory Boundaries. It was derived from MNDNR's Land Records System PLS40 data layer. Sub-40 shapes are not represented. Partial PLS40 ownership is represented as a whole PLS40. This data is not survey quality and should never be used to resolve land ownership disputes.

KML file of the boundaries of Cook County Forest Preserve facilities. To view or use these files, special GIS software such as Google Earth is required

Forest tracts is a base map data layer derived by automated processes and processed for cartographic representation at 1:2400 scale. The polygon features represent the areas of forest or scrub cover as seen from above and are mapped to National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Forest is used by both the private and public sectors for comprehensive planning, facility planning, preservation projects, site design and land cover analysis.

Data are stored in the corporate ArcSDE Geodatabase as a polygon feature class. The coordinate system is Virginia State Plane (North), Zone 4501, datum NAD83 HARN, Vertical datum, NAVD88, US Survey foot units. OMAGI updates all base map data via a photogrammetric process, using aerial imagery that is flown yearly in phases. A different portion of the County is updated each year with the base map maintenance services contract, depending upon development patterns and update funding. See "Lineage" section for the list of extents for each Phase area, which are listed as “Data Sources”. The field “UPD_DATE” indicates the date a feature was last re-mapped, although it may have been reviewed for changes more recently.

This layer is sourced from gis.dupageco.org.

Forest Preserves in DuPage County

© DuPage County GIS

Forests and Forest Cover dataset current as of 1999. Polygon shapefile in ESRI format (only county forest areas).

Forests and Forest Cover dataset current as of unknown.

A point feature class of Natural Forest Communities (NFC) within Miami-Dade County. NFC shall mean all stands of trees (including their associated understory) which were designated as NFC's on the Miami-Dade County Natural Forest Community Map and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Resolution No. R-1764-84. The point layer only represents properties on which forest communities reside, not the actual delineation of the communities.Updated: Monthly The data was created using: Projected Coordinate System: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereProjection: Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere

Cook County GIS Dept map of Proviso, River Forest and Riverside Townships in a pdf format. Includes streets and municipalities.

Large Forest Patches

CDFW BIOS GIS Dataset, Contact: Chris Stermer, Description: The database represents nine point locations and associated stand assessment data collected with known aspen stands in the Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, California. The associated Klamath National Forest Region 5 Existing Vegetation aspen layer was derived from 1995 LANDSAT TM imagery, SPOT imagery, orthophotos, aerial photos and auxiliary layers. Stands were classified based upon conditions such as primary and dominant tree species, tree size, and tree density.

Version InformationThe data is updated annually with fire perimeters from the previous calendar year.Firep23_1 was released in May 2024. Two hundred eighty four fires from the 2023 fire season were added to the database (21 from BLM, 102 from CAL FIRE, 72 from Contract Counties, 19 from LRA, 9 from NPS, 57 from USFS and 4 from USFW). The 2020 Cottonwood fire, 2021 Lone Rock and Union fires, as well as the 2022 Lost Lake fire were added. USFW submitted a higher accuracy perimeter to replace the 2022 River perimeter. A duplicate 2020 Erbes fire was removed. Additionally, 48 perimeters were digitized from an historical map included in a publication from Weeks, d. et al. The Utilization of El Dorado County Land. May 1934, Bulletin 572. University of California, Berkeley. There were 2,132 perimeters that received updated attribution, the bulk of which had IRWIN IDs added. The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria, but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in the next update: Big Hill #2 (2023-CAHIA-001020). YEAR_ field changed to a short integer type. San Diego CAL FIRE UNIT_ID changed to SDU (the former code MVU is maintained in the UNIT_ID domains). COMPLEX_INCNUM renamed to COMPLEX_ID and is in process of transitioning from local incident number to the complex IRWIN ID. Perimeters managed in a complex in 2023 are added with the complex IRWIN ID. Those previously added will transition to complex IRWIN IDs in a future update.If you would like a full briefing on these adjustments, please contact the data steward, Kim Wallin (kimberly.wallin@fire.ca.gov), CAL FIRE FRAP._CAL FIRE (including contract counties), USDA Forest Service Region 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management & National Park Service, and other agencies jointly maintain a fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state. The data covers fires back to 1878. Current criteria for data collection are as follows:CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 damaged/ destroyed residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres._Discrepancies between wildfire perimeter data and CAL FIRE Redbook Large Damaging FiresLarge Damaging fires in California were first defined by the CAL FIRE Redbook, and has changed over time, and differs from the definition initially used to define wildfires required to be submitted for the initial compilation of this digital fire perimeter data. In contrast, the definition of fires whose perimeter should be collected has changed once in the approximately 30 years the data has been in existence. Below are descriptions of changes in data collection criteria used when compiling these two datasets. To facilitate comparison, this metadata includes a summary, by year, of fires in the Redbook, that do not appear in this fire perimeter dataset. It is followed by an enumeration of each “Redbook” fire missing from the spatial data. Wildfire Perimeter criteria:~1991: 10 acres timber, 30 acres brush, 300 acres grass, damages or destroys three residence or one commercial structure or does $300,000 worth of damage 2002: 10 acres timber, 50 acres brush, 300 acres grass, damages or destroys three or more structures, or does $300,000 worth of damage~2010: 10 acres timber, 30 acres brush, 300 acres grass, damages or destroys three or more structures (doesn’t include out building, sheds, chicken coops, etc.)Large and Damaging Redbook Fire data criteria:1979: Fires of a minimum of 300 acres that burn at least: 30 acres timber or 300 acres brush, or 1500 acres woodland or grass1981: 1979 criteria plus fires that took ,3000 hours of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection personnel time to suppress1992: 1981 criteria plus 1500 acres agricultural products, or destroys three residence or one commercial structure or does $300,000 damage1993: 1992 criteria but “three or more structures destroyed” replaces “destroys three residence or one commercial structure” and the 3,000 hours of California Department of Forestry personnel time to suppress is removed2006: 300 acres or larger and burned at least: 30 acres of timber, or 300 acres of brush, or 1,500 acres of woodland, or 1,500 acres of grass, or 1,500 acres of agricultural products, or 3 or more structures destroyed, or $300,000 or more dollar damage loss.2008: 300 acres and largerYear# of Missing Large and Damaging Redbook Fires197922198013198115198261983319842019855219861219875619882319898199091991219921619931719942219959199615199791998101999720004200152002162003520042200512006112007320084320093201022011020124201322014720151020162201711201862019220203202102022020230Total488Enumeration of fires in the Redbook that are missing from Fire Perimeter data. Three letter unit code follows fire name.1979-Sylvandale (HUU), Kiefer (AEU), Taylor(TUU), Parker#2(TCU), PGE#10, Crocker(SLU), Silver Spur (SLU), Parkhill (SLU), Tar Springs #2 (SLU), Langdon (SCU), Truelson (RRU), Bautista (RRU), Crocker (SLU), Spanish Ranch (SLU), Parkhill (SLU), Oak Springs(BDU), Ruddell (BDF), Santa Ana (BDU), Asst. #61 (MVU), Bernardo (MVU), Otay #20 1980– Lightning series (SKU), Lavida (RRU), Mission Creek (RRU), Horse (RRU), Providence (RRU), Almond (BDU), Dam (BDU), Jones (BDU), Sycamore (BDU), Lightning (MVU), Assist 73, 85, 138 (MVU)1981– Basalt (LNU), Lightning #25(LMU), Likely (MNF), USFS#5 (SNF), Round Valley (TUU), St. Elmo (KRN), Buchanan (TCU), Murietta (RRU), Goetz (RRU), Morongo #29 (RRU), Rancho (RRU), Euclid (BDU), Oat Mt. (LAC & VNC), Outside Origin #1 (MVU), Moreno (MVU)1982- Duzen (SRF), Rave (LMU), Sheep’s trail (KRN), Jury (KRN), Village (RRU), Yuma (BDF)1983- Lightning #4 (FKU), Kern Co. #13, #18 (KRN)1984-Bidwell (BTU), BLM D 284,337, PNF #115, Mill Creek (TGU), China hat (MMU), fey ranch, Kern Co #10, 25,26,27, Woodrow (KRN), Salt springs, Quartz (TCU), Bonanza (BEU), Pasquel (SBC), Orco asst. (ORC), Canel (local), Rattlesnake (BDF)1985- Hidden Valley, Magic (LNU), Bald Mt. (LNU), Iron Peak (MEU), Murrer (LMU), Rock Creek (BTU), USFS #29, 33, Bluenose, Amador, 8 mile (AEU), Backbone, Panoche, Los Gatos series, Panoche (FKU), Stan #7, Falls #2 (MMU), USFS #5 (TUU), Grizzley, Gann (TCU), Bumb, Piney Creek, HUNTER LIGGETT ASST#2, Pine, Lowes, Seco, Gorda-rat, Cherry (BEU), Las pilitas, Hwy 58 #2 (SLO), Lexington, Finley (SCU), Onions, Owens (BDU), Cabazon, Gavalin, Orco, Skinner, Shell, Pala (RRU), South Mt., Wheeler, Black Mt., Ferndale, (VNC), Archibald, Parsons, Pioneer (BDU), Decker, Gleason(LAC), Gopher, Roblar, Assist #38 (MVU)1986– Knopki (SRF), USFS #10 (NEU), Galvin (RRU), Powerline (RRU), Scout, Inscription (BDU), Intake (BDF), Assist #42 (MVU), Lightning series (FKU), Yosemite #1 (YNP), USFS Asst. (BEU), Dutch Kern #30 (KRN)1987- Peach (RRU), Ave 32 (TUU), Conover (RRU), Eagle #1 (LNU), State 767 aka Bull (RRU), Denny (TUU), Dog Bar (NEU), Crank (LMU), White Deer (FKU), Briceburg (LMU), Post (RRU), Antelope (RRU), Cougar-I (SKU), Pilitas (SLU) Freaner (SHU), Fouts Complex (LNU), Slides (TGU), French (BTU), Clark (PNF), Fay/Top (SQF), Under, Flume, Bear Wallow, Gulch, Bear-1, Trinity, Jessie, friendly, Cold, Tule, Strause, China/Chance, Bear, Backbone, Doe, (SHF) Travis Complex, Blake, Longwood (SRF), River-II, Jarrell, Stanislaus Complex 14k (STF), Big, Palmer, Indian (TNF) Branham (BLM), Paul, Snag (NPS), Sycamore, Trail, Stallion Spring, Middle (KRN), SLU-864 1988- Hwy 175 (LNU), Rumsey (LNU), Shell Creek (MEU), PG&E #19 (LNU), Fields (BTU), BLM 4516, 417 (LMU), Campbell (LNF), Burney (SHF), USFS #41 (SHF), Trinity (USFS #32), State #837 (RRU), State (RRU), State (350 acres), RRU), State #1807, Orange Co. Asst (RRU), State #1825 (RRU), State #2025, Spoor (BDU), State (MVU), Tonzi (AEU), Kern co #7,9 (KRN), Stent (TCU), 1989– Rock (Plumas), Feather (LMU), Olivas (BDU), State 1116 (RRU), Concorida (RRU), Prado (RRU), Black Mt. (MVU), Vail (CNF)1990– Shipman (HUU), Lightning 379 (LMU), Mud, Dye (TGU), State 914 (RRU), Shultz (Yorba) (BDU), Bingo Rincon #3 (MVU), Dehesa #2 (MVU), SLU 1626 (SLU)1991- Church (HUU), Kutras (SHF)1992– Lincoln, Fawn (NEU), Clover, fountain (SHU), state, state 891, state, state (RRU), Aberdeen (BDU), Wildcat, Rincon (MVU), Cleveland (AEU), Dry Creek (MMU), Arroyo Seco, Slick Rock (BEU), STF #135 (TCU)1993– Hoisington (HUU), PG&E #27 (with an undetermined cause, lol), Hall (TGU), state, assist, local (RRU), Stoddard, Opal Mt., Mill Creek (BDU), Otay #18, Assist/ Old coach (MVU), Eagle (CNF), Chevron USA, Sycamore (FKU), Guerrero, Duck1994– Schindel Escape (SHU), blank (PNF), lightning #58 (LMU), Bridge (NEU), Barkley (BTU), Lightning #66 (LMU), Local (RRU), Assist #22 & #79 (SLU), Branch (SLO), Piute (BDU), Assist/ Opal#2 (BDU), Local, State, State (RRU), Gilman fire 7/24 (RRU), Highway #74 (RRU), San Felipe, Assist #42, Scissors #2 (MVU), Assist/ Opal#2 (BDU), Complex (BDF), Spanish (SBC)1995-State 1983 acres, Lost Lake, State # 1030, State (1335 acres), State (5000 acres), Jenny, City (BDU), Marron #4, Asist #51 (SLO/VNC)1996- Modoc NF 707 (Ambrose), Borrego (MVU), Assist #16 (SLU), Deep Creek (BDU), Weber (BDU), State (Wesley) 500 acres (RRU), Weaver (MMU), Wasioja (SBC/LPF), Gale (FKU), FKU 15832 (FKU), State (Wesley) 500 acres, Cabazon (RRU), State Assist (aka Bee) (RRU), Borrego, Otay #269 (MVU), Slaughter house (MVU), Oak Flat (TUU)1997- Lightning #70 (LMU), Jackrabbit (RRU), Fernandez (TUU), Assist 84 (Military AFV) (SLU), Metz #4 (BEU), Copperhead (BEU), Millstream, Correia (MMU), Fernandez (TUU)1998- Worden, Swift, PG&E 39 (MMU), Chariot, Featherstone, Wildcat, Emery, Deluz (MVU), Cajalco Santiago (RRU)1999- Musty #2,3 (BTU), Border # 95 (MVU), Andrews,

Geospatial data about Howard County, Maryland Forest Conservation Easements. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.