The Division of Forestry Geographic Information Systems home page provides information on GIS information, Spatial Data, GIS Web Applications depicting current wild land fire information and forest resource information for the entire state of Alaska.

The FS National Forests Dataset (US Forest Service Proclaimed Forests) is a depiction of the boundaries encompassing the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the original proclaimed National Forests, along with subsequent Executive Orders, Proclamations, Public Laws, Public Land Orders, Secretary of Agriculture Orders, and Secretary of Interior Orders creating modifications thereto, along with lands added to the NFS which have taken on the status of 'reserved from the public domain' under the General Exchange Act. The following area types are included: National Forest, Experimental Area, Experimental Forest, Experimental Range, Land Utilization Project, National Grassland, Purchase Unit, and Special Management Area.Metadata and Downloads - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?xmlKeyword=Original+Proclaimed+National+Forests

Abstract Among the various characteristics of the Brazilian territory, one is foremost: the country has the second largest forest reserve on the planet, accounting for approximately 10% of the total recorded global forest formations. In this scenario, seasonally dry tropical forests (SDTF) are the second smallest forest type in Brazil, located predominantly in non-forested biomes, such as the Cerrado and Caatinga. Consequently, correct identification is fundamental to their conservation, which is hampered as SDTF areas are generally classified as other types of vegetation. Therefore, this research aimed to monitor the Land Use and Coverage in 2007 and 2016 in the continuous strip from the North of Minas Gerais to the South of Piauí, to diagnose the current situation of Brazilian deciduous forests and verify the chief agents that affect its deforestation and regeneration. Our findings were that the significant increase in cultivated areas and the spatial mobility of pastures contributed decisively to the changes presented by plant formations. However, these drivers played different roles in the losses/gains. In particular, it was concluded that the changes occurring to deciduous forests are particularly explained by pastured areas. The other vegetation types were equally impacted by this class, but with a more incisive participation of cultivation.

This is the GIS data and imagery used for analyses in the article
Sixty-seven years of land-use change in southern Costa Rica by Zahawi
et al. currently in revision at PLOS One.

This study required the orthorectification of historic aerial photographs, as well as forest cover mapping and landscape analysis of 320 km² around the Las Cruces Biological Station in San Vito de Coto Brus, Costa Rica. The imagery and GIS data generated were used to account for forest cover change over five different time periods from 1947 to 2014.

The datasets supplied include GIS files for:

• Extent of the study area (shapefile).
• Forest cover mapped for each time period (geotiff).
• Imagery of the mosaics generated with the orthorectified historic aerial photographs (geotiff).
• Age in studied time periods of the current forest patches (shapefile).
• Connectivity lines inside the studied area (shapefiles).

All files are in Costa Rica Transverse Mercator 2005 (CRTM05) projected coordinate reference system. For transformation between coordinate systems please refer to http://epsg.io/5367

Aerial photographs for the years 1947, 1960, 1980 and 1997 were acquired from the Organization for Tropical Studies GIS Lab and the Instituto Geográfico Nacional of Costa Rica. The orthorectification process was done first on the 1997 set of images and used the current 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 Costa Rican cartography to identify geographical reference points. The set of 1997 orthophotos was used as a reference set to orthorectify remaining years with the exception of 1947 images. The orthorectification process and all other geospatial analyses were done on the CRTM05 spatial reference system and the resulting orthophotos had a 2m cell size. The largest Root Mean Square error (RMSE) of the orthorectification of these three time slices of aerial photographs was 15 m.

Given the lack of information on flight parameters, and the expansive forest coverage in 1947 photographs, images were georeferenced and built into a mosaic using river basins and the few forest clearings that had a similar shape in the 1960 flyover. The 1947 set of images did not cover the whole study area, having empty areas without photographs that represented ˜12.1% of the analysis extent. Nonetheless, these areas were classified as forested given that forest was present in these same areas in the 1960 imagery.

Forest mapping was done by visual interpretation of orthophotos and Google imagery. The areas were considered forested if tree crowns were easily identified when viewing the images at a scale of 1:10,000. In areas where it was difficult to discern the type of land cover, a scale of 1:5,000 was used. This was done to eliminate agroforestry systems such as shaded coffee areas (with trees planted in rows) or very early stages of forest regeneration from the forest land-cover class. The analysis was done only in areas that were cloud free in the five time slices. This resulted in the elimination of 134 ha (~0.4%) from of the original area outlined above. Polygons were drawn over the different areas using QGIS and were transformed into raster files of 10 m cell size.

All organisations hold information about the core of their business. Forestry England holds information on trees and forests. We use this information to help us run our business and make decisions.

The role of the Forest Inventory (the Sub-compartment Database (SCDB) and the stock maps) is to be our authoritative data source, giving us information for recording, monitoring, analysis and reporting. Through this it supports decision-making on the whole of the FE estate. Information from the Inventory is used by FE, wider government, industry and the public for economic, environmental and social forest-related decision-making.

Furthermore, it supports forest-related national policy development and government initiatives, and helps us meet our national and international forest-related reporting responsibilities. Information on our current forest resource, and the future expansion and availability of wood products from our forests, is vital for planners both in and outside FE. It is used when looking at the development of processing industries, regional infrastructure, the effect upon communities of our actions, and to prepare and monitor government policies. The Inventory (SCDB and stock maps), with ‘Future Forest Structure’ and the ‘rollback’ functionality of Forester, will help provide a definitive measure of trends in extent, structure, composition, health, status, use, and management of all FE land holdings.

We require this to meet national and international commitments, to report on the sustainable management of forests as well as to help us through the process of business and Forest Design Planning. As well as helping with the above, the SCDB helps us address detailed requests from industry, government, non-government organisations and the public for information on our estate. FE's growing national and international responsibilities and the requirements for monitoring and reporting on a range of forest statistics have highlighted the technical challenges we face in providing consistent, national level data. A well kept and managed SCDB and GIS (Geographical Information System - Forester) will provide the best solution for this and assist countries in evidence-based policy making. Looking ahead at international reporting commitments; one example of an area where requirements look set to increase will be reporting on our work to combat climate change and how our estate contributes to carbon sequestration. We have put in place processes to ensure that at least the basics of our inventory are covered:

1. The inventory of forests;
2. The land-uses;
3. The land we own ( Deeds);
4. The roads we manage.

We depend on others to allow us to manage the forests and to provide us with funds and in doing so we need to be seen to be responsible and accountable for our actions. A foundation of achieving this is good record keeping. A subcompartment should be recognisable on the ground. It will be similar enough in land use, species or habitat composition, yield class, age, condition, thinning history etc. to be treated as a single unit. They will generally be contiguous in nature and will not be split by roads, rivers, open space etc. Distinct boundaries are required, and these will often change as crops are felled, thinned, replanted and resurveyed. In some parts of the country foresters used historical and topographical features to delineate subcompartment boundaries, such as hedges, walls and escarpments. In other areas no account of the history and topography of the site was taken, with field boundaries, hedges, walls, streams etc. being subsumed into the sub-compartment. Also, these features may or may not appear on the OS backdrop, again this was dependent on the staff involved and what they felt was relevant to the map. The main point is that, as managers we may find such obvious features in the middle of a subcompartment when nothing is indicated on the stock map, while the same thing would be indicated elsewhere.

Attributes;

FOREST Cost centre Nos. COMPTMENT Compartment Nos. SUBCOMPT Sub-compartment letter BLOCK Block nos. CULTCODE Cultivation Code CULTIVATN Cultivation PRIHABCODE Primary Habitat Code PRIHABITAT Primary Habitat PRILANDUSE Land Use of primary component PRISPECIES Primary component tree species PRI_PLYEAR prim. component year planted PRIPCTAREA Prim. component %Area of sub-compartment SECHABCODE Secondary Habitat Code SECHABITAT Secondary Habitat SECLANDUSE Land Use of secondary component SECSPECIES Secondary component tree species SEC_PLYEAR Secondary component year planted SECPCTAREA Secondary component %Area of sub-compartment TERLANDUSE Land Use of tertiary component TERSPECIES Tertiary component tree species TER_PLYEAR Tertiary component year planted TERPCTAREA Tertiary component %Area of sub-compartment TERHABITAT Tertiary Habitat TERHABCODE Tertiary Habitat Code.

Any maps produced using this data should contain the following Forestry Commission acknowledgement: “Contains, or is based on, information supplied by the Forestry Commission. © Crown copyright and database right 2025 Ordnance Survey AC0000814847”.

This dataset contains the White Mountain National Forest Boundary. The boundary was extracted from the National Forest boundaries coverage for the lower 48 states, including Puerto Rico developed by the USDA Forest Service - Geospatial Service and Technology Center. The coverage was projected from decimal degrees to UTM zone 19. This dataset includes administrative unit boundaries, derived primarily from the GSTC SOC data system, comprised of Cartographic Feature Files (CFFs), using ESRI Spatial Data Engine (SDE) and an Oracle database. The data that was available in SOC was extracted on November 10, 1999. Some of the data that had been entered into SOC was outdated, and some national forest boundaries had never been entered for a variety of reasons. The USDA Forest Service, Geospatial Service and Technology Center has edited this data in places where it was questionable or missing, to match the National Forest Inventoried Roadless Area data submitted for the President's Roadless Area Initiative. Data distributed as shapefile in Coordinate system EPSG:26919 - NAD83 / UTM zone 19N.

The Trails Layer is designed to provide information about National Forest System trail locations and characteristics to the public. When fully realized, it will describe trail locations, basic characteristics of the trail, and where and when various trail uses are prohibited, allowed and encouraged. Because the data readiness varies between Forests, each Forest will approve which level of attribute subset are published for that forest. Forests can provide no information or one of three attribute subsets describing trails. The attribute subsets include TrailNFS_Centerline which includes the location and trail name and number; TrailNFS_Basic which adds information about basic trail characteristics; and TrailNFS_Mgmt which adds information about where and when users are prohibited, allowed, and encouraged. When a Forest chooses to provide the highest attribute subset, TrailNFS_Mgmt, these attributes must be consistent with the Forest's published Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Metadata for the individual Forest feature classes used to compile this feature class are available at data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/dir_trails.php. Metadata

Selected GIS data that encompass Coconino National Forest are available for download from this page. A link to the FGDC compliant metadata is provided for each dataset. All data are in zipped shapefile format, in the following projection: Universal Transverse Mercator Zone: 12 Units: Meters Datum: NAD 1983 Spheroid: GRS 1980 Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Coconino National Forest GIS Data. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/landmanagement/gis/?cid=stelprdb5209303

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) research program has been in existence since mandated by Congress in 1928. FIA's primary objective is to determine the extent, condition, volume, growth, and depletion of timber on the Nation's forest land. Before 1999, all inventories were conducted on a periodic basis. The passage of the 1998 Farm Bill requires FIA to collect data annually on plots within each State. This kind of up-to-date information is essential to frame realistic forest policies and programs. Summary reports for individual States are published but the Forest Service also provides data collected in each inventory to those interested in further analysis. Data is distributed via the FIA DataMart in a standard format. This standard format, referred to as the Forest Inventory and Analysis Database (FIADB) structure, was developed to provide users with as much data as possible in a consistent manner among States. A number of inventories conducted prior to the implementation of the annual inventory are available in the FIADB. However, various data attributes may be empty or the items may have been collected or computed differently. Annual inventories use a common plot design and common data collection procedures nationwide, resulting in greater consistency among FIA work units than earlier inventories. Links to field collection manuals and the FIADB user's manual are provided in the FIA DataMart.

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.

The National Forest Inventory (NFI) woodland map covers all forest and woodland area over 0.5 hectare with a minimum of 20% canopy cover, or the potential to achieve it, and a minimum width of 20 metres. This includes areas of new planting, clearfell, windblow and restock. The woodland map excludes all 'tarmac' roads and active railways, and forest roads, rivers and powerlines where the gap in the woodland is greater than 20 meters wide.All woodland (both urban and rural), regardless of ownership, is 0.5 hectare or greater in extent, with the exception of Assumed woodland or Low density areas that can be 0.1 hectare or greater in extent. Also, in the case of woodland areas that cross the countries borders, the minimum size restriction does not apply if the overall area complies with the minimum size.Woodland less than 0.5 hectare in extent, with the expectation of the areas above, will not be described within the dataset but will be included in a separate sample survey of small woodland and tree features.The woodland map is updated on an annual basis and the changes in the woodland boundaries use the Ordnance Survey MasterMap® (OSMM) as a reference where appropriated.The changes in the canopy cover have been identified on:Sentinel 2 imagery taken during spring/summer 2023 or colour aerial orthophotographic imagery available at the time of the assessment;New planting information for the financial year 2022/2023, from grant schemes and the sub-compartment database covering the estate of Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales;Transition areas where the difference between the last assessment date (source) and the latest date (source) currently available was greater than 17 years.Woodland areas, greater than 0.5 hectares, are classified as an interpreted forest type (IFT) from aerial photography and satellite imagery. Non-woodland areas, open areas greater than 0.5 hectare completely surrounded by woodland are described according to open area types.IFT categories are Conifer, Broadleaved, Mixed mainly conifer, Mixed mainly broadleaved, Coppice, Coppice with standards, Shrub, Young trees, Felled, Ground prep, Cloud \ shadow, Uncertain, Low density, Assumed woodland, Failed, Windblow.IOA categories are Open water, Grassland, Agricultural land, Urban, Road, River, Powerline, Quarry, Bare area, Windfarm, Other vegetation.For further information regarding the interpreted forest types (IFT) and the interpreted open areas (IOA) please see NFI description of attributes available on www.forestresearch.gov.uk

The European Primary Forest Database is a curated collection of (sub)-national and regional datasets on the distribution of primary forests in Europe. It contains geographical (GIS) data (point, polygons) on the location and boundaries of documented primary and old-growth forests in Europe

This data support the paper "A systematic review on the integration of remote sensing and GIS to forest and grassland ecosystem health attributes, indicators, and measures " by Irini Soubry, Thuy Doan, Thuan Chu and Xulin Guo 2021 in the journal of "Remote Sensing" by MDPI. It includes the "Search_Effort.csv" list with the keywords and number of studies selected for further examination, the "Potential_Studies.csv" with the post-filtering of suitability and notes related to each study, the "Metadata.csv" with the information collected for each metadata variable per study, and the "ExtractedData.csv" with the information collected for each extracted dta variable per study. More information about the data collection and procedures can be found in the respective manuscript.

Forests to Faucets 2.0 builds upon the national Forests to Faucets(2011) by updating base data and adding new threats including wildfire, invasive pests, and future stresses such as climate-induced changes in land use and water quantity. The purpose of this project is to quantify, rank, and illustrate the geographic connection between forests and other natural cover (private and public), surface drinking water supplies, and the populations that depend on them–the ecosystem service of water supply. The project assesses subwatersheds across the US to identify those important to downstream surface drinking water supplies as well as evaluate a subwatersheds natural ability to produce clean water based on its biophysical characteristics: percent natural cover, percent agricultural land, percent impervious, percent riparian natural cover, and mean annual water yield. Using data from a variety of existing sources and maps generated through GIS analyses, the project uses maps and statistics to describe the relative importance of private forests and National Forest System lands to surface drinking water supplies across the United States. The data produced by this assessment provides information needed to identify opportunities for water market approaches or schemes based upon payments for environmental services (PES).September 2023 Update: Water yields (Q_YLD_MM; PER_Q40_45; PER_Q90_45; PER_Q40_85; PER_Q90_85) were updated to tie back to WASSI source data. All Forests to Faucets models and indices were recalculated. HUCs that did not have a corresponding water yield from WASSI were recalculated to the nearest HUC. AttributeDescriptionSourcesAcresHUC 12 AcresCalculated using ArcGISSTATESStatesWBD 2019HUC1212-digit Hydrologic Unit CodeWBD 2019NAME12-digit Hydrologic Unit NameWBD 2019HUTYPEHUC TypeWBD 2019From_HUC 12 From for routingWBD 2019ToHUC 12 To for routingWBD 2019 (edited by USDA FS)LevelHUC levelCalculated HUC level from outlet (1) to headwater (351)NLCDAcres of NLCDNLCDPER_NLCDPercent of HUC with NLCD DataCalculated using ArcGISFOREST_ACAcres of all forestNLCD Forest = 41,42,43, 90NLCDPER_FORPercent ForestCalculated using ArcGISAG_ACAcres of agricultural landNLCD = 81,82NLCDPER_AGPercent agricultural landCalculated using ArcGISIMPV_ACAcres of ImperviousNLCDPER_IMPVPercent ImperviousCalculated using ArcGISNATCOVER_ACAcres of Natural CoverNLCD = 11,12,41,42,43,51,52,71,90,95NLCDPER_NATCOVPercent Natural CoverCalculated using ArcGISRIPNAT_ACAcres of riparian natural coverSinan AboodPER_RIPNATPercent riparian natural coverCalculated using ArcGISQ_YLD_MM Mean Annual Water Yield in mm (Q) based on the historical time period (1961 to 2015). Baseline water yield for 2010.WASSI , Updated September 2023R_NATCOVNatural Cover score for APCWCalculated using ArcGISR_AGAgricultural land score for APCWCalculated using ArcGISR_IMPVImpervious Surface score for APCWCalculated using ArcGISR_RIPRiparian Natural Cover score for APCWCalculated using ArcGISR_QMean Annual Water Yield score for APCWCalculated using ArcGISAPCWAbility to Produce Clean Water (APCW)= (R_NATCOV+R_AG+R_IMPV+R_RIP) * R_QCalculated using ArcGISAPCW_RAPCW Score (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using RGWNumber of groundwater water intakesSDWISSWNumber of surface water intakes (includes GU, groundwater under the influence of surface water)SDWISGW_POPNumber of groundwater water consumersSDWISSW_POPNumber of surface water consumers (includes GU, groundwater under the influence of surface water)SDWISGL_IntakesNumber of surface water intakes in the Great LakesSDWISGL_POPNumber of surface water consumers in the Great LakesSDWISSUM_POPP, Total number of Surface water consumers SW_POP+ GL_POPSDWISPRDrinking water protection model PRn = ∑(Wi Pi)Calculated using RPOP_DSSum of surface drinking water population downstream of HUC 12 ∑(SUM_POPn) **Cannot be summed across multiple HUC12 due to double counting down stream populations. Only accurate for an individual HUC12.Calculated using RIMPRaw Important Areas for Surface Drinking Water (IMP) Value. As developed in Forests to Faucets (USFS 2011), the Important Areas for Surface Drinking Water (IMP) model can be broken down into two parts: IMPn = (PRn) * (Qn)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023IMP_RIMP, Important Areas for Surface Drinking Water (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023NON_FORESTAcres of non-forestPADUS and NLCDPRIVATE_FORESTAcres of private forestPADUS and NLCDPROTECTED_FORESTAcres of protected forest (State, Local, NGO, Permanent Easement)PADUS, NCED, and NLCDNFS_FORESTAcres of National Forest System (NFS) forestPADUS and NLCDFEDERAL_FORESTAcres of Other Federal forest (Non-NFS Federal)PADUS and NLCDPER_FORPRIPercent Private ForestCalculated using ArcGISPER_FORNFSPercent NFS ForestCalculated using ArcGISPER_FORPROPercent Protected (Other State, Local, NGO, Permanent Easement, NFS, and Federal) ForestCalculated using ArcGISWFP_HI_ACAcres with High and Very High Wildfire Hazard Potential (WHP)Dillon, 2018PER_WFPPercent of HU 12 with High and Very High Wildfire Hazard Potential (WHP)Dillon, 2018PER_IDRISKPercent of HU 12 that is at risk for mortality - 25% of standing live basal area greater than one inch in diameter will die over a 15- year time frame (2013 to 2027) due to insects and diseases.Krist, et Al,. 2014PERDEV_1040_45% Landuse Change 2010-2040 (low)ICLUSPERDEV_1090_45% Landuse Change 2010-2090 (low)ICLUSPERDEV_1040_85% Landuse Change 2010-2040 (high)ICLUSPERDEV_1090_85% Landuse Change 2010-2090 (high)ICLUSPER_Q40_45% Water Yield Change 2010-2040 (low) WASSI , Updated September 2023PER_Q90_45% Water Yield Change 2010-2090 (low) WASSI , Updated September 2023PER_Q40_85% Water Yield Change 2010-2040 (high) WASSI , Updated September 2023PER_Q90_85% Water Yield Change 2010-2090 (high) WASSI , Updated September 2023WFP(APCW_R * IMP_R * PER_WFP )/ 10,000Wildfire Threat to Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023IDRISK(APCW_R * IMP_R * PER_IDRISK )/ 10,000Insect & Disease Threat to Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023DEV1040_45(APCW_R * IMP_R * PERDEV_1040_45)/ 10,000 Landuse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (low emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023DEV1090_45(APCW_R * IMP_R * PERDEV_1090_45)/ 10,000 Landuse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (high emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023DEV1040_85(APCW_R * IMP_R * PERDEV_1040_85)/ 10,000 Landuse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (low emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023DEV1090_85(APCW_R * IMP_R * PERDEV_1090_85)/ 10,000 Landuse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (high emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023Q1040_45-1 * (APCW_R * IMP_R * PER_Q40_45)/ 10,000 Water Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (low emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023Q1090_45-1 * (APCW_R * IMP_R * PER_Q90_45)/ 10,000 Water Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (high emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023Q1040_85-1 * (APCW_R * IMP_R * PER_Q40_85)/ 10,000 Water Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (low emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023Q1090_85-1 * (APCW_R * IMP_R * PER_Q90_85)/ 10,000 Water Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (high emissions) Calculated using ArcGIS, Updated September 2023WFP_IMP_RWildfire Threat to Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023IDRISK_RInsect & Disease Threat to Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023DEV40_45_RLanduse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (low emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023DEV40_85_RLanduse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (high emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023DEV90_45_RLanduse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (low emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023DEV90_85_RLanduse Change in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (high emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023Q40_45_RWater Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (low emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023Q40_85_RWater Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2040 (high emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023Q90_45_RWater Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (low emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023Q90_85_RWater Yield Decrease in Important Surface Drinking Water Watersheds 2010-2090 (high emissions) (0-100 Quantiles)Calculated using R, Updated September 2023RegionUS Forest Service Region numberUSFSRegionnameUS Forest Service Region nameUSFSHUC_Num_DiffThis field compares the value in column HUC12(circa 2019 wbd) with the value in HUC_12 (circa 2009 wassi)-1 = No equivalent WASSI HUC. Water yield (Q_YLD_MM) was estimating using the nearest HUC.USFS, Updated September 2023HUC_12_WASSIWASSI HUC numberWASSI, Updated September 2023

Matrix sites are large contiguous areas whose size and natural condition allow for the maintenance of ecological processes, viable occurrences of matrix forest communities, embedded large and small patch communities, and embedded species populations. The goal of the matrix forest selection was to identify viable examples of the dominant forest types that, if protected and allowed to regain their natural condition, would serve as critical source areas for all species requiring interior forest conditions or associated with the dominant forest types.

The forestry consulting services market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for sustainable forest management practices and the rising need for efficient resource utilization. The market size in 2025 is estimated at $2.5 billion, reflecting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of approximately 7% from 2019 to 2024. This growth is fueled by several key factors: the expanding global population leading to increased timber demand, stricter government regulations promoting environmental conservation, and the growing adoption of advanced technologies like GIS and remote sensing in forestry operations. Furthermore, the increasing awareness of climate change and its impact on forests is driving demand for expert advice on carbon sequestration, forest health, and mitigation strategies. Key players like Atlas Information Management, Forest Resource Consultants, Inc., and others are actively shaping the market through innovative solutions and expanding service offerings. The market is segmented based on service type (e.g., forest inventory, sustainable forest management planning, environmental impact assessments), client type (e.g., government agencies, private landowners, timber companies), and geographic region. The forecast period from 2025 to 2033 projects continued expansion, with the market expected to reach approximately $4.2 billion by 2033. However, challenges remain, including fluctuations in timber prices, economic downturns impacting investment in forestry, and the scarcity of skilled professionals in the field. Despite these restraints, the long-term outlook remains positive, driven by the ongoing need for responsible forest management and the increasing recognition of forests' crucial role in mitigating climate change and biodiversity loss. The market will likely see consolidation among consulting firms, partnerships with technology providers, and a greater focus on data-driven solutions to optimize forest management practices. This will drive further innovation and specialization within the sector, enhancing the overall quality and effectiveness of forestry consulting services globally.

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.

Crowther_Nature_Files.zip This description pertains to the original download. Details on revised (newer) versions of the datasets are listed below. When more than one version of a file exists in Figshare, the original DOI will take users to the latest version, though each version technically has its own DOI. -- Two global maps (raster files) of tree density. These maps highlight how the number of trees varies across the world. One map was generated using biome-level models of tree density, and applied at the biome scale. The other map was generated using ecoregion-level models of tree density, and applied at the ecoregion scale. For this reason, transitions between biomes or between ecoregions may be unrealistically harsh, but large-scale estimates are robust (see Crowther et al 2015 and Glick et al 2016). At the outset, this study was intended to generate reliable estimates at broad spatial scales, which inherently comes at the cost of fine-scale precision. For this reason, country-scale (or larger) estimates are generally more robust than individual pixel-level estimates. Additionally, due to data limitations, estimates for Mangroves and Tropical coniferous forest (as identified by WWF and TNC) were generated using models constructed from Topical moist broadleaf forest data and Temperate coniferous forest data, respectively. Because we used ecological analogy, the estimates for these two biomes should be considered less reliable than those of other biomes . These two maps initially appeared in Crowther et al (2015), with the biome map being featured more prominently. Explicit publication of the data is associated with Glick et al (2016). As they are produced, updated versions of these datasets, as well as alternative formats, will be made available under Additional Versions (see below).

Methods: We collected over 420,000 ground-sources estimates of tree density from around the world. We then constructed linear regression models using vegetative, climatic, topographic, and anthropogenic variables to produce forest tree density estimates for all locations globally. All modeling was done in R. Mapping was done using R and ArcGIS 10.1.

Viewing Instructions: Load the files into an appropriate geographic information system (GIS). For the original download (ArcGIS geodatabase files), load the files into ArcGIS to view or export the data to other formats. Because these datasets are large and have a unique coordinate system that is not read by many GIS, we suggest loading them into an ArcGIS dataframe whose coordinate system matches that of the data (see File Format). For GeoTiff files (see Additional Versions), load them into any compatible GIS or image management program.

Comments: The original download provides a zipped folder that contains (1) an ArcGIS File Geodatabase (.gdb) containing one raster file for each of the two global models of tree density – one based on biomes and one based on ecoregions; (2) a layer file (.lyr) for each of the global models with the symbology used for each respective model in Crowther et al (2015); and an ArcGIS Map Document (.mxd) that contains the layers and symbology for each map in the paper. The data is delivered in the Goode homolosine interrupted projected coordinate system that was used to compute biome, ecoregion, and global estimates of the number and density of trees presented in Crowther et al (2015). To obtain maps like those presented in the official publication, raster files will need to be reprojected to the Eckert III projected coordinate system. Details on subsequent revisions and alternative file formats are list below under Additional Versions.----------

Additional Versions: Crowther_Nature_Files_Revision_01.zip contains tree density predictions for small islands that are not included in the data available in the original dataset. These predictions were not taken into consideration in production of maps and figures presented in Crowther et al (2015), with the exception of the values presented in Supplemental Table 2. The file structure follows that of the original data and includes both biome- and ecoregion-level models.

Crowther_Nature_Files_Revision_01_WGS84_GeoTiff.zip contains Revision_01 of the biome-level model, but stored in WGS84 and GeoTiff format. This file was produced by reprojecting the original Goode homolosine files to WGS84 using nearest neighbor resampling in ArcMap. All areal computations presented in the manuscript were computed using the Goode homolosine projection. This means that comparable computations made with projected versions of this WGS84 data are likely to differ (substantially at greater latitudes) as a product of the resampling. Included in this .zip file are the primary .tif and its visualization support files.

References:

Crowther, T. W., Glick, H. B., Covey, K. R., Bettigole, C., Maynard, D. S., Thomas, S. M., Smith, J. R., Hintler, G., Duguid, M. C., Amatulli, G., Tuanmu, M. N., Jetz, W., Salas, C., Stam, C., Piotto, D., Tavani, R., Green, S., Bruce, G., Williams, S. J., Wiser, S. K., Huber, M. O., Hengeveld, G. M., Nabuurs, G. J., Tikhonova, E., Borchardt, P., Li, C. F., Powrie, L. W., Fischer, M., Hemp, A., Homeier, J., Cho, P., Vibrans, A. C., Umunay, P. M., Piao, S. L., Rowe, C. W., Ashton, M. S., Crane, P. R., and Bradford, M. A. 2015. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature, 525(7568): 201-205. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14967Glick, H. B., Bettigole, C. B., Maynard, D. S., Covey, K. R., Smith, J. R., and Crowther, T. W. 2016. Spatially explicit models of global tree density. Scientific Data, 3(160069), doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.69.

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.

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.