This data publication contains 250 meter raster data depicting the spatial distribution of forest ownership types in the conterminous United States. The data are a modeled representation of forest land by ownership type, and include three types of public ownership: federal, state, and local; three types of private: family (includes individuals and families), corporate, and other private (includes conservation and natural resource organizations, and unincorporated partnerships and associations); as well as Native American tribal lands. The most up-to-date data available were used in creating this data publication. A plurality of the ownership data were from 2014, but some data were as old as 2004.

Context

US Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program.

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program of the U.S. Forest Service provides the information needed to assess America's forests.

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/

Content

As the Nation's continuous forest census, our program projects how forests are likely to appear 10 to 50 years from now. This enables us to evaluate whether current forest management practices are sustainable in the long run and to assess whether current policies will allow the next generation to enjoy America's forests as we do today.

FIA reports on status and trends in forest area and location; in the species, size, and health of trees; in total tree growth, mortality, and removals by harvest; in wood production and utilization rates by various products; and in forest land ownership.

The Forest Service has significantly enhanced the FIA program by changing from a periodic survey to an annual survey, by increasing our capacity to analyze and publish data, and by expanding the scope of our data collection to include soil, under story vegetation, tree crown conditions, coarse woody debris, and lichen community composition on a subsample of our plots. The FIA program has also expanded to include the sampling of urban trees on all land use types in select cities.

For more details, see: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/database-documentation/current/ver70/FIADB%20User%20Guide%20P2_7-0_ntc.final.pdf

Fork this kernel to get started with this dataset.

Acknowledgements

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/

https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/get-to-know-your-trees-us-forest-service-fia-dataset-now-available-in-bigquery

FIA is managed by the Research and Development organization within the USDA Forest Service in cooperation with State and Private Forestry and National Forest Systems. FIA traces it's origin back to the McSweeney - McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 (P.L. 70-466). This law initiated the first inventories starting in 1930.

Banner Photo by @rmorton3 from Unplash.

Inspiration

Estimating timberland and forest land acres by state.

https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/images/4728824346443776/forest-data-4.png" alt="enter image description here"> https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/images/4728824346443776/forest-data-4.png

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

FIA Modeled Abundance:�This dataset portrays the live tree mean basal area (square feet per acre) of the species across the contiguous United States. The underlying data publication contains raster maps of live tree basal area for each tree species along with corresponding assessment data. An efficient approach for mapping multiple individual tree species over large spatial domains was used to develop these raster datasets. The method integrates vegetation phenology derived from MODIS imagery and raster data describing relevant environmental parameters with extensive field plot data of tree species basal area to create maps of tree species abundance and distribution at a 250-meter (m) pixel size for the contiguous United States. The approach uses the modeling techniques of k-nearest neighbors and canonical correspondence analysis, where model predictions are calculated using a weighting of nearest neighbors based on proximity in a feature space derived from the model. The approach also utilizes a stratification derived from the 2001 National Land-Cover Database tree canopy cover layer.�This data depicts current species abundance and distribution across the contiguous United States, modeled by using FIA field plot data. Although the absolute values associated with the maps differ from species to species, the highest values within each map are always associated with darker colors. The Little's Range Boundaries show the historical tree species ranges across North America. This is a digital representation of maps by Elbert L. Little, Jr., published between 1971 and 1977. These maps were based on botanical lists, forest surveys, field notes and herbarium specimens.Forest-type Groups:This dataset portrays the forest type group. Each group is a subset of the National Forest Type dataset which portrays 28 forest type groups across the contiguous United States. These data were derived from MODIS composite images from the 2002 and 2003 growing seasons in combination with nearly 100 other geospatial data layers, including elevation, slope, aspect, ecoregions, and PRISM climate data.Harvest Growth:This data shows the percentage of timber that is harvested when compared to the total live volume, at a county-by-county level. Timber volume in forests is constantly in flux, and harvest plays an important role in shaping forests. While most counties have some timber harvest, harvest volumes represent low percentages of standing timber volume.Carbon Harvest:The Carbon Harvest raster dataset represents Mg of annual pulpwood harvested (carbon) by county, derived from the Forest Inventory Analysis in 2016.

This data publication contains 250 meter raster data depicting the spatial distribution of forest ownership types in the conterminous United States. The data are a modeled representation of forest land by ownership type, and include three types of public ownership: federal, state, and local; three types of private: family (includes individuals and families), corporate, and other private (includes conservation and natural resource organizations, and unincorporated partnerships and associations); as well as Native American tribal lands. The most up-to-date data available were used in creating this data publication. A plurality of the ownership data were from 2014, but some data were as old as 2004.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

A feature class describing the spatial location of the administrative boundary of the lands managed by the Forest Supervisor's office. An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area. This dataset is derived from the USFS Southwestern Region ALP (Automated Lands Program) data Project. This is one of six layers derived from ALP for the purpose of supplying data layers for recourse GIS analysis and data needs within the Forest Service. The six layers are Surface Ownership, Administrative Forest Boundary, District Boundary, Townships, Sections, and Wilderness. There were some gapes in the ALP data so a small portion of this dataset comes from CCF (Cartographic Feature Files) datasets and the USFS Southwestern Region Core Data Project. ALP data is developed from data sources of differing accuracy, scales, and reliability. Where available it is developed from GCDB (Geographic Coordinate Data Base) data. GCDB data is maintained by the Bureau of Land Management in their State Offices. GCDB data is mostly corner data. Not all corners and not all boundaries are available in GCDB so ALP also utilizes many other data sources like CFF data to derive its boundaries. GCDB data is in a constant state of change because land corners are always getting resurveyed. The GCDB data used in this dataset represents a snapshot in time at the time the GCDB dataset was published by the BLM and may not reflect the most current GCDB dataset available. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of these data. These data are intended to be used for planning and analyses purposes only and are not legally binding with regards to title or location of National Forest System lands.

Data on Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) includes information on Palau's forests 2013-2014. The Pacific Northwest Forest Inventory and Analysis (PNW-FIA) program measures and compiles data on plots in coastal Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and U.S.- affiliated Pacific Islands. Most data are available in Access databases and can be downloaded by clicking one of the links below. PNW data are combined with data from all states in the U.S. and stored in the national FIADB. Data for any state can be accessed on the national website (see links to national tools below). Please be aware that some documents may be very large. The PNW-FIA Program shifted from a periodic to an annual inventory system in 2001. Periodic inventories sampled primarily timberland plots outside of national forests and most reserved areas, in a single state within a 2- or 3-year window. Typically, re-assessments occurred every ten years in the West. For the annual inventory in the Pacific Northwest all forested plots are now sampled, with one-tenth of the plots in any given state being visited annually. A full annual inventory cycle is complete in ten years. To download and use the FIA Database, follow this link https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/rma/fia-topics/inventory-data

This data set contains two data files (.csv format). One file contains site characteristics, stand descriptors, and above-ground biomass and ANPP data for seven old-growth temperate forest stands and one young cove forest stand in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. The old-growth stands (> 200 years old) span several watersheds on the north slope of the mountains at elevations ranging from 720 to 1,140 m. The younger stand (48-63 years old, elevation 910 m) developed after agricultural abandonment. The second file contains monthly mean climate data averaged over four years (1947-1950) from four climate stations located along an elevational gradient (445-1,920 m) in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. DBH measurements were made at the beginning of the study and biomass increment was measured from a subset of trees. ANPP was estimated using regional species-specific allometric relationships for tree mass. Biomass, volume, and annual input of coarse woody detritus are also reported. Live biomass in the old-growth stands (32,600-47,100 g/m2) is among the highest reported for temperate forests of eastern North America while ANPP is moderate (630-1,010 g/m2/yr). ANPP in the younger stand was higher (1,180-1,310 g/m2/yr). In comparison with forests worldwide, inputs of coarse woody debris is moderate. Revision Notes: Previously reported field collection dates have been corrected in the NPP file. Biomass and ANPP values were converted from Mg/ha and Mg/ha/yr to g/m2 and g/m2/yr, respectively, consistent with units in other files in the NPP collection. Please see the Data Set Revisions section of this document for detailed information.

Note: This is a large dataset. To download, go to ArcGIS Open Data Set and click the download button, and under additional resources select the shapefile or geodatabase option. America's private forests provide a vast array of public goods and services, including abundant, clean surface water. Forest loss and development can affect water quality and quantity when forests are removed and impervious surfaces, such as paved roads, spread across the landscape. We rank watersheds across the conterminous United States according to the contributions of private forest land to surface drinking water and by threats to surface water from increased housing density. Private forest land contributions to drinking water are greatest in the East but are also important in Western watersheds. Development pressures on these contributions are concentrated in the Eastern United States but are also found in the North-Central region, parts of the West and Southwest, and the Pacific Northwest; nationwide, more than 55 million acres of rural private forest land are projected to experience a substantial increase in housing density from 2000 to 2030. Planners, communities, and private landowners can use a range of strategies to maintain freshwater ecosystems, including designing housing and roads to minimize impacts on water quality, managing home sites to protect water resources, and using payment schemes and management partnerships to invest in forest stewardship on public and private lands.This data is based on the digital hydrologic unit boundary layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the continental United States. To focus this analysis on watersheds with private forests, only watersheds with at least 10% forested land and more than 50 acres of private forest were analyzed. All other watersheds were labeled ?Insufficient private forest for this analysis"and coded -99999 in the data table. This dataset updates forest and development statistics reported in the the 2011 Forests to Faucet analysis using 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States, Grid Values=41,42,43,95. and Theobald, Dr. David M. 10 March 2008. bhc2000 and bhc2030 (Housing density for the coterminous US in 2000 and 2030, respectively.) Field Descriptions:HUC_12: Twelve Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: This field provides a unique 12-digit code for each subwatershed.HU_12_DS: Sixth Level Downstream Hydrologic Unit Code: This field was populated with the 12-digit code of the 6th level hydrologic unit that is receiving the majority of the flow from the subwatershed.IMP1: Index of surface drinking water importance (Appendix Map). This field is from the 2011 Forests to Faucet analysis and has not been updated for this analysis.HDCHG_AC: Acres of housing density change on private forest in the subwatershed. HDCHG_PER: Percent of the watershed to experience housing density change on private forest. IMP_HD_PFOR: Index Private Forest importance to Surface Drinking Water with Development Pressure - identifies private forested areas important for surface drinking water that are likely to be affected by future increases in housing density, Ptle_IMP_HD: Private Forest importance to Surface Drinking Water with Development Pressure (Figure 7), percentile. Ptle_HDCHG: Percentage of each subwatershed to Experience an increase in House Density in Private Forest (Figure 6), percentile. FOR_AC: Acres forest (2006) in the subwatershed. PFOR_AC: Acres private forest (2006) in the subwatershed. PFOR_PER: Percent of the subwatershed that is private forest. HU12_AC: Acreage of the subwatershedFOR_PER: Percent of the subwatershed that is forest. PFOR_IMP: Index of Private Forest Importance to Surface Drinking Water. .Ptle_PFIMP: Private forest importance to surface drinking water(Figure 4), percentile. TOP100: Top 100 subwatersheds. 50 from the East, 50 from the west (using the Mississippi River as the divide.) MetadataThis record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService OGC WMS CSV Shapefile GeoJSON KML Geodatabase Download Shapefile Download For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

The downloadable ZIP file contains an Esri File Geodatabases, Esri grids, and PDFs. Statewide Forest Resource Strategy ReportState Assessment of Forest Resources ReportIdaho State Assessment of Forest Resources - Priority AreasThe Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources (SAFR) is a geospatial analysis of forest conditions and trends in Idaho. The Idaho SAFR identifies seven main issues affecting Idaho forestlands (threats and potential benefits). Potential threats to forests include forest health decline, uncharacteristic wildfire, development pressure and recreation in undesignated areas. Potential benefits include sustainable wood-based forest resource markets, water quality & quantity, air quality, and wildlife habitat and biodiversity. A series of sub-issue datasets inform each of the primary issues. Together, statewide data and local knowledge identified areas in Idaho where these threats and benefits pointed to the highest need for investment and work. These areas of multiple high priority concerns and potential benefits were designated as Priority Landscape Areas (PLAs) and include urban, rural, and wildland urban-interface (WUI) lands. Note that the SAFR utilized the best available statewide data. Because the SAFR is statewide in scale, it does not identify every area in which an issue may be found. Local geospatial data may present a different characterization of the issues. The SAFR report describes each issue, the sub-issues each was comprised of, the data used and how it was modeled, and data considered but not used and why. In addition to the Idaho State Forest Resource Assessment report, information on the development of the SAFR, including meeting minutes, interim reports and more can be found on the SAFR website at: www.idl.idaho.gov/bureau/ForestAssist/safr_index.html. Geospatial data for the seven primary issues, the composite threats, composite benefits, final assessment map and priority landscape areas are also available on INSIDE Idaho. These data were contributed to INSIDE Idaho at the University of Idaho Library in 2011.

The State of Vermont has a long history of acquiring properties for conservation and recreation purposes. Since the first official state forest (L.R. Jones State Forest) was acquired in 1909, the State has acquired over 345,000 acres of land in more than 200 towns across the state. In addition, the Agency has recently acquired conservation easements on over 44,000 acres of privately-owned forest land. These diverse holdings are managed by the Agency of Natural Resources and include state parks, state forests, wildlife management areas, and fishing access areas, pond sites, streambanks, fish culture stations, dams, and other miscellanious properties.

This file contains a feature class depicting National Forest System land parcels that have a Congressionally designated boundary. Examples include National Wilderness Area, Primitive Area, or Wilderness Study Area. This dataset is derived from the USFS Southwestern Region ALP (Automated Lands Program) data Project. This is one of six layers derived from ALP for the purpose of supplying data layers for recourse GIS analysis and data needs within the Forest Service. The six layers are Surface Ownership, Administrative Forest Boundary, District Boundary, Townships, Sections, and Wilderness. There were some gaps in the ALP data so a small portion of this dataset comes from CCF (Cartographic Feature Files) datasets and the USFS Southwestern Region Core Data Project. ALP data are developed from data sources of differing accuracy, scales, and reliability. Where available they are developed from GCDB (Geographic Coordinate Data Base) data. GCDB data are maintained by the Bureau of Land Management in their State Offices. GCDB data are mostly corner data. Not all corners and not all boundaries are available in GCDB so ALP also utilizes many other data sources like CFF data to derive its boundaries. GCDB data are in a constant state of change because land corners are always being resurveyed. The GCDB data used in this dataset represents a snapshot in time when the GCDB dataset was published by the BLM and may not reflect the most current GCDB dataset available. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of these data. These data are intended to be used for planning and analyses purposes only and are not legally binding with regard to title or location of National Forest System lands.

This dataset provides maps of aboveground forest biomass (AGB) of living trees and standing dead trees in Mg/ha across portions of Northwestern United States, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, at a spatial resolution of 30 m. Forest inventory data were compiled from 29 stakeholders that had overlapping lidar imagery. The collection totaled 3805 field plots with lidar imagery for 176 collections acquired between 2002 and 2016. Plot-level AGB estimates were calculated from tree measurements using the default allometric equations found in the Fire Fuels Extension (FFE) of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). The random forest algorithm was used to model AGB from lidar height and density metrics that were generated from the lidar returns within fixed-radius field plot footprints, gridded climate metrics obtained from the Climate-FVS Ready Data Server, and topographic estimates extracted from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) 1 Arc-Second Global elevation rasters. AGB was then mapped from the same lidar metrics gridded across the extent of the lidar collections at 30-m resolution. The standard deviation of estimated AGB of the terminal nodes from the random forest predictions was also mapped to show pixel-level model uncertainty. Note that the AGB estimates are, for the most part, a single snapshot in time and that the forest conditions are not necessarily representative of the larger study area.

The US Forest Service manages 193 million acres including the nation's 154 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands. These lands provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities, protect sources of clean water, and supply timber and forage.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: United States lands managed by the US Forest Service Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Puerto RicoVisible Scale: The data is visible at all scales.Source: USFS Surface Ownership Parcels layerPublication Date: February 2024This layer is a view of the USA Federal Lands layer. A filter has been used on this layer to eliminate non-Forest Service lands. For more information on layers for other agencies see the USA Federal Lands layer.What can you do with this layer? This layer is suitable for both visualization and analysis across the ArcGIS system. This layer can be combined with your data and other layers from the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World in ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro to create powerful web maps that can be used alone or in a story map or other application.Because this layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World it is easy to add to your map:In ArcGIS Online you can add this layer to a map by selecting Add then Browse Living Atlas Layers. A window will open. Type "forest service" in the search box and browse to the layer. Select the layer then click Add to Map.In ArcGIS Pro open a map and select Add Data from the Map Tab. Select Data at the top of the drop down menu. The Add Data dialog box will open on the left side of the box expand Portal if necessary then select Living Atlas. Type "forest service" in the search box, browse to the layer then click OK.In both ArcGIS Online and Pro you can change the layer's symbology and view its attribute table. You can filter the layer to show subsets of the data using the filter button in Online or a definition query in ProThe data can be exported to a file geodatabase, a shape file or other format and downloaded using the Export Data button on the top right of this webpage..This layer can be used as an analytic input in both Online and Pro through the Perform Analysis window Online or as an input to a geoprocessing tool, model, or Python script in Pro.The ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World provides an easy way to explore many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics like this one.

Surface Drinking Water Importance Index - National Extent

_**Abstract: The Forests to Faucets dataset provides a watershed index of surface drinking water importance, a watershed index of forest importance to surface drinking water, and a watershed index to highlight the extent to which development, fire, and insects and disease threaten forests important for surface drinking water. The Forests to Faucets layer does not cover Alaska, Hawaii, or US Territories. This dataset was created using the 2001 National Landcover Dataset and 2005 housing development estimates. For updated forest and development statistics, please refer to the 2015 Forests on the Edge dataset.Purpose: **_The results of the Forests to Faucets assessment provides information that can identify areas of interest for protecting surface drinking water quality. The spatial dataset can be incorporated into broad-scale planning, such as the State Forest Action Plans, and can be incorporated into existing decision support tools that currently lack spatial data on important areas for surface drinking water. This project also sets the groundwork for identifying watersheds where a payment for watershed services (PWS) scheme may be an option for financing forest conservation and management on private unprotected forest lands. In perhaps its most important but most basic role, this work can serve as an education tool helping to illustrate the link between forests and provision of key watershed-based ecosystem services.

AbstractForests of Australia (2023) is a continental spatial dataset of forest extent, by national forest categories and types, assembled for Australia's State of the Forests Report. It was developed from multiple forest, vegetation and land cover data inputs, including contributions from Australian, state and territory government agencies and external sources.A forest is defined in this dataset as "An area, incorporating all living and non-living components, that is dominated by trees having usually a single stem and a mature or potentially mature stand height exceeding two metres and with existing or potential crown cover of overstorey strata about equal to or greater than 20 per cent. This includes Australia's diverse native forests and plantations, regardless of age. It is also sufficiently broad to encompass areas of trees that are sometimes described as woodlands".The dataset was compiled by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) for the National Forest Inventory (NFI), a collaborative partnership between the Australian and state and territory governments. The role of the NFI is to collate, integrate and communicate information on Australia's forests. State and territory government agencies collect forest data using independent methods and at varying scales or resolutions. The NFI applies a national classification to state and territory data to allow seamless integration of these datasets. Multiple independent sources of external data are used to fill data gaps and improve the quality of the final dataset.The NFI classifies forests into three national forest categories (Native Forest, Commercial plantation, and other forest) and then into various forest types. Commercial plantations presented in this dataset were sourced from the National Plantation Inventory (NPI) spatial dataset (2021), also produced by ABARES.Another dataset produced by ABARES, the Catchment scale land use of Australia CLUM dataset (2020), was used to identify and mask out land uses that are inappropriate to map as forest.The Forests of Australia (2023) dataset is produced to fulfil requirements of Australia's National Forest Policy Statement and the Regional Forests Agreement Act 2002 (Cwth) and is used by the Australian Government for domestic and international reporting.Previous versions of this dataset are available on the Forests Australia website spatial data page and the Australian Government open government data portaldata.gov.au.CurrencyDate modified: 30 November 2023Modification frequency: Every 5 yearsData extentSpatial extentNorth: -8.2°South: -44.4°East: 157.2°West: 109.5°Source informationData, Metadata, Maps and Interactive views are available from ABARES website.Forests of Australia (2023) – Descriptive metadata.The data was obtained from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES). ABARES is providing this data to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.Lineage statementPresented on this page is a summarised lineage on the development of state and territory datasets for Forests of Australia (2023). The dataset has been produced using the Multiple Lines of Evidence (MLE) method for publication in the Australia’s State of the Forests Report – 2023 update. Detailed lineage information can be found here.Forests of Australia (2023) is a continental spatial dataset of forest extent, by national forest categories and types, assembled for Australia's State of the Forests Report – 2023 update. It was developed from multiple forest, vegetation and land cover data inputs, including contributions from Australian, state and territory government agencies and external sources.For each state or territory, except for the ACT where there was no new data, intersection of the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset with a forest cover dataset supplied by the jurisdiction, and with other available and appropriate independent forest cover datasets, identified:High confidence areas – areas where all the examined datasets agreed with the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset that the areas were forest or non-forest. No further assessment was required for these areas.Moderate confidence areas – areas where the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset agreed with the forest cover dataset supplied by state or territory, and with external or independent datasets, that the areas were forest or non-forest. These areas were identified as potential errors and needed further analysis in order to determine the correct allocation (forest or non-forest). The required analyses and validation were conducted by ABARES, in consultation with relevant state and territory agencies, using various ancillary data including high-resolution imagery such as World Imagery by ESRI, Bing Maps and Google Earth Pro.Low confidence areas – areas where the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset disagreed with the forest cover dataset supplied by state or territory, and with external or independent datasets, that the areas were forest or non-forest. All such areas were identified as potential errors and needed further analysis in order to determine the correct allocation (forest or non-forest). The required analyses and validation were conducted by ABARES, in consultation with relevant state and territory agencies, using various ancillary data including high-resolution imagery such as World Imagery by ESRI, Bing Maps and Google Earth Pro.External or independent datasets used include:H_Woody_Fuzzy_2_Class dataset is based on the NGGI dataset produced by DCCEEW from Landsat data and was developed to support New South Wales Natural Resources Commission’s (NRC) Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Program. NRC applied Fuzzy Logic and Probability modelling to the NGGI dataset to derive annual layers distinguishing between forest and non-forest at 25 m raster resolution. Each of five annual layers, 2015 to 2019, was resampled to a 100 m raster by classifying as forest the 100 m pixels that had more than half their area as forest as determined from 25 m pixels. The five annual layers were combined and every pixel in the combination that had been classified as forest in any year during 2015-2019 period was allocated as forest (and the balance non-forest). This approach was taken to prevent areas where the crown cover had reduced temporarily below 20%, through events such as fire, harvesting, drought or disease, from being incorrectly classified as non-forest.State-wide Land and Tree Study (SLATS) dataset is based on data collected by the Landsat satellite. This dataset was available for Queensland only. Foliage Projective Cover (FPC) values of 11 or greater (equivalent to crown cover 20% or greater) were considered as forest candidates in this SLATS dataset. The National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) version 6.0 dataset was used to identify areas in this SLATS dataset that met the height requirements of the forest definition used by the National Forest Inventory.The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) dataset is produced from Landsat satellite Thematic Mapper™, Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) and Operational Land Image (OLI) images for the Australian Government Department of the Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), and identifies woody vegetation of height or potential height greater than 2 metres, crown cover greater than 20%, and with a minimum patch size of 0.2 hectares (DISER, 2021a) . The dataset is compiled using time-series data since 1972 and is produced at a 25 m × 25 m resolution. The NGGI dataset used was developed from the five annual layers (2016-2020, inclusive) from the ‘National Forest and sparse woody vegetation data (Version 5.0) spatial dataset produced using the algorithms for land-use change allocation developed for the National Inventory Reports (DISER, 2021b). Each layer of the original 25 m resolution, three-class (forest, sparse woody and non-forest) dataset was resampled to a binary (forest and non-forest) 100 m raster by classifying as forest the 100 m pixels that had more than half their area as forest; the sparse woody and non-forest classes were combined into a non-forest class. The five annual layers were then combined and every pixel in the combination that had been classified as forest in any year during 2016-2020 period was allocated as forest (and the balance non-forest). This approach was taken to prevent areas where the crown cover had reduced temporarily below 20%, through events such as fire, harvesting, drought or disease, from being incorrectly classified as non-forest.All input datasets were converted to 100m rasters (ESRI GRID format), aligning with relevant standard NFI state or territory masks (also known as NFI SNAP grids), in Albers projection. Where the input dataset was in polygon format, the Polygon to Raster tool was used to convert the polygon dataset to raster format, using the Maximum_Combined_Area option.Validation assessment results were incorporated to give improved and high-confidence forest cover datasets for each state or territory.Look-up tables translating the state or territory forest cover data to NFI forest types were used where provided. Where this information was not provided, it was derived by ABARES from translating Levels 5 and 6 of the National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) version 6.0 attribute information to NFI forest types.This dataset has been converted from GeoTIFF to Multidimensional Cloud Raster Format (CRF) to facilitate publishing to the Digital Atlas of Australia (DAA).Date of extraction: February 2024.Data dictionaryAttribute nameDescriptionVALUEIdentifier of every unique combination of the following attributes: STATE, FOR_SOURCE, FOR_CODE, FOR_TYPE, FOR_CAT, HEIGHT and COVER.COUNTNumber of cells that belong to a particular VALUE. For this dataset, in which cell resolution is 100 by 100 metres.

This feature class depicts the boundaries of Land Survey features called sections, defined by the Public Lands Survey System Grid. Normally, 36 sections make up a township. The entire extent of each of these units should be collected, not just the portion on National Forest System lands. This dataset is derived from the USFS Southwestern Region ALP (Automated Lands Program) data Project. This is one of six layers derived from ALP for the purpose of supplying data layers for recourse GIS analysis and data needs within the Forest Service. The six layers are Surface Ownership, Administrative Forest Boundary, District Boundary, Townships, Sections, and Wilderness. There were some gapes in the ALP data so a small portion of this dataset comes from CCF (Cartographic Feature Files) datasets and the USFS Southwestern Region Core Data Project. ALP data is developed from data sources of differing accuracy, scales, and reliability. Where available it is developed from GCDB (Geographic Coordinate Data Base) data. GCDB data is maintained by the Bureau of Land Management in their State Offices. GCDB data is mostly corner data. Not all corners and not all boundaries are available in GCDB so ALP also utilizes many other data sources like CFF data to derive its boundaries. GCDB data is in a constant state of change because land corners are always getting resurveyed. The GCDB data used in this dataset represents a snapshot in time at the time the GCDB dataset was published by the BLM and may not reflect the most current GCDB dataset available. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of these data. These data are intended to be used for planning and analyses purposes only and are not legally binding with regards to title or location of National Forest System lands.

This occurrence dataset provides primary data on repeated tree measurement of two inventories on the permanent sampling plot (8.8 ha) established in the old-growth polydominant broadleaved forest stand in the “Kaluzhskie Zaseki” State Nature Reserve (center of the European part of Russian Federation). The time span between the inventories was 30 years, and a total of more than 11 000 stems were included in the study (11 tree species and 3 genera). During the measurements, the tree species (for some trees only genus was determined), stem diameter at breast height of 1.3 m (DBH), and life status were recorded for every individual stem, and some additional attributes were determined for some trees. Field data were digitized and compiled into the PostgreSQL database. Deep data cleaning and validation (with documentation of changes) has been performed before data standardization according to the Darwin Core standard.

Представлены первичные данные двух перечетов деревьев, выполненных на постоянной пробной площади (8.8 га), заложенной в старовозрастном полидоминантном широколиственном лесу в заповеднике “Калужские засеки”. Перечеты выполнены с разницей в 30 лет, всего исследовано более 11 000 учетных единиц (деревья 11-ти видов и 3-х родов). Для каждой учетной единицы определяли вид, диаметр на высоте 1.3 м и статус, для части деревьев также измеряли дополнительные характеристики. Все полевые данные были оцифрованы и организованы в базу данных в среде PostgreSQL. Перед стандартизацией данных в соответствии с Darwin Core выполнена их тщательная проверка, все внесенные изменения документированы.

Coast Redwoods grow in a band from the coast of central California to southern Oregon (thus these data are only in the Northern and Central California Regions). Compared to forests of the past, today's redwood forests are fragmented, smaller, and more stressed than ever throughout their range. Logging and clearcutting that began over a century ago destroyed redwood forests on an industrial scale for many decades. Forest regeneration after clearcutting created unnaturally dense forests with high competition among trees for light and water, reduced genetic diversity, and impaired ability to store carbon or provide ample habitat for native species. The remaining old-growth forests are fragmented by these logged forests and threatened by residential development, roads, changes in climate, and the lack of productive, natural fires.

The current extent of old-growth forest in the coast redwood ecosystem is only 5 percent of the original 2.2-million acre forest (~113,000 acres) and is, therefore, of significant concern. The vast majority of remaining old-growth (89,000 acres) is in Humboldt and Del Norte counties.

The first-ever State of Redwoods Conservation Report provides a contemporary look at the state of coast redwood and giant sequoia forest health in California. Its purpose is to serve as a reference guide to their status today and discuss the key variables that matter most to their future health: overall age and condition of the forests, varied ownership and protection of redwood and giant sequoia forests, key stressors, and environmental challenges. As governments, nonprofits, landowners, and community partners work to repair the damage done over the last centuries, this report will help all of us in the critical work of protecting what we have, rehabilitating what is damaged, and identifying critical areas and opportunities for future protection and restoration.

Analysis of ‘Surface Drinking Water Importance - Forests on the Edge (Feature Layer)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/c52bec78-b291-4bbe-a3cb-2b84cd6c9d46 on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Note: This is a large dataset. To download, go to ArcGIS Open Data Set and click the download button, and under additional resources select the shapefile or geodatabase option. America's private forests provide a vast array of public goods and services, including abundant, clean surface water. Forest loss and development can affect water quality and quantity when forests are removed and impervious surfaces, such as paved roads, spread across the landscape. We rank watersheds across the conterminous United States according to the contributions of private forest land to surface drinking water and by threats to surface water from increased housing density. Private forest land contributions to drinking water are greatest in the East but are also important in Western watersheds. Development pressures on these contributions are concentrated in the Eastern United States but are also found in the North-Central region, parts of the West and Southwest, and the Pacific Northwest; nationwide, more than 55 million acres of rural private forest land are projected to experience a substantial increase in housing density from 2000 to 2030. Planners, communities, and private landowners can use a range of strategies to maintain freshwater ecosystems, including designing housing and roads to minimize impacts on water quality, managing home sites to protect water resources, and using payment schemes and management partnerships to invest in forest stewardship on public and private lands.This data is based on the digital hydrologic unit boundary layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the continental United States. To focus this analysis on watersheds with private forests, only watersheds with at least 10% forested land and more than 50 acres of private forest were analyzed. All other watersheds were labeled ?Insufficient private forest for this analysis'and coded -99999 in the data table. This dataset updates forest and development statistics reported in the the 2011 Forests to Faucet analysis using 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States, Grid Values=41,42,43,95. and Theobald, Dr. David M. 10 March 2008. bhc2000 and bhc2030 (Housing density for the coterminous US in 2000 and 2030, respectively.) Field Descriptions:HUC_12: Twelve Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: This field provides a unique 12-digit code for each subwatershed.HU_12_DS: Sixth Level Downstream Hydrologic Unit Code: This field was populated with the 12-digit code of the 6th level hydrologic unit that is receiving the majority of the flow from the subwatershed.IMP1: Index of surface drinking water importance (Appendix Map). This field is from the 2011 Forests to Faucet analysis and has not been updated for this analysis.HDCHG_AC: Acres of housing density change on private forest in the subwatershed. HDCHG_PER: Percent of the watershed to experience housing density change on private forest. IMP_HD_PFOR: Index Private Forest importance to Surface Drinking Water with Development Pressure - identifies private forested areas important for surface drinking water that are likely to be affected by future increases in housing density, Ptle_IMP_HD: Private Forest importance to Surface Drinking Water with Development Pressure (Figure 7), percentile. Ptle_HDCHG: Percentage of each subwatershed to Experience an increase in House Density in Private Forest (Figure 6), percentile. FOR_AC: Acres forest (2006) in the subwatershed. PFOR_AC: Acres private forest (2006) in the subwatershed. PFOR_PER: Percent of the subwatershed that is private forest. HU12_AC: Acreage of the subwatershedFOR_PER: Percent of the subwatershed that is forest. PFOR_IMP: Index of Private Forest Importance to Surface Drinking Water. .Ptle_PFIMP: Private forest importance to surface drinking water(Figure 4), percentile. TOP100: Top 100 subwatersheds. 50 from the East, 50 from the west (using the Mississippi River as the divide.) Metadata

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---