The Forest Service Geospatial Technology and Applications Center (GTAC) builds and maintains tree canopy cover (TCC) datasets for the conterminous U.S. (CONUS), coastal Alaska (SEAK), Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRUSVI). Since the TCC datasets cover all lands including federal, state, and private lands, multiple divisions of the Forest Service contribute funding supporting the development and production of the datasets. These divisions include the National Forest Systems, State and Private Forestry, and Research and Development. The TCC datasets are Landsat and Sentinel-2 based with a spatial resolution of 30 meters.
An annual Science product (direct model outputs, per pixel SE, and model uncertainty) with maps and data for years 2008-2021, that serve multiple user communities.
The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) TCC maps for years 2011, 2013, 2016, 2019 and 2021, that are maintained by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC).
Metadata for all products
Table 1 provides for a tabular overview of the 2021.4 TCC product suite components and download links.
Additional documentation describing the components of the 2016 TCC Product Suite (workflows, inputs, models, QC and review processes, etc.) is available at the bottom of this page.
Previous versions of the 2016 and 2011 TCC datasets are archived and available. The 2011 and 2016 TCC products are the same as those released as part of the 2011 and 2016 NLCD. Please note that the nominal 2011 products included in the 2016 product suite released in 2019 were updated and are different datasets from the nominal 2011 products included in the 2011 TCC product suite that was originally released in 2014. The 2011 and 2016 TCC product suites are provided for user communities who still need access to the previous iterations. See Tables 2 and 3 for a tabular overview.
Current Data Release
Forest Service Science TCC
NLCD TCC
Description:
Science TCC product includes 30-meter spatial resolution maps of TCC and standard error for years 2008-2021.
Two-layer dataset, with modeled TCC values on every pixel, along with a standard error value + metadata
Provides objective numerical model outputs
Masks and thresholds are not applied to the Science version. TCC in water bodies or non-tree croplands (e.g., center-pivot irrigated fields) may be present.
Produced by the Forest Service
Data for the years 2008 through 2021 are available below.
Description:
NLCD TCC product suite includes 30- meter spatial resolution maps of TCC for the years 2011 through 2021.
The NLCD TCC data are the result of more in-depth post-processing of the Science products, including various masking (i.e., water and non-tree agriculture), filtering, minimum-mapping unit (MMU) routines, and a process to reduce interannual noise and return longer duration trends.
Produced by the Forest Service as a partner in the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)
Primary User Community:
This version serves a user community that prizes statistics over visual appearance.
This community typically has access to advanced geospatial and statistical analysis resources.
Primary User Community:
This version serves a large part of the NLCD user community that desires:
Maps with reasonable cartographic appearance and reduced interannual noise.
Two-layer dataset, with modeled TCC values on every pixel, along with a standard error value + metadata
Closest to objective numerical model outputs
Masks are not applied to the Analytical version to clean up the visual appearance of the data. In the Analytical version, raw modeled tree cover in water bodies or non-tree croplands (e.g., center-pivot irrigated fields) may be present.
Data for the years of 2011 and 2016 are available
Description:
Single-layer dataset, with TCC values only (no standard error layer included) + metadata
TCC layer from the upstream “FS-Analytical” version of the product + application of masks to refine dataset visual appearance
Masks are applied to remove modeled TCC in water bodies, non-tree croplands, and in areas where the standard error is much higher than the TCC value itself. Essentially, pixels for which confidence in the pixel being tree-covered is very low are filtered out.
Data for the years of 2011 and 2016 are available
Description:
Three-layer dataset that is an integrated data stack (i.e., 2011 TCC + change = 2016 TCC for all pixels)
Data for the years of 2011 and 2016 are available, as well as estimated TCC change between the nominal years of 2011 and 2016
Produced by FS/GTAC as a partner in the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)
Primary User Community:
This version serves a user community that prizes statistics over visual appearance.
This community typically has access to advanced geospatial and statistical analysis resources.
Primary User Community:
This version serves a user community desiring better visual appearance of 2011 and 2016 timesteps for cartographic purposes.
Primary User Community:
This version serves a large part of the NLCD user community that desires:
an integrated data stack with 2011 TCC + change = 2016 TCC
an estimate of change beyond simple subtraction on all pixels, everywhere across all AOIs
maps with reasonable cartographic appearance, yet this user community is willing to trade minor visual artifacts for the integrated data stack, where values “line up” (i.e., 2011 TCC + change = 2016 TCC)
Two-layer dataset, with modeled TCC values on every pixel, along with a standard error value + metadata
Closest to objective numerical model outputs
Masks are not applied to the Analytical version to clean up the visual appearance of the data. In the Analytical version, raw modeled tree cover in water bodies or non-tree croplands (e.g., center-pivot irrigated fields) may be present.
Data for the year 2011 are available
Description:
Released in 2014 as part of the 2011 NLCD
Single-layer dataset, with TCC values only (no standard error layer included) + metadata
TCC layer from the upstream “FS-Analytical” version of the product + application of masks to refine dataset visual appearance
Masks are applied to remove modeled TCC in water bodies, non-tree croplands, and in areas where the standard error is much higher than the TCC value itself. Essentially, pixels for which confidence in the pixel being tree-covered is very low, are filtered out.
Data for the year 2011 are available
Primary User Community:
This dataset serves a user community that prizes statistics over visual appearance and still needs access to the previous version of the 2011 TCC Products.
This community typically has access to advanced geospatial and statistical analysis resources.
Primary User Community:
This dataset serves a user community desiring better visual appearance of data for cartographic purposes and still needs access to the previous version of the 2011 TCC Products.
Q: Where can I find the 2001 NLCD tree canopy cover data? A: The 2001 data were produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). You can find the 2001 NLCD TCC data here: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5dfbcddfe4b0ff479b8c45a8.
Q: Are the TCC datasets available as public assets on Google Earth Engine (GEE)? A: The NLCD version of the TCC data is available within the “USGS/NLCD_RELEASES/2016_REL” public asset on GEE. Please note that the official source of NLCD data remains the MRLC website (www.mrlc.gov, then click “Data” in the menu at the top of the website). The Science data are not available as public assets in GEE. Users will need to upload those versions of the data to their own GEE asset space if they want to use them.
Q: I've found what looks like a hard line in the data. What is that? A: The line may be due to seamlines that are rooted in Landsat path/rows used in the FS TCC production workflows for the 2016 product suite. Read more here.
Q: Are height thresholds used in the production of NLCD TCC datasets? A: No height thresholds were applied in the production of 2011, 2016 and 2021.4 NLCD TCC datasets.
Baig, M.H.A.; Zhang, L.; Shuai, T.; Tong, Q. 2014. Derivation of a tasselled cap transformation based on Landsat 8 at-satellite reflectance. Remote Sensing Letters 5(5):423-431. DOI: 10.1080/2150704X.2014.915434.
Berryman, E., & McMahan, A. (2019). Chapter 7 - Using tree canopy cover data to help estimate acres of damage. In: K.M. Potter, B.L. Conkling (Eds.), Forest health monitoring: national status, trends, and analysis 2018 (pp. 125-141). (General Technical Report SRS-239) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Knoxville, TN. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/chap/chap_2019_berryman_001.pdf.
Brand, G.J.; Nelson, M.D.; Wendt, D.G.; Nimerfro, K.K. 2000. The hexagon/panel system for selecting FIA plots under an annual inventory. In: McRoberts, R.E.; Reams, G.A.; Van Deusen, P.C., eds. Proceedings of the First Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium; General Technical Report NC-213. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: 8-13.
Brooks, E.B.; Thomas, V.A.; Wynne, R.H.; Coulston, J.W. 2012. Fitting the multitemporal curve: a fourier series approach to the missing data problem in remote sensing analysis. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 50(9):3340-3353. DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2012.2183137.
Chander, G.; Markham, B.L.; Helder, D.L. 2009. Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sensing of Environment 113(5):893-903. DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2009.01.007.
Chavez, P.S. 1988. An improved dark-object subtraction technique for atmospheric scattering correction of multispectral data. Remote Sensing of Environment 24(3):459-479. DOI: 10.1016/0034-4257(88)90019-3.
Coulston, J.W.; Moisen, G.G.; Wilson, B.T.; Finco, M.V.; Cohen, W.B.; Brewer, C.K. 2012. Modeling percent tree canopy cover: a pilot study. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 78(7):715–727.
Crist, E.P.;Cicone, R.C. 1984. A physically-based transformation of thematic mapper data—The TM tasseled cap. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing GE-22(3):256-263. DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.1984.350619.
Cutler, R.D.; Edwards, T.C.; Beard, K.H.; Cutler, A.; Hess, K.T.; Gibson, J.; Lawler, J.J. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88(11):2783-2792. DOI: 10.1890/07-0539.1.
Eidenshink, J.; Schwind, B.; Brewer, C.; Zhu, Z.; Quayle, B.; Howard, S. 2007. A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecology 3(1):3-21. DOI: 10.4996/fireecology.0301003.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper 163. 340 p.
Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. 2017. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sensing of Environment 202(2017):18-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031.
Heyer, J., Schleeweis, K., Ruefenacht, B., Housman, I., Megown, K., and Bogle, M. (2023). A time invariant modeling approach to produce annual tree-canopy cover for the conterminous United States. Manuscript in Preparation.
Homer, C.; Gallant, A. 2001. Partitioning the conterminous United States into mapping zones for Landsat TM land cover mapping. Unpublished US Geological Survey Report. USGS Homer Report.
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., & Megown, K. (2015). Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 81(5):345–354. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2015/00000081/00000005/art00002#.
Housman, I., Heyer, J., Ruefenacht, B., Schleeweis, K., Bogle, M., and Megown, K. 2023. National Land Cover Database Tree Canopy Cover Methods v2021-4. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Geospatial Technology and Applications Center. Manuscript in Preparation.
McRoberts, R.E.; Hansen, M.H. 1999. Annual forest inventories for the North Central region of the United States. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4(4):361–371. DOI: 10.2307/1400495.
Nelson, K.; Connot, J.; Peterson, B.; Martin, C. 2013. LANDFIRE Refresh strategy: updating the national dataset. Fire Ecology 9(2):80-101. DOI: 10.4996/fireecology.0902080.
Omernik, J.M., Griffith, G. E. 2014. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environmental Management 54(6):1249-1266. 10.1007/s00267-014-0364-1.
R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. R Project.
Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D. 2012. Decline of forest interior conditions in the conterminous United States. Scientific Reports 2(3):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00653.
Ruefenacht, B. 2016. Comparison of three Landsat TM compositing methods: a case study using modeled tree canopy cover. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 82(3):199-211. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.82.3.199.
Yang, L.; Jin, S.; Danielson, P.; Homer, C.; Gass, L.; Bender, S.; Case, A.; Costello, C.; Dewitz, J.; Fry, J.; Funk, M. 2018. A new generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 146:108-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.006.
Zhu, Z.; Woodcock, C.E. 2012. Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 118(2012): 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028.
Data Credits and Disclaimers:
The Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, completeness or utility of these geospatial data, or for the improper or incorrect use of these geospatial data. These geospatial data and related maps or graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The data and maps may not be used to determine title, ownership, legal descriptions or boundaries, legal jurisdiction, or restrictions that may be in place on either public or private land. Natural hazards may or may not be depicted on the data and maps, and land users should exercise due caution. The data are dynamic and may change over time. The user is responsible to verify the limitations of the geospatial data and to use the data accordingly.
These data were collected using funding from the U.S. Government and can be used without additional permissions or fees.
