U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-728

August 2007

Susan M. Stein, Ralph J. Alig, Eric M. White,

Sara J. Comas, Mary Carr, Mike Eley,

Kelly Elverum, Mike O’Donnell, David M.

Theobald, Ken Cordell, Jonathan Haber, and

Theodore W. Beauvais
ABSTRACT

Stein, Susan M.; Alig, Ralph J.; White, Eric M.; Comas, 

Sara J.; Carr, Mary; Eley, Mike; Elverum, Kelly;

O’Donnell, Mike; Theobald, David M.; Cordell, Ken;

Haber, Jonathan; Beauvais, Theodore W. 2007. National

forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s

national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p.

Many of America’s national forests and grasslands—collectively

called the National Forest System—face increased risks and

alterations from escalating housing development on private rural

lands along their boundaries. National forests and grasslands

provide critical social, ecological, and economic benefits to the

American public. This study projects future housing density

increases on private rural lands at three distances—2, 3, and 10

miles—from the external boundaries of all national forests and

grasslands across the conterminous United States. Some 21.7

million acres of rural private lands (about 8 percent of all 

private lands) located within 10 miles of the National Forest

System boundaries are projected to undergo increases in housing density by 2030. Nine national forests are projected to 

experience increased housing density on at least 25 percent of

adjacent private lands at one or more of the distances considered. Thirteen national forests and grasslands are each projected

to have more than a half-million acres of adjacent private rural

lands experience increased housing density. Such development

and accompanying landscape fragmentation pose substantial

challenges for the management and conservation of the ecosystem services and amenity resources of National Forest System

lands, including access by the public. Research such as this can

help planners, managers, and communities consider the impacts

of local land use decisions.

Keywords: Land use change, national forest, housing density, 

road density, ecosystem services, amenity resources, amenity

migration, housing development, planning. 

AUTHORS

Susan M. Stein is a private forest-land studies coordinator, 

Sara J. Comas is a natural resource specialist, and Theodore

W. Beauvais is an assistant director, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry Staff,

Mailstop 1123, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-1123. Ralph J. Alig is a research forester and team

leader, and Eric M. White is a research economist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Mary Carr is a technical

publications editor, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Publishing Arts, 1835 Black Lake Boulevard, SW,

Olympia, WA 98512. Mike Eley is a geographic information

system (GIS) coordinator, American Farmland Trust, 1200 18th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. David M. Theobald is a

research scientist, Colorado State University, Natural Resource

Ecology Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499. Kelly

Elverum and Mike O’Donnell are GIS analysts, Elverum

Mapping Services, 1627 Cedarwood Drive, Fort Collins, CO

80526. Ken Cordell is a pioneering research scientist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 320 Green Street, Athens,

GA 30602-2044. Jonathan Haber is a regional conservation

planner, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northern Region, 200 E Broadway, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula,

MT 59807. 

Photo credits: All photos U.S. Forest Service unless otherwise 

noted. Top cover photo by Larry Korhnak.

INTRODUCTION

A merica’s National Forest System is composed of 155

national forests and 20 national grasslands managed 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Many of these forests and grasslands are facing increased risks

and impacts from escalating housing development on private

rural lands along their boundaries. Encompassing about 192 million acres across 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands,

national forests and grasslands account for 8.5 percent of the

total U.S. land area and 20 percent of its forest land (USDA

Forest Service 2004a) (fig. 1). Nearly a quarter of the U.S. population lives in a county that contains National Forest System

land (Johnson and Stewart 2007). 

National Forest System lands provide critical social, economic, 

and ecological benefits to the Nation, including aesthetic and

spiritual values, recreation opportunities, fresh drinking water,

clean air, timber and other forest products, minerals, oil and

gas, livestock grazing, and abundant habitats for fish and

wildlife species (see page 4 for examples). These ecosystem

services and amenity resources can be altered when new houses

are built on private lands within or near forest and grassland

boundaries. 

The population of the United States is projected to increase by 

at least 135 million people to approximately 420 million people

by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004), resulting in substantial

projected expansion in U.S. developed area (Alig and Plantinga

2004, Alig et al. 2004, Cordell and Overdevest 2001, Macie 

and Hermansen 2003, Nowak and Walton 2005). Counties with

national forests and grasslands already are experiencing some 

of the highest population growth rates in the Nation as people

move near public lands (Garber-Yonts 2004, Johnson and

Stewart 2007, USDA Forest Service 2006a). Even within

2
3

national forest boundaries, the number of housing units on 

privately held lands increased from 500,000 to 1.5 million

between 1950 and 2000 (Radeloff et al. 2005a).1

Figure 1—Who manages America’s forests? National Forest System

lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and account for about

20 percent of America’s forested land. Some 148 million acres of

National Forest System lands are forest; about 44 million acres are

nonforest. Other forested lands in the country are managed by private landowners (57 percent) or by other public agencies or local

governments (23 percent). Source: Smith and Darr (2004).

1 Nationwide, some 17 percent of all lands located within the boundaries of

national forests or grasslands are “inholdings” held by private or other nonForest-Service landowners (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Inholdings may be

managed by other federal agencies; state, county, local, or tribal governments;

private individuals; or corporate entities. Inholdings are particularly prevalent

in the East, where national forests were established much later than those in

the West, often to protect damaged watersheds and restore abandoned farmlands (Shands and Healy 1977); nearly half (46 percent) of the lands located

within Eastern national forest boundaries are inholdings (USDA Forest Service

2006a). Western national forests generally have a more consolidated ownership pattern providing larger blocks of public land with fewer inholdings.

Although most National Forest System

lands are in the West, national forests

along the Appalachian Mountain chain 

and scattered across other Eastern and Midwestern States are within

a day’s drive for millions of Americans (USDA Forest Service 2005b).

Private lands in the vicinity of national forests and grasslands are

becoming developed at an increasing rate across the country.

A third of all federally listed threatened or endangered species currently occur on National Forest System lands or are potentially affected by

national forest and grassland management (Bosch 2006). Photos courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4

National Forests on the Edge is the second analysis conducted

by the Forests on the Edge project sponsored by the Forest

Service, State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Forestry staff.

This report identifies national forests and grasslands across the

conterminous United States most likely to be affected by

increased housing density on rural private lands outside the

external boundaries2 of National Forest System lands. It also

discusses how this type of development may affect national

forests and grasslands; similar effects might logically be expected to confront other local, state, and federal public lands. These

findings and discussions should prove useful as tools to facilitate decisionmaking about future land use options. 

IDENTIFYING NATIONAL FORESTS AND 

GRASSLANDS ON THE EDGE

This study focuses on national forests and grasslands in the

conterminous United States that might experience change

owing to increased housing development on private rural

lands along their boundaries. Data necessary to prepare nationally consistent housing density forecasts for lands bordering

national forests in Alaska and Puerto Rico are not adequate at

this time, and there are no national forests in Hawaii. 

Examples of benefits and resources associated with management objectives 

on National Forest System lands

National forest/grassland objectivea Benefits and resources

Maintain national forests for future generations (93.5)b All those listed below

Protect streams and other sources of clean water (94.9) The largest single source of fresh water in the U.S.,

providing 14 percent of the country’s water runoff and 

high-quality water valued at $3.7 billion per yearc

Provide habitat for wildlife and fish (89.2) Wildlife and fish habitats for numerous species, including a

Protect rare plant or animal species (86) third of all federally listed threatened or endangered 

speciesd

Manage national forest areas to leave them natural looking Special areas, such as wilderness, research natural areas,

(86.8) national scenic areas, and national monuments

Provide quiet, natural places for personal renewal (75.8) 

Emphasize planning and management for timber (79.1) 2 billion board feet of timber in a single year, valued at 

$224 millione

Provide recreation access, facilities, and services (74.5) 205 million recreation visits annually; 4,300 campgrounds 

with 122,000 camp sites; 135 alpine ski areas; 4,418 miles

of wild and scenic rivers; 133,087 miles of hiking trailsf

Provide roads, services, accommodations to support local $7.5 billion annually in direct spending in local economies 

tourism businesses (57.0) resulting from recreation visits to national forestsf

a Identified in Tarrant et al. (2003) as “assets.”

b Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the public responding to a survey (Tarrant et al. 2003) who said they considered this 

management objective (“asset”) important.

c Dissmeyer 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000b.

d Bosch 2006.

e USDA Forest Service 2005a.

f USDA Forest Service 2004b.

About Forests on the Edge 

Sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service, State and Private 

Forestry, Cooperative Forestry staff, the Forests on the

Edge project identifies areas across the country where

public and private forests might change because of

housing development and other factors. The project

focuses on lands that currently are rural and becoming

more developed. Development on rural lands is often

overlooked because it may not be as visible as higher

density development found closer to urban centers. The

project’s first report (Stein et al. 2005a) identified watersheds across the conterminous United States containing

substantial amounts of private forest projected to experience increased housing densities by 2030. In total,

more than 44 million acres of private forests were projected to experience increased housing density by 2030.

2 “External boundary” refers to the perimeter boundaries of a national forest or

grassland. In some cases, this boundary is also referred to as a “proclamation”

boundary, or the outer boundary within which Congress authorized a particular national forest to be established.“Internal boundaries” are those boundaries located within the external boundaries that distinguish National Forest

System lands from other lands (often referred to as inholdings). The National

Forests on the Edge analysis focuses on development on private rural lands

outside the national forest or grassland external boundaries.
5

Distances for Recreation Planning

Research-based distances form the core of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which is widely

used by federal agencies and a number of state agencies

in recreation planning. For example, ROS remoteness 

criteria were used for the Forest Service’s Forest and

Rangeland Assessment to inventory land available for

outdoor recreation at three distances from roads—0 to 2

mile, 2 to 3 miles, and beyond 3 miles (Cordell et al.

1990). Similar applications have been used by federal and

state agencies to classify primitive recreation settings

that lie beyond 3 miles of roads, semiprimitive settings

from 2 to 3 miles from roads, and more accessible settings closer to development and within 2 mile of roads.

The analysis ranks individual national forests and grasslands 

according to the percentage and total area of private lands

(including both forest and nonforest vegetation types) adjacent

to each that are now rural and are projected to experience

increased housing density. 

These projections of housing density increases were limited 

to private lands outside national forest and grassland external

boundaries (fig. 2). Although private lands also may be located

within the external boundaries, it was not possible to make

nationwide estimates for such “internal” private lands because

no nationally consistent data were available at the time of this

study. 

Three distances from external boundaries were chosen—0 to 2

mile, 2 to 3 miles, and 3 to 10 miles. In selecting these distances, it was assumed that changes to national forest and grassland benefits will differ depending on how close development

activity is to the boundary. A literature review was conducted 

to identify several distances as broad indicators within which

housing density increases can affect national forest functions

and values. Relevant distances were found to differ widely,

depending on the type of impact being studied. The distances

selected for this study correspond to those routinely used by

recreation managers to identify areas where visitor experiences

can be affected by the sounds and sights of development.

How Housing Density Projections Were Made

Housing density projections in this study focus on increased 

housing densities on lands that are currently rural. The projections are based on past and current statistics on housing density

and population, road density data, past growth patterns, proximity to urban areas, and other factors (see “Appendix” for details;

see also Stein et al. 2005b, Theobald 2005). Housing density

projections are based on human population estimates of 276

million for the year 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001a) and 385

million for the year 2030 (NPA Data Services, Inc. 2003).

To facilitate description of estimated changes, three housing 

density categories were defined:3

❈ Rural I—Lands with 16 or fewer housing units per 

square mile. 

❈ Rural II—Lands with 17 to 64 housing units per square

mile. 

❈ Exurban/urban—Lands with 65 or more housing units 

per square mile. 

3 These housing density categories are identical to those used in the first

Forests on the Edge report (Stein et al. 2005a, 2005b), but the names of the 

categories have been changed.

0 10 20 5 Miles

Stanislaus National Forest 

external boundary

Yosemite National Park

Other national forests

Legend

Stanislaus National Forest 

administrative ownership

Private or other inholdings

Stanislaus National Forest 

internal boundaries

Figure 2—Internal and external boundaries for the Stanislaus

National Forest, California.

Grizzly bears have been reported to be sensitive to road densities as

low as 1 to 2 miles of road per square mile of land (Mace et al. 1996).

Terry

Tollefsbol
Increased housing density was defined to mean increased 

number of housing units per unit area on lands defined here as

rural I or rural II, such that the housing density would shift to 

a higher level category. 

Because this study focuses on areas where the 2000 housing 

density was 64 or fewer units per square mile, housing density

increases for private lands already above this housing density

level are not reflected in this analysis. Similarly, many national

forests surrounded by housing densities greater than 64 units per

square mile also may not be highlighted in this study because

they have too little surrounding rural land that would change to

a higher category.

Private land refers to all lands not identified as “public” (under 

federal, state, or local government management).

How This Analysis Was Conducted 

The analysis quantifies and displays the extent of projected 

increases in housing density on rural lands located near National

Forest System lands throughout the conterminous United States. 

Each national forest or grassland consists of numerous, often 

disconnected parcels (see “Appendix” for details). Three basic

steps were completed to estimate increases in housing densities

on private lands surrounding these parcels: 

❈ Step 1—For each of the three distances, we determined 

the area of private land surrounding each national forest 

or grassland parcel that is currently under each of the 

three housing density categories (rural I, rural II, or 

exurban/urban).

❈ Step 2—For each of the three distances, we determined 

the area of private land now classified as rural I or rural 

II that is estimated to experience housing density increases between 2000 and 2030, such that the housing density

would change to a higher density category.

❈ Step 3—We determined the total area and percentage of 

private land around each national forest and grassland 

estimated to experience increased housing density within each of the distances studied. 

6

Urban National Forests

A number of national forests and grasslands located in 

the conterminous United States and Puerto Rico have

been designated as “urban national forests” based on

their proximity to large urban centers. An urban national

forest is defined as one within an hour’s driving distance

of a million or more people (USDA Forest Service 2003b).

Owing to the presence of large urban areas, the densities of residential development around many of these

urban national forests may already be higher than the

rural densities that are the focus of this report, so further

changes in housing densities near these urban national

forests may not be represented in this study. However,

these forests are likely facing many of the same management challenges as those forests where rural residential

development is projected to increase.

Metropolitan Design Center Image Bank,© University of Minnesota
7

It’s a familiar and 

accelerating trend—new

houses with large individual

lots scattered across a rural

landscape.Dispersed low-density housing can create disproportionately high ecological and

economic impacts per housing

unit because each rural residence occupies more land area

than an urban residence

(Lubowski et al. 2006, Radeloff 

et al. 2005b, Theobald 2005,

USDA Forest Service 2006a) and

because desirable home sites

often lie in environmentally 

sensitive places such as shorelines, riparian areas, or wildlife

winter ranges (Johnson and

Beale 2002, USDA Forest Service

2006a).

Table 1—Percentage and area of private land at four distances from national forest and 

grassland boundaries nationwide projected to experience housing growth, 2000 to 2030 

Amount of private rural land projected to experience 

Distance from boundary housing density increase

Miles Percenta Million acresb

0 to 0.5 7 1.5

0.5 to 3 7 6.2

3 to 10 8 14.1

0 to 10 8 21.7

a Percentage of all private lands (rural and nonrural) within the respective distances.

b Area of rural private lands within the respective distances.

The resulting figures give an estimate of the magnitude of land 

area within each distance from National Forest System lands in

the conterminous United States projected to experience increased

housing density. As with any national assessment, our estimates

may not completely capture changes in housing density at all

local levels. 

KEY FINDINGS

This study estimates that between 2000 and 2030, a substantial increase in housing density will occur on more

than 21.7 million acres of rural private land (8 percent of

all private land) located within 10 miles of national forests and

grasslands across the conterminous United States (table 1). The

percentages of private land area projected to experience increases in residential development are consistent across the three 

distances considered—7 percent for the 0-to-2-mile and 2-to3-mile distances and 8 percent for the 3-to-10-mile distance.

Individual national forests projected to experience the greatest 

increases in residential development on private lands within 10

miles of forest boundaries are located throughout the conterminous United States (fig. 3). In the East, almost all national

forests are projected to experience moderate or high increases 

in residential development. In the West, moderate and high

increases in residential development are projected around

national forests located in Colorado, California, Oregon, Idaho,

and Montana. We project the nine national forests most affected

could see increased housing development on at least 25 percent

of the private lands within one or more of the three distances

studied (table 2). Three of these national forests are in the West

and the other six are located in the East. Overall, the range in
8 % % % % % Figure 3—National Forest System lands with private lands within 10 miles projected to experience increased housing density, 2000–2030. Areas shown in brown are designated“urban national forests”(USDA Forest Service 2003b) that were not identified in this study as likely to experience significant increases in rural residential development.

Housing densities near the borders of these forests may already be higher than the rural densities that are the focus of this report.Those urban national forests that do register high or moderate change in figure 3 include the Arapaho-Roosevelt, San Bernardino, Eldorado, Mount Hood, Chattahoochee-Oconee, Cherokee, and White Mountain

National Forests; the National Forests of Florida; and the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie.These urban national forests are surrounded by sufficient quantities of rural land

projected to change to higher residential densities.
boundaries, whereas the Plumas National Forest is projected to

experience the highest increases in residential housing density 

at the 0-to-2-mile distance. 

The study also ranked National Forest System lands according 

to the total area of adjacent private lands projected to experience increased housing density. Thirteen national forests or

grasslands are each adjacent to more than 500 thousand rural

acres projected to experience housing increases. As displayed in

table 3, ten of these forests or grasslands are found in the South.

This finding is not surprising given that (a) many of our southern national forests are surrounded by private lands (in part

because the National Forest System lands in the South tend to

be smaller, separated parcels); and (b) the South is experiencing

the highest rate of urban development in the country (Alig et 

al. 2004, Macie and Hermansen 2003) (fig. 4). The George

Washington-Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West

Virginia is projected to have the most area of increases in housing density of all national forests or grasslands, with projected

changes on more than 1.4 million adjacent private rural acres.

The Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri stands out among

the midwestern forests with more than 1.3 million acres of adjacent rural lands projected to experience an increase in housing

density. 

percentages of housing density increases for these nine national

forests is from 5 percent to 50 percent across all the distances.

The Bitterroot National Forest in Idaho and Montana ranks

highest in the Nation, with projected housing density increases

occurring on 42 percent of the private lands within 10 miles of

the forest boundary. The greatest percentage increases on the

Bitterroot National Forest are projected to occur in the 3-to-10-

mile category.

The percentage of adjacent private lands projected to experience

housing density increases does not necessarily become higher

with distance from the national forests. For example, the

Cherokee National Forest and the Huron-Manistee National

Forest have their highest percentages (36 and 32 percent,

respectively) at the distance of 2 to 3 miles from their external

Table 2—National Forest System (NFS) lands with at least 25 percent of adjacent private land (at one or more distances) projected to experience housing growth by 2030 

Percentagea of adjacent private land projected to 

experience housing density increaseb

National forests and Distance from NFS boundary (miles)

grasslands State (0 to 0.5) (0.5 to 3) (3 to 10) (0 to 10)

Western United States

Bitterroot National Forest Idaho, 

Montana 33 42 50 42

Tahoe National Forest California 18 24 29 26

Plumas National Forest California 25 24 24 24

Eastern United States

Chattahoochee-Oconee 

National Forest Georgia 31 35 35 35

Cherokee National Forest Tennessee 30 36 31 32

National Forests in North 

Carolinac North Carolina 26 29 30 30

Huron-Manistee National 

Forest Michigan 31 32 26 28

Land Between the Lakes 

National Recreation Area Kentucky, 

Tennessee 5 23 31 28

Green Mountain and Finger 

Lakes National Forests Vermont, 

New York 28 31 25 27

a Percentage of all private lands (rural and nonrural) within the respective distances.

b Percentages of 25 percent or higher are highlighted red.

c Croatan, Uwharrie, Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests.

9
10

Table 3—National Forest System lands with over 500,000 acres of adjacent rural private

land (within 10 miles) projected to experience increased housing by 2030

Adjacent rural private land projected 

National forest or grasslanda Main state to experience housing density increases

Thousand acres

George Washington-Jefferson Virginia 1,424

Mark Twain Missouri 1,326

Chattahoochee-Oconee Georgia 1,176

National Forests in North Carolinab North Carolina 1,073

National Forests in Mississippic Mississippi 1,071

National Forests in Alabamad Alabama 963

Huron-Manistee Michigan 834

Francis Marion-Sumter South Carolina 720

Ozark-St. Francis Arkansas 702

Daniel Boone Kentucky 650

National Forests in Texase Texas 596

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes Vermont, New York 590

Cherokee Tennessee 544

a Figures reported for individual national forests in this table should not be combined because of the potential for double counting 

of residential development around national forests that are close to each other.

b Croatan, Uwharrie, Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests.

c Bienville, Chickasawhay, Delta, Desoto, Holly Springs, Homochitto, and Tombigbee National Forests.

d Bankhead, Conecuh, Talladega, and Tuskegee National Forests.

e Angelina, Davy Crockett, Sabine, and Sam Houston National Forests.

Legend

Conterminous United States

Projected increase

Figure 4—A broader perspective. Across the conterminous United States,

approximately 1.4 billion acres of all lands are privately owned. Of these,

some 153 million acres (about 10 percent) are projected to experience

increased housing density in rural I and rural II areas in coming decades

(regardless of their proximity to national forests or grasslands), mostly in the

eastern half of the country (Theobald 2004a, 2004b). These national-level 

figures for all private lands may under- or overstate the situation for specific

rural areas where housing development could be more or less intense.
11

About the movement of people to rural areas. 

National Forests on the Edge findings are consistent with 

recent studies on rural population change in America. Since

the 1990s, there has been a substantial trend toward increased

population growth in many rural counties, especially those

with federal lands and abundant natural amenities (GarberYonts 2004; Hammer et al. 2004; Johnson 1999, 2006; Johnson

and Beale 1999, 2002; Johnson and Stewart 2005, 2007;

Johnson et al. 2005).

Population growth in rural 

(“nonmetropolitan”) counties

containing national forests has

been consistently higher than 

in other rural counties over 

each of the past three decades

(Johnson and Stewart 2007).

Between 1990 and 2000, nonmetropolitan counties with

more than 10 percent of the

land in national forest grew by

18 percent —considerably 

higher than the growth rate in

other nonmetropolitan counties (10.8 percent). Cordell 

and Overdevest (2001) further

showed that population growth

was particularly acute in counties near national forests in 

the southern Appalachians, northern New Mexico, southern

California, and southeastern Idaho.

Many of the national forests and grasslands projected in 

this study to experience the highest levels of increased housing density near their boundaries fall within areas identified

by Johnson and Beale (1999) as having had the highest recent

rural population growth.

This type of lakeshore in northern Minnesota attracts second-home development, potentially affecting

water quality and resulting in loss of wetland habitat.

Larry Korhnak
12

A CLOSER LOOK: FUTURE HOUSING 

DEVELOPMENT AROUND FOUR NATIONAL

FORESTS

Four examples from different regions illustrate how the 

projected 2030 housing densities (Theobald 2004b) compare to 2000 housing densities (Theobald 2004a) at the

local level. Note that internal boundaries were used for these

local analyses because adequate geographic information system

information was available for these forests. Thus, the maps presented here (figs. 5–8), unlike our national-level maps, do

include private inholdings. 

On a subzero

January morning, a

group of elk makes

its way over the

snowy grassland/

sagebrush winter

range overlooking

the Bitterroot Valley,

Montana. Photo by

John Vore, courtesy

of Montana

Department of Fish,

Wildlife and Parks.

0 10 20 5 Miles

Stevensville, MT

Hamilton, MT

Darby, MT

65 or more (exurban-urban)

Legend

Elk winter range, 

Bitterroot National Forest

Bitterroot National Forest

Other national forests

Housing Units per 

Square Mile

16 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and

less than 65 (rural II)

No data

Towns

U.S. 93

0 10 20 5 Miles

Stevensville, MT

Hamilton, MT

Darby, MT

65 or more (exurban-urban)

Legend

Elk winter range, 

Bitterroot National Forest

Bitterroot National Forest

Other national forests

Housing Units per 

Square Mile

16 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and

less than 65 (rural II)

No data

Towns

U.S. 93

Figure 5—Housing density in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana/Idaho, 2000 and 2030. Source: Theobald 2004a, 2004b.

Bitterroot National Forest, Montana and Idaho

The percentage of private land projected to experience increases

in housing density within 10 miles of the Bitterroot National

Forest is greater than for any other national forest or grassland

(table 2, fig. 5). The northernmost portion of this forest lies

along either side of the Bitterroot Valley, in rapidly growing

Ravalli County, Montana. One concern related to residential

development within the Bitterroot Valley is its potential impact

on elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

populations that seasonally inhabit the Bitterroot National

Forest. Many areas of elk and mule deer winter range coincide

with areas projected to experience substantial increases in the

level of housing development. Increased housing density could

potentially reduce the availability of winter habitat and browse,

serve as impediments to habitat connectivity, and lead to

increases in human/wildlife conflicts. 

Stanislaus National Forest, California

The Stanislaus National Forest is located in east-central 

California, extending from the foothills to the crest of the 

Sierra Nevada. The national forest is bordered to the south 

by Yosemite National Park and to the east and north by the

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Eldorado National

Forest, respectively. Given this pattern of federal ownership,

private residential development is constrained to areas along the

western boundary of the Stanislaus National Forest and along
13

5 Miles 10 20

Arnold, CA

Murphys, CA

Jamestown, CA

Sonora, CA

Soulsbyville, CA

Legend

Housing Units per 

Square Mile

Towns

Stanislaus National Forest

Yosemite National Park

Other national forests

Major roads

16 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and

ess than 65 (rural II)

65 or more (exurban-urban)

No data

0 10 20 5 Miles

Arnold, CA

Murphys, CA

Jamestown, CA

Sonora, CA

Soulsbyville, CA

Legend

Housing Units per 

Square Mile

Towns

Stanislaus National Forest

Yosemite National Park

Other national forests

Major roads

6 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and

less than 65 (rural II)

65 or more (exurban-urban)

No data

Figure 6—Housing density near the Stanislaus National Forest, 2000 and 2030. Source: Theobald 2004a, 2004b.

0 10 20 5 Miles

Housing Units per

Square Mile

16 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and

less than 65 (rural II)

65 or more (exurban-urban)

No data

Legend

Major roads

Manistee 

National Forest

Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources

Figure 7—Housing density near the Manistee portion of the Huron-Manistee National Forest, 2000 and 2030. Source: Theobald 2004a, 2004b.

0 10 20 5 Miles

Housing Units per

Square Mile

16 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and

less than 65 (rural II)

65 or more (exurban-urban)

No data

Legend

Major roads

Manistee 

National Forest

Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources

Continue
interior travel corridors. Currently, many of the private lands

immediately adjacent to the Stanislaus boundary already have

housing densities greater than 64 units per square mile, in the

exurban/urban category (fig. 6). Consequently, most of the projected increases in rural housing unit density would occur several miles from the national forest boundary. One exception to this

general pattern is projected increases in housing density development to the exurban/urban category on currently rural 

lands that are adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the

Stanislaus. Recreation management issues identified for this 

forest are likely to increase with continued development. These

issues include the establishment of user-created trail systems

and a decline in availability and quality of recreational opportunities (USDA Forest Service 2003a). 

14

Huron-Manistee National Forest, Michigan

The Manistee portion of the Huron-Manistee National Forest 

lies in the northwestern portion of the lower peninsula of

Michigan. Compared to the Bitterroot and the Stanislaus

National Forests, the ownership of the Huron-Manistee National

Forest (particularly within the Manistee portion) is unconsolidated, consisting of a few large blocks and many smaller blocks

of noncontiguous federal lands. The result is significant intermixing of privately owned lands and federally managed lands.

Currently, many areas immediately adjacent to National Forest

System lands have rural I and rural II housing densities (fig. 7).

However, projections of housing density for 2030 indicate substantial expansion in the extent of rural II and exurban/urban

housing density in nearly all privately owned areas immediately

adjacent to national forest parcels. Development-related issues

Figure 8—Housing density near portions

of the National Forests in North Carolina

(Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests),

2000 and 2030. Source: Theobald 2004a,

2004b.

0 25 50 Miles

Asheville, NC

Waynesville, NC

ranklin, NC

Murphy, NC

Legend

Housing Units per 

Square Mile

owns

Pisgah National Forest and 

Nantahala National Forest

Great Smoky Mountains

National Park

Other national forests

Major roads

16 or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and 

less than 65 (rural II)

65 or more (exurban-urban)

No data

State border

0 25 50 Miles

Asheville, NC

Waynesville, NC

ranklin, NC

Murphy, NC

Legend

Housing Units per 

Square Mile

owns

isgah National Forest and 

antahala National Forest

Great Smoky Mountains

ational Park

Other national forests

Major roads

or fewer (rural I)

More than 16 and 

less than 65 (rural II)

or more (exurban-urban)

No data

tate border
15

Research indicates that roads with

moderate traffic volume have the highest rates of wildlife mortality, whereas

roads with higher traffic volumes present the greatest barriers to wildlife

movement. Traffic volumes are increasing to these critical levels on highways

both on and off public lands, with large

increases in areas with rapid development near national forests and other

public lands (Jacobson 2006).

on the Huron-Manistee include user conflicts and the loss of

public access (USDA Forest Service 2006c); these issues are

likely to increase with additional development near the boundaries.

National Forests in North Carolina

The Nantahala and the Pisgah National Forests are both located 

in western North Carolina, near the Great Smoky Mountains

National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Both forests fall

within the broader administrative unit known as the National

Forests in North Carolina. The federal lands managed by these

two forests are located in a number of separate blocks of noncontiguous ownership. Currently, most areas immediately

beyond the boundaries of these national forests have housing

densities categorized as rural II, although some areas of exurban/

urban housing density do currently occur adjacent to National

Forest System lands around Asheville and Franklin. Projections

of 2030 housing density indicate significant increases adjacent

to the national forest boundaries (table 2, fig. 8), particularly in

the southern and central portions of the area. Lesser increases

are projected near National Forest System land in the northeastern portion of the area considered here. 

IMPLICATIONS

I

ncreased development and accompanying landscape alteration on private rural lands adjacent to national forests and

grasslands will have significant implications for the management and conservation of public land resources, ecological

services and products, and social and cultural amenities

(Johnson and Stewart 2007, Radeloff et al. 2005a, REO 2002).

The following examples are among the specific consequences

that may be associated with increased housing density on the

peripheries of National Forest System lands. 

Impacts on Native Fish and Wildlife Habitats 

and Populations

Wildlife populations on public lands—especially threatened 

and endangered species—can be at heightened risk from several 

factors associated with increased housing development on nearby private rural lands (Bass and Beamish 2006, Danielson et al.

1997, Deem et al. 2001, Ewing et al. 2005, Lepczyk et al. 2003,

Manolis et al. 2002, Radeloff et al. 2005a, Riitters et al. 2002,

Riley et al. 2003, Servheen 2006, Singleton et al. 2002). For

example, wildlife may be excluded from usable habitats outside

the national forest or grassland boundary or be otherwise affected by the fragmentation (Butler et al. 2004, Plantinga et al.

2007), degradation, or loss of those habitats. Wildlife also may

suffer higher levels of mortality or displacement from increased

traffic on both national forest and public roads (Jacobson 2006).

They may experience disturbance or changes in behavior caused

by the presence of people, roads, noise, or light; and they may

be preyed upon by pets or other predators attracted to newly

opened forest edges. Housing developments and associated

roads may prevent wildlife from migrating or moving through

areas outside forest boundaries and thus affect species that rely

on a variety of ecosystems or large areas to survive. Migratory

fish that spawn in National Forest System streams also can be

affected by changes in water quality associated with development.
16

Nationally, more than 50 percent of recreation use comes from those

living within 30 straight-line miles of a national forest boundary

(Stynes and White 2005). Public lands may become used even more

heavily as nearby private lands become developed (USDA Forest

Service 2006a).

Increased housing development near forest boundaries can lead to additional damage from unmanaged recreation, such as this bank 

erosion caused by off-highway vehicles on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest.

Larry Korhnak

Remnant sagebrush stand on the

west side of the Bitterroot Valley,

Montana, where abundant native

sagebrush communities once

played host to a variety of birds,

butterflies, and other wildlife both

on and off the nearby Bitterroot

National Forest. Today most

Bitterroot sagebrush communities

are gone; remaining sagebrush

stands are threatened by development activity and competition

from plants used for livestock 

forage (Daniel 2006).

Impacts From Invasive Plant 

Species

The health of national forest and grassland ecosystems can be affected by invasive plant species, which can find new

points of entry into National Forest

System lands through adjacent fragmented

lands, new roads, and recreation trails

(Dickens et al. 2005, Holway 2005, Sieg 

et al. 2005, Yates et al. 2004). Invasives

can compete with and replace native

plants, reduce plant diversity, and cause

other disruptions to ecosystem function. Diseases and insects

can be introduced into wildland protected areas by nursery

plants used in nearby landscaping; for example, widely used

rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) and camellia (Camellia

spp.) plants can be hosts to the pathogen that causes sudden oak

death in native oak (Quercus spp.) trees (Koch and Coulston, in

press).

Impacts on Recreation Access and Management

Access for the general public to national forests and grasslands 

is a growing concern. In 1999 it was reported that about 14 

percent of National Forest System land had limited public 

access and that managers were seeing significant reductions in

access on many national forests (Peterson and Williams 1999).

Housing development may lead to additional decreases in

access to public lands, especially national forests, for recreation

and other uses if roads on or across adjacent private lands are

closed to the general public when new residents move in. Such

restrictions may shift recreational use to other locations on

National Forest System lands that do not have adequate infrastructure for increased recreation. Alternatively, increased housing development near National Forest System lands could lead

to proliferating entry points, easier access, and increased usage

of recreation services on National Forest System lands (Johnson

and Stewart 2007), with accompanying challenges for effective

recreation management. Unmanaged recreation has been cited

by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the top four threats

to the Nation’s forests (USDA Forest Service 2006b).

Anita

Morzillo
17

Impacts on Fire Management

Potential for wildland fires is higher along the boundaries of 

forests where the human population has grown significantly

(GAO 1999). Increased numbers of houses and people can be

associated with more frequent ignitions (Cardille et al. 2001;

Prestemon and Butry, in press; Radeloff et al. 2005b), especially

in the Eastern United States, where nearly three-quarters of the

area burned in wildland fires in federal forests from 1986 to

1996 were caused by human-related ignition sources (Prestemon

and Butry, in press). Increased housing density can also be

accompanied by an increase in air pollution, which has been

shown to increase susceptibility of a forest to wildfire (Grulke et

al., in press). A proliferation of houses increases the number of

structures needing protection, complicates public land fire management and suppression, and drives up management costs

(DellaSala et al. 2004, Grace and Wade 2000, Heuberger and

Putz 2003, Podur et al. 2002, Radeloff et al. 2005b, Russel and

McBride 2003). 

Some 60 percent of all housing units built in the

1990s in the United States were constructed

within the wildland-urban interface (Alig et al.,

in press, Radeloff et al. 2005b). Such houses can

require intensive resources to protect them from

wildland fire.

A recent study of patterns of wildfire occurrence in

Alabama found that most wildfires occurred in counties

with population sizes between 10,000 and 63,000 or

total road length (interstate highway, U.S. highway, and

county road) from about 156 to 200 miles (Chen 2007).

Larry Korhnak Kari Greer,National Interagency Fire Center

Paul Ryan,J.N.“Ding”Darling National Wildlife Refuge National forests and grasslands provide vital recreational opportunities for the American public.
18

Social and Economic Considerations

The presence of increased housing development near National 

Forest System lands can reduce open space and alter aesthetic

qualities that contribute to recreation experiences (Clark and

Stankey 1979). Increased human populations have been associated with an increase in crime on public lands, such as vandalism, drug activity, assaults, and illegal garbage dumping (Tynon

and Chavez 2006, Whittaker 2006). Increased public access and

activities on public lands could also create heightened concerns

and higher costs for management of cultural resources.

In the West, most fishing and hunting occurs on public lands, bringing important economic benefits to local communities (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 2001, as cited in Sonoran

Institute 2006).

Impacts on Water Quality and Hydrology

Water bodies and shorelines are among the sensitive areas

likely to experience more environmental stress with increased

human activity (Johnson and Beale 2002). Development along

rivers and streams can cause excessive and unnecessary damage

to banks, beds, and riparian vegetation and waterways; degrade

water quality; interrupt hydrologic cycles; and affect watershed

function upstream or downstream from the development activity

(Schweitzer 2006). Increased housing density also creates more

impervious surfaces, which lead to more runoff and increased 

risk of water pollution on both private and public lands (Zipperer

2002).

Impacts on Boundary Management

Increased housing density in areas adjoining National 

Forest System lands can enhance the potential for encroachment, trespass, and unauthorized use and occupation of the

public’s land and resources. Encroachments onto national

forests and grasslands can transform publicly owned environments into privately claimed backyards, lawns, flower and

vegetable gardens, playgrounds, garbage dumps, and personal

storage sites—potentially destroying or significantly damaging

a natural environment. Among the most significant impacts on

National Forest System lands from development and urbanization on adjoining private lands include illegal private road

building, timber harvest, and user-created off-highway-vehicle

trails on national forests and grasslands.

The Forest Service faces management challenges associated

with control of property lines along the rapidly spreading

wildland-urban interface. Limited funding, resources, and

workforce have not kept pace with increased development 

on adjoining non-National Forest System lands. The Forest

Service estimates that control of property lines for approximately 1 million acres of public land has been heavily compromised because of encroachment and trespass by adjoining

landowners (Cunningham 2006).

Impacts on Other Federal Land Use Planning

and Administration

Increased development activities on private lands in the 

vicinity of National Forest System boundaries can complicate resource planning on National Forest System lands and

make land use planning and administration more expensive.

Additional private landowners adjacent to national forests and

grasslands means more neighbors with whom the Forest

Service needs to coordinate in arranging access for fire management and recreation, managing ecosystems jointly across

the landscape, and other management issues. Laws (such as

the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered

Species Act) and regulations (such as 36 CFR 212.55(b))

require the Forest Service and other land management 

Developments along water courses can impact water 

quality and hydrology.
19

Trash dumping on national forests and grasslands associated with increased human populations can have detrimental impacts on streams

and other resources.

agencies to include the environmental effects of neighboring

land uses when analyzing cumulative effects of federal actions.

Travel management plans for public lands are also required to be

compatible with existing conditions in nearby populated areas. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I

ncreased housing development in rural areas bordering

America’s National Forest System lands could alter the 

ecological, social, and economic resources and services 

provided by those public lands and increase their management

costs. The many natural amenities of lands located close to 

protected areas such as our national forests and grasslands are

attracting more and more homeowners. This study estimates

future housing density on rural lands at three distances from

National Forest System boundaries. 

Nine national forests and grasslands are projected to experience 

increased housing density on at least 25 percent of private lands

at one or more of these distances by 2030, posing potential challenges to forest and grassland management and conservation.

Thirteen national forests and grasslands are projected to experience housing density increases on over a half-million acres of

rural lands within 10 miles of their boundaries. Nationwide, some

21.7 million acres of private rural lands adjacent to national

forests and grasslands are projected to experience change owing

to increased housing development. Much of this land is next to

national forests in the Eastern United States. 

The findings of National Forests on the Edge can help direct 

our attention to places where changes to National Forest System

lands could be substantial. This report also helps to describe

potential effects of development near National Forest System

lands. Such an understanding can help scientists, resource managers, and communities anticipate potential impacts, plan for

prudent growth, and implement policies that take into consideration the implications for national forests and grasslands on the

edge of development while the windows of opportunity for

effective conservation action remain open.

Future research to address data limitations of this effort could 

include:

❈ Compilation of nationally consistent data on private 

inholdings for all National Forest System lands, to 

enable more accurate estimates of housing density 

increases.

❈ Estimates of housing density increases on private lands 

that are currently at or above 65 units per square mile,

because this type of increase can also affect National 

Forest System lands.

Larry Korhnak
20

❈ Estimates of housing density increases on lands adjacent 

to national forests in Alaska and Puerto Rico.

Strategic, collaborative approaches are needed at local, state, 

regional, and national levels to help guide development in ways

that reflect people’s needs and values and are complementary to

or consistent with the protection of resources and services on

national forests and grasslands (USDA Forest Service 2006a).

Current examples include:

❈ Keeping land in forests through such programs as the 

Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program. 

❈ Concentrating growth in existing towns and clustering 

development away from environmentally valuable land. 

❈ Protecting private forests with conservation easements 

or tax incentives.

❈ Coordinating among landowners to control the spread 

of noxious weeds or address other resource issues. 

The Forest Service is committed to working in partnership with 

landowners, local communities, and their governments to help

maintain working landscapes, conserve critical open space, and

keep National Forest System lands healthy and able to sustain

ecological, social, and economic benefits far into the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication would not have been possible without 

the support of many people. Larry Payne, Director of the

Forest Service Cooperative Forestry staff, has provided

outstanding leadership on open space and excellent support 

for his staff in their efforts to address this issue. Susan YontsShepard (retired), Director of the Washington Office Ecosystem

Management staff, provided strong encouragement for our

efforts. We appreciate the detailed peer reviews of the draft

report provided by John Greis, Southern Research Station; 

Sue Stewart and Rachel Riemann, Northern Research Station;

and Barb Tormoehlen, Northeastern Area. We also thank the 

following people for their careful reviews: Ron McRoberts,

Northern Research Station; Claire Harper and Amanda Cundiff,

Washington Office Cooperative Forestry staff; Jerry Ingersoll,

Washington Office Recreation staff; and Greg Asher,

Washington Office, Lands staff. 

METRIC EQUIVALENTS

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Acres .405 Hectares

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Square feet .0929 Square meters

Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers

REFERENCES

Alig, R.; Kline, J.; Lichtenstein, M. 2004. Determinants of 

developed area, with projections to 2025. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 69: 219–234.

Alig, R.; Plantinga, A. 2004. Future forestland area: impacts 

from population growth and other factors that affect land

values. Journal of Forestry. 102(8): 19–24.

Alig, R.J.; Stewart, S.; Nowak, D.; Wear, D.; Stein, S. [In 

press]. Conversions of forest lands: trends, determinants,

and policy considerations. In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher, H.M.;

Sands, Y.; Lee, D.C.; Beatty, J.S., eds. Advances in threat

assessment and their application to forest and rangeland

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Bass, F.; Beamish, R. 2006. Can nation’s parks survive the 

pressure? Part 1 of 2-part series, 06/19/2006. Missoula, MT:

Associated Press. http://www.msnbc.msn.com. (19 June

2006).

Bosch, M. 2006. Personal communication. National Endangered 

Species program leader, USDA Forest Service, Washington

Office, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Butler, B.J.; Swenson, J.J.; Alig, R.J. 2004. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest: quantifications and correlations. Forest Ecology and Management. 189: 363–373.

Cardille, J.A.; Ventura, S.J.; Turner, M.G. 2001.

Environmental and social factors influencing wildfires in

the upper Midwest, Unites States. Ecological Applications.

11: 111–127.

Chen, X. 2007. Spatial pattern of wildfires in Alabama, 

USA. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 

64(2): 229–242.

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 1979. The recreation opportunity 

spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and

research. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-98. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Hartmann, L.A.; English, 

D.B.K. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation situation in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-189. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 112 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Overdevest, C. 2001. Footprints on the land: 

implications of population and economic growth for this

country’s natural lands. In: Cordell, H.K.; Overdevest, C.,

eds. Footprints on the land: an assessment of demographic

trends and the future of natural resources in the United

States. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 229–284.
21

Cunningham, R. 2006. Personal communication. Supervisory 

biological scientist, USDA Forest Service, Washington

Office, 201 14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.

Daniel, R. 2006. Sage advice: fragmented and declining, 

valley’s sagebrush habitat offers beauty and diversity.

Hamilton, MT: Ravalli Republic. May 31. http://www.

ravallirepublic.com/articles/2006/05/31/outdoors/

75-outdoors.txt. (29 August 2006).

Danielson, W.R.; Degaff, R.M.; Fuller, T.K. 1997. Rural and 

suburban forest edges: effects on egg predators and nest

predation rates. Landscape and Urban Planning. 38: 25–36.

Deem, S.L.; Karesh, W.B.; Weisman, W. 2001. Putting theory 

into practice: wildlife health in conservation. Conservation

Biology. 15(5): 1224–1233.

DellaSala, D.A.; Staus, N.L.; Strittholt, J.R.; Hackman, A.; 

Iacobelli, A. 2001. An updated protected areas database for

the United States and Canada. Natural Areas Journal. 

21: 124–135.

DellaSala, D.A.; Williams, J.E.; Williams, C.D.; Franklin, 

J.F. 2004. Beyond smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire

policy and science. Conservation Biology. 18: 976–986.

Dickens, S.M.; Gerhardt, F.; Collinge, S.K. 2005.

Recreational portage trails as corridors facilitating nonnative plant invasions of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

wilderness (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 19: 1653–1657.

Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. 2000. Drinking water from forests and 

grasslands: a synthesis of the scientific literature.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

246 p.

Ewing, R.; Kostyack, J.; Chen, D.; Stein, B.; Ernst, M. 2005.

Endangered by sprawl: how runaway development threatens America’s wildlife. Washington, DC: National Wildlife

Federation, Smart Growth America, and NatureServe. 54 p. 

Garber-Yonts, B. 2004. The economics of amenities and migration in the Pacific Northwest: review of selected literature

with implications for national forest management. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-617. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 48 p. 

General Accounting Office [GAO]. 1999. Western national 

forests: a cohesive strategy is needed to address catastrophic

wildfire threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, DC. 60 p.

Grace, S.; Wade, D. 2000. Ecological and economic consequences of the 1998 Florida wildfires. [Poster]. In: U.S.

Geological Survey and wildland fire workshop. Tallahassee,

FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services, Division of Forestry. http://firescience.cr.usgs.

gov/html/abs_poster2000.html. (13 September 2006).

Grulke, N.E.; Minnich, R.A.; Paine, T.; Dunn, A.; Chavez, 

D. [In press]. Air pollution increases forest susceptibility to

wildfires in southern California. In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher,

H.M.; Sands, Y.; Lee, D.C.; Beatty, J.S., eds. Advances in

threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Winkler, R.; Radeloff, V.C.; 

Voss, P.R. 2004. Characterizing spatial and temporal 

residential density patterns across the U.S. Midwest,

1940–1990. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69(2–3):

183–199.

Heuberger, K.A.; Putz, F.E. 2003. Fire in the suburbs: ecological impacts of prescribed fire in small remnants of 

longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Sandhill). Restoration

Ecology. 11(1): 72–81. 

Holway, D.A. 2005. Edge effects of an invasive species across 

a natural ecological boundary. Biological Conservation.

121: 561–567.

Jacobson, S. 2006. The increasing threat of highway-caused 

wildlife mortality and barrier impacts on U.S. public lands.

[Poster]. In: Advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. Boulder, CO. 

Johnson, K.M. 1999. The rural rebound. Washington, DC: 

Population Reference Bureau. Reports on America. 

1(3). 20 p.

Johnson, K.M. 2006. Demographic trends in rural and small 

town America. Durham, NH: University of New

Hampshire, Carsey Institute. 35 p.

Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C. 1999. The continuing population 

rebound in non-metro America. Rural Development

Perspectives. 13(3): 2–10. 

Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C. 2002. Nonmetro recreation counties: 

their identification and rapid growth. Rural America. 

17(4): 12–19.

Johnson, K.M.; Stewart, S. 2005. Recreation, amenity 

migration and urban proximity. In: Green, G.P.; Deller,

S.C.; Marcouiller, D.W., eds. Amenities and rural development: theory, methods and public policy. Northampton,

MA: Edward Elgar: 177–196.

Johnson, K.M.; Stewart, S. 2007. Demographic trends in 

national forest, recreational, retirement and amenity areas.

In: Kruger, L.; Mazza, R.; Lawrence, K. eds. Proceedings

—recreation research and management workshop. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 187-199.
22

Johnson, K.M.; Voss, P.R.; Hammer, R.B.; Fuguitt, G.V.; 

McNiven, S. 2005. Temporal and spatial variation in agespecific net migration in the United States. Demography.

42(4): 791–812.

Kimbell, A. 2007 (27 March). Open space conservation 

strategy. Letter from Forest Service Chief to Regional

Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, International

Institute for Tropical Forestry Director, Deputy Chiefs, and

WO staff. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Office of the

Chief, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Koch, F.H.; Coulston, J.W. [In press]. Modeling current 

climate conditions for forest pest risk assessment. In: Pye,

J.M.; Rauscher, H.M.; Sands, Y.; Lee, D.C.; Beatty, J.S.,

eds. Advances in threat assessment and their application 

to forest and rangeland management. Gen. Tech. Rep.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lepczyk, C.A.; Mertig, A.; Liu, J. 2003. Landowners and 

cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Biological

Conservation. 115: 191–201.

Lubowski, R.N.; Vesterby, M.; Bucholtz, S.; Baez, A.; 

Roberts, M.J. 2006. Major land uses in the United States,

2002. Economic Information Bull. 14. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. 54 p.

Mace, R.D.; Waller, J.S.; Manley, T.L.; Lyon, L.J.; Zuuring, 

H. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and

habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of

Applied Ecology. 33: 1395–1404.

Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, I.A. 2003. Human influences on 

forest ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface

assessment summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-64.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 160 p.

Manolis, J.C.; Andersen, D.E.; Cuthbert, F.J. 2002. Edge 

effect on nesting success of ground nesting birds near

regenerating clearcuts in a forest-dominated landscape. 

The Auk. 119(4): 955–970.

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. 2005. Projected urban growth and 

its estimated impact on the U.S. forest resource

(2000–2005). Journal of Forestry. 103(8): 383–389.

NPA Data Services, Inc. 2003. County population projections 

—key indicators of county growth, 1970–2024, extended to

2030. Arlington, VA.

Peterson, G.L.; Williams, J.M. 1999. Access to national forest 

land. In: Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Bowker, J.M.; English,

D.B.K.; Johnson, C.Y.; Mov, S.H.; Bergstron, J.C.; Teasley,

R.J.; Tarrant, M.J., eds. Outdoor recreation in American

life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 42–45.

Plantinga, A.; Alig, R.; Eichman, H.; Lewis, D. 2007. Linking

land-use projections and forest fragmentation analysis. Res.

Pap. PNW-RP-570. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 41 p. 

Podur, J.; Martell, D.L.; Knight, K. 2002. Statistical quality 

control analysis of forest fire activity in Canada. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 32: 195–205.

Prestemon, J.P.; Butry, D.T. [In press]. Wildland arson: a 

research assessment. In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher, H.M.; Sands,

Y.; Lee, D.C.; Beatty, J.S., eds. Advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S. 2005a. Rural and 

suburban sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000

and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation

Biology. 19(3): 793–805.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.; Fried, J.S.; 

Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F. 2005b. The wildland-urban

interface in the United States. Ecological Applications.

15(3): 799–805.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Voss, P.R.; Hagen, A.E.; 

Field, D.R.; Mladenoff, D.J. 2001. Human demographic

trends and landscape level forest management in the 

northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens. Forest Science. 

47(2): 229–241.

Regional Ecosystem Office [REO]. 2002. Interagency regional 

monitoring, overview: Northwest Forest Plan. 12 p.

www.reo.gov/monitoring. (24 August 2006).

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; O’Neill, R.V.; Jones, K.B.; 

Smith, E.R.; Coulston, J.W.; Wade, T.G.; Smith, J.H.

2002. Fragmentation of continental United States forests.

Ecosystems. 5: 815–822.

Riley, S.P.D.; Sauvajot, R.M.; York, E.C.; Kamradt, D.A.; 

Bromley, C.; Fuller, T.K.; Wayne, R.K. 2003. Effects of

urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and 

coyotes in southern California. Conservation Biology. 

17: 566–576.

Russel, W.H.; McBride, J.R. 2003. Landscape scale vegetation-type conversion and fire hazard in the San Francisco

Bay area open spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning. 

64: 201–208.
23

Schweitzer, B. 2006 (8 March). Letter from Office of the 

Governor, State of Montana, to directors of Montana

Department of Environmental Quality, Department of

Natural Resources and Conservation, and Department 

of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. On file with: Office of the

Governor, Montana State Capitol Bldg., P.O. Box 200801,

Helena, MT 59620-0801.

Servheen, C. 2006 (July 25). The future for sensitive wildlife 

in Missoula County. Letter to the editor from Christopher

Servheen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the College 

of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana.

Missoula, MT: Missoulian.

Shands, W.E.; Healy, R.G. 1977. The lands nobody wanted. 

Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation. 282 p.

Sieg, C.H.; Flather, C.H.; Barastatis, N.; Fowler, J.F.; Hof, 

J.; Kartesz, J.T.; Knowles, M.S.; Mitchell, J. 2005.

Exotic plant richness as an indicator of ecosystem health:

an update to support the 2005 RPA assessment.

Unpublished draft. On file with: Carolyn Sieg, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, 2500 S Pine Knoll, Flagstaff, AZ 

86001-6381.

Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lehmkuhl, J.F. 2002.

Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington:

a GIS weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment.

Res. Pap. PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 89 p. 

Smith, W.B.; Darr, D. 2004. U.S. forest resource facts and 

historical trends. FS-801. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 37 p.

Sonoran Institute. 2006. Backcountry bounty: hunters, anglers 

and prosperity in the American West. Tucson, AZ. 18 p.

Stein, S.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J.; Nelson, M.D.; 

Theobald, D.M.; Eley, M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, M. 2005a.

Forests on the edge: housing development on America’s

private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 16 p. 

Stein, S.; McRoberts, R.E.; Nelson, M.D.; Theobald, D.M.; 

Eley, M.; Dechter, M. 2005b. Forests on the edge: a GISbased approach to projecting housing development on 

private forests. [CD-ROM]. In: Aguirre-Bravo, C.;

Pellicane, P.J.; Burns, D.P.; Draggan, S., eds. Proceedings:

monitoring science and technology symposium: unifying

knowledge for sustainability in the Western Hemisphere.

RMRS-P-37CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station.

Stynes, D.J.; White, E. 2005. Spending profiles of 

national forest visitors, NVUM four-year report. 44 p.

www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

NVUM4YrSpending.pdf. (24 August 2006).

Tarrant, M.A.; Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.T. 2003. PVF: a scale

to measure public values of forests. Journal of Forestry.

101(6): 24–30.

Theobald, D.M. 2001. Land use dynamics beyond the 

American urban fringe. Geographical Review. 91: 544–564.

Theobald, D.M. 2004a. bhc2000 v.1. Environmental Systems 

Research Institute (ESRI) raster digital data. On file with:

David M. Theobald, Natural Resource Ecology Lab,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

Theobald, D.M. 2004b. bhc2030 v.1. Environmental Systems 

Research Institute (ESRI) raster digital data. On file with:

David M. Theobald, Natural Resource Ecology Lab,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth 

in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society. 

10(1): 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/.

(13 September 2006). 

Tynon, J.F.; Chavez, D.J. 2006. Crime in national forests: a 

call for research. Journal of Forestry. 104(3): 154–157.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2000a. Environmental Systems Research

Institute (ESRI) shapefile. Geospatial Service and

Technology Center. http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/

feis/data/gis/coverages/nfsland_us_dd.zip. (06 April 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2000b. Water and the Forest Service. FS660. Washington, DC: Policy and Analysis Section. 40 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2003a. Final environmental impact statement—interface recreation trails. Calaveras County, CA:

Calaveras Ranger District. 195 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2003b. Urban national forests: special

places for millions of people. On file with: Cooperative

Forestry, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC

20250. 71 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2004a. Find national forests and grasslands. [Interactive map]. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/

map/finder.shtml. (28 August 2006). 
24

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2004b. National forest visitor use monitoring program—national project results—January 2000

through September 2003. 12 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/national_report_final_draft.pdf. 

(03 August 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2005a. FY 1905–2005 annual national

sold and harvest summary. Washington, DC: Forest

Management. 2 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2005b. Land area report. 2005.

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR05/index.html. 

(13 September 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2006a. Cooperating across boundaries:

partnerships to conserve open space in rural America.

Washington, DC. 51 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2006b. Four threats to the health of our

nation’s forests and grasslands. http://www.fs.fed.us/

projects/four-threats/. (05 April 2007).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

Forest Service]. 2006c. Huron-Manistee National

Forests—final environmental impact statement to accompany the 2006 land and resource management plan.

Cadillac, MI. 366 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [U.S. Census

Bureau]. 2001a. Census 2000 Summary file 1, technical

documentation. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [U.S. 

Census Bureau]. 2001b. Census 2000 Summary file 1.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [U.S. Census

Bureau]. 2001c. Summary file 3, dataset. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [U.S. Census

Bureau]. 2004. U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race,

and Hispanic origin. www.census.gov/ipc/www/

usinterimproj/. (03 April 2007).

Whittaker, M. 2006 (26 July). Rangers take on urban woes in 

wide open spaces. New York: New York Times.

Yates, E.D.; Levia, D.F., Jr.; Williams, C.L. 2004.

Recruitment of three non-native invasive plants into a 

fragmented forest in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and

Management. 190: 119–130.

Yoder, J.K. 2002. Damage abatement and compensation 

programs as incentives for wildlife management on private

land. In: Clark, L.; Hone, J.; Shivik, J.A.; Watkins, R.A.;

Vercauteren, K.C.; Yoder, J.K., eds. Human conflicts with

wildlife: economic considerations—proceedings of the third

NWRC special symposium. Fort Collins, CO: National

Wildlife Research Center: 17–28. 

Zipperer, W.C. 2002. Urban influences on forests. In: Human 

influences on forest ecosystems: the southern wildlandurban interface assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-55.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station: 73–91.
25

APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

National Forests on the Edge projected development of rural 

private lands within three distances of national forests and

grasslands in the conterminous United States. The projections

were made for private lands surrounding external forest and

grassland boundaries, defined here as the outer boundary within

which a national forest or grassland was established (referred 

to as “proclamation” boundaries for some forests). Internal

boundaries distinguish lands actually managed by the federal

government as national forests and grasslands from private

lands or “inholdings” found within external boundaries.

External boundaries were used for this study because there 

is no national-level geospatial database of private land located

within national forest and grassland external boundaries.

The housing density categories used for this study are identical 

to those in the first Forests on the Edge report (Stein et al.

2005a, 2005b). However, the terms used have been changed

slightly: 

• Rural I (lands with 16 or fewer housing units per square

mile). 

• Rural II (17 to 64 housing units per square mile).

• Exurban/urban (65 or more housing units per 

square mile). 

• Private land is defined to include all lands not classified 

as public by the Protected Areas Database (described 

further below).

• Increase in housing density was defined to mean shifts

from rural I to rural II or from either rural category to 

the exurban/urban category, based on the projected 

increase in the number of housing units per unit area

between 2000 and 2030. 

Housing Density Projections

Housing density projections were based on past, current, and 

projected statistics on housing density and population, road 

density data, past growth patterns, locations of urban areas, and

other factors that were used in analyses for the first Forests on

the Edge report (Stein et al. 2005a, 2005b; Theobald 2005). 

Housing density was estimated by first drawing from historical 

and current housing densities at a fine grain to examine spatial

patterns of development. Using the historical and current housing density patterns as data inputs, a projection (simulation)

model of future housing density patterns to 2030 was developed

based on county-level population projections generated by NPA

Data Services, Inc. (2003).

Nationwide estimates of population and housing density were 

computed from the U.S. Department of Commerce Census

Bureau’s block-group and block data for 2000 (U.S. Census

Bureau 2001a). To estimate current housing density patterns,

housing densities were computed by using dasymetric (density

measurement) mapping techniques described in detail in 

previous work (Theobald 2001). Essentially, blocks were refined

by using public land information and water polygons (from

Census Bureau). Public land information was derived from the

Protected Areas Database (PAD) (DellaSala et al. 2001), v.2—

an ArcInfo polygon coverage compiled by the Conservation

Biology Institute (CBI). The PAD contains boundaries of most

federal and state owned/managed protected areas in the conterminous United States and Alaska, and includes county, city, and

private reserves where data are available. Portions of census

blocks found on public land were removed, as were portions of

blocks identified as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. 

Based on these refined census block geographies, the number 

of housing units per block, obtained from the 100 percent data

from the 2000 Census Summary Tape File 1 (U.S. Census

Bureau 2001b), were allocated throughout the refined blocks.

The allocation of housing density is weighted to reflect the

probable heterogeneity of the placement of houses that are more

likely to be located near roads and less likely in portions of

blocks distant (greater than about 1 km [0.62 mi]) from roads;

the weighting is based on road density (computed using an 

800-m [2,624-ft] radius moving neighborhood). 

Road density was classified into four arbitrary categories that 

distinguished different levels of development: very low (0.0 to

0.25 km/km2 [0.0 to 0.15 mi/mi2]), low (0.25 to 1.0 km/km2

[0.15 to 0.62 mi/mi2]), medium (1.0 to 5.0 km/km2 [0.62 to 3.1

mi/mi2]), and high (greater than 5.0 km/km2 [3.1 mi/mi2]).

Weights of 1, 2, 3, and 4 were assigned to very low to high

(respectively) levels of development and were used to allocate

housing density values to cells within a block. Housing density

estimates for 1990 were generated from the “Year Housing

Built” question from the sample data Summary File 3 data set

(U.S. Census Bureau 2001c). These data are provided at the

block-group level and were adjusted to ensure that the sum of

units by block groups in a county equaled the counts from

decadal census by using established methods (Hammer et al.

2004, Radeloff et al. 2001, Theobald 2001).

The Spatially Explicit Regional Growth Model (SERGoM ) v1 

(Theobald 2005) was used to model the full urban-to-rural spectrum of housing densities. It uses a supply-demand-allocation

approach and assumes that future growth patterns will be similar

to those found in the past decade. Four basic steps were used in

SERGoM v1 to project future patterns on a decadal basis. 

First, the number of new housing units in the next decade was 

forced to meet the demanded quantity associated with the projected county-level population. Population growth was converted to new housing units by the county-specific housing unit per

population ratio for 2000. Population estimates were obtained

from a demographic-econometric model (NPA Data Services

2003). 

Second, a location-specific average growth rate from the previous to current time step (e.g., 1990 to 2000) was computed for

each of four density classes: urban, suburban, exurban, and
26

rural. These growth rates were computed for each 100-m [328-

ft] cell, using a moving neighborhood (radius = 1.6 km [.9936

mi]) that allows within-county heterogeneity and cross-county

and state boundary growth patterns to be captured. Also, new

housing units were spatially allocated based on these locally

determined growth rates, which assumes that areas of future

growth are likely to be near current high growth areas or “hot

spots.”

Third, the distribution of new housing units was adjusted 

according to accessibility to the nearest urban core area. That is,

urbanization and conversion to urban and exurban land use typically occurs at locations that are nearer to urban core areas but

that are on the fringe where land is undeveloped. Accessibility

is computed in terms of minutes of travel time from urban core

areas as one would travel along the main transportation network

(major roads and highways). An urban core area is defined here

as a contiguous cluster larger than 100 hectares (247 acres) at

urban housing density. The distribution of housing density was

then adjusted by creating a weight surface based on travel time

from urban areas and was used to modify the location of new

housing units computed in the first step. 

Fourth, the new housing density was added to the current housing density, which makes the assumption that housing density

does not decline over time, which is reasonable to represent 

patterns of expansion in suburban and exurban areas but may

underrepresent areas that are in fact declining in housing density through urban decay or expansion of commercial land use

into residential areas.

Analysis Procedures

A raster layer of projected changes in housing density (100 m 

by 100 m [328 ft by 328 ft]) was created from spatial layers of

year 2000 and projected year 2030 housing densities (Theobald

2004a, 2004b, 2005). A cross-walk table was developed to

translate the change categories in the raster layer to the housing

density category changes considered in this report (i.e., rural I to

rural II, either rural to exurban/urban). 

Based on a spatial database of National Forest System lands 

(USDA Forest Service 2000a), buffer polygons were created 

for three distances from the external boundaries of individual

administrative national forests: 0 to 2 mile, 2 mile to 3 miles,

and 3 to 10 miles. Owing to the existence of disconnected forest

parcels that are administered by the same national forest, some

buffers overlapped within individual national forests. These

overlapping buffers were dissolved. As a result of the shape and

arrangement of the forest parcels, each national forest typically

had several hundred forest buffer polygons. The buffers of adjacent national forests that overlapped one another were identified

but not dissolved. 

Using the projected change raster layer, the numbers of private 

land acres were tabulated for all forest buffer polygons for the

following sets of changes: changes from rural I to rural II, from

either rural to exurban/urban, and those acres not changing

housing density classes. Forest-level estimates of the number of

acres changing and not changing housing density classes within

the three distances considered were constructed by summing the

tabulated acres of each forest buffer polygon for each administrative national forest. National-level results were computed by

summing across all forest buffer polygons within the distance

categories, after accounting for acres in forest buffer polygons

that overlapped between forests. Accounting for overlapping

forest buffers between forests avoids double counting of acres 

in the national-level results. 
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water,

forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and 

private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and national grasslands, it

strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing

Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable sex,

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation genetic information,

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
“Forests, farms, ranches, and other open spaces are 

being rapidly developed as more people are choosing to 

live at the urban fringe and in scenic, rural areas. 

This development is affecting our ability to manage 

the National Forests and Grasslands as well as our 

ability to help private landowners and communities 

manage their land for public benefits and 

ecosystem services.”

—Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell (2007)

Forests on the Edge, a project of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, aims 

to increase public understanding of the contributions of and pressures on America’s forests, and to create new tools for strategic planning. Our first report,

Forests on the Edge: Housing Development on America’s

Private Forests (Stein et al. 2005a), identified private

forested watersheds most likely to experience housing

development. This second report identifies national

forests and grasslands most likely to experience

increased housing density on rural private lands along

their borders.

Future studies will examine:

❈ Threats to private forest contributions—presenting 

data related to private forest benefits such as water

quality,timberland, and wildlife values, as well 

as threats such as development, fire, insects pest

and diseases; and air pollution.

❈ Detailed descriptions of top watersheds of concern.

❈ Development projections for private forest lands in 

Alaska, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and

the Pacific Islands.

For further information on Forests on the Edge, contact:

Susan Stein, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Cooperative Forestry staff, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW, Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250-1123.

(202) 205-0837. sstein@fs.fed.us.

http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/

FORESTS ON THE EDGE