Spatial Patterns of Land Cover

in the United States

A Technical Document Supporting

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment

Kurt H. Riitters
April 2011 

Southern Research Station

200 W. T. Weaver Blvd.

Ashville, NC 28804

The Author: 

Kurt H. Riitters, Research Ecologist, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Eastern Forest 

Environmental Threat Assessment Center, 3041 Cornwallis Road, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

Product Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
Spatial Patterns of Land Cover 

in the United States: 

A Technical Document 

Supporting the Forest Service 

2010 RPA Assessment

Kurt H. Riitters

iii

Contents

Page

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................ vi

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

 Land Cover Map ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

 Land Cover Patterns ................................................................................................................................................................. 9

 Notes on States and Counties ................................................................................................................................................. 17

Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

 Landscape Level Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

 Sector Level Statistics ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Literature Cited............................................................................................................................................................................ 64
iv

List of Tables

Page

Table 1—Definition of land cover legends used for the pattern analyses ........................................................................................ 5

Table 2—Percent of total area of eight generalized land cover types, national and by Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region .......................................................................................... 6

Table 3—Area density class definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4—Conversion of MSPA (morphological spatial pattern analysis) classes to structure classes .......................................... 16

Table 5—Land cover pattern metrics and measurement scales summarized at landscape and sector levels ................................ 17

Table 6—Forest area density, landscape level. Percent of total area in seven forest area density classes, 

for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) 

region and national ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Table 7—Grassland area density, landscape level. Percent of total area in seven grassland area density 

classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(RPA) region and national .............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 8—Shrubland area density, landscape level. Percent of total area in seven shrubland area density 

classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(RPA) region and national .............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Table 9—Landscape mosaic background, landscape level. Percent of total area in four landscape 

background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 10—Forest area density, forest sector level. Percent of total forest area in six forest area density 

classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(RPA) region and national .............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Table 11—Grassland area density, grassland sector level. Percent of total grassland area in six grassland 

area density classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .......................................................................................................................... 32

Table 12—Shrubland area density, shrubland sector level. Percent of total shrubland area in six shrubland 

area density classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .......................................................................................................................... 33

Table 13—Landscape mosaic background, forest sector level. Percent of total forest area in four 

background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .......................................................................................................................... 38

Table 14—Landscape mosaic background, grassland sector level. Percent of total grassland area in four 

background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .......................................................................................................................... 39

Table 15—Landscape mosaic background, shrubland sector level. Percent of total shrubland area in four 

background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .......................................................................................................................... 40
v

Table 16—Landscape mosaic interface zones, forest sector level. Percent of total forest area in three types 

of developed and three types of agriculture interface classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .................................................................... 45

Table 17—Landscape mosaic interface zones, grassland sector level. Percent of total grassland area in 

three types of developed and three types of agriculture interface classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region 46 and national ............................................. 46

Table 18—Landscape mosaic interface zones, shrubland sector level. Percent of total shrubland area in 

three types of developed and three types of agriculture interface classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .................................................. 47

Table 19—Forest structure. Percent of total forest area in six structure classes, for four edge widths, by 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national .................................................. 56

Table 20—Grassland structure. Percent of total grassland area in six structure classes, for four edge 

widths, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national ................................. 57

Table 21—Shrubland structure. Percent of total shrubland area in six structure classes, for four edge 

widths, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national ................................. 58

Page
vi

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1—Generalized land cover map of the United States, 2001. ............................................................................................... 3

Figure 2—Five Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) assessment regions 

used to summarize land cover pattern metrics. ................................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 3—State and county (or equivalent) boundaries of the United States. ................................................................................. 4

Figure 4—Preparation of input maps for pattern measurements; see text for explanation. Fort Collins, 

CO at lower right. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 5—Percent of forest, grassland, and shrubland within each State. States are sorted in descending 

order separately for each land cover type. ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 6—Percent of total county area with forest, grassland, shrubland, agriculture, and 

developed land cover. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 7—Relative sizes for five of the six neighborhoods used to measure the area density and landscape 

mosaic metrics. The largest neighborhood size (118,000 acres) is nine times greater than the largest 

neighborhood shown. Fort Collins, CO at lower right. .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 8—Forest area density classifications using two neighborhood sizes at landscape and sector levels; 

see text for explanation. ................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 9—Landscape mosaic classification model; see text for explanation. Inset shows colors used to 

render maps of landscape mosaics. ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 10—Landscape mosaic classifications using two neighborhood sizes at landscape and sector levels; 

see text for explanation. ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 11—Simplifications of the landscape mosaic classification model used to identify four landscape 

background classes (top), three developed interface classes (center), and three agriculture interface classes 

(bottom); see text for explanation. ................................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 12—Forest structure classifications using two edge widths at sector level; see text for explanation. ............................... 18

Figure 13—Percent of total State area in seven forest area density classes for neighborhood sizes of 37.6 

acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest (see fig. 5). ..................................... 24

Figure 14—Percent of total State area in seven grassland area density classes for neighborhood sizes of 

37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent grassland (see fig. 5). ....................... 25

Figure 15—Percent of total State area in seven shrubland area density classes for neighborhood sizes of 

37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent shrubland (see fig. 5). ....................... 26

Figure 16—Percent of total county area in both the intact or interior area density classes in 1,460-acre 

neighborhoods for forest area density (top), grassland area density (middle), and shrubland area density (bottom). .................. 27

Figure 17—Percent of total State area in four landscape background classes for neighborhood sizes of 

37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted alphabetically. ..................................................................................... 29

Figure 18—Percent of total county area in the natural, agriculture, developed, and mixed landscape 

background classes for a 1,460-acre neighborhood size. ............................................................................................................... 30

Figure 19—Percent of total forest area in each State in six forest area density classes for neighborhood 
vii

sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest 

(fig. 5). Compare to figure 13. ....................................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 20—Percent of total grassland area in each State in six grassland area density classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 14. .......................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 21—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in six shrubland area density classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 15. .......................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 22—Percent of total forest, grassland, or shrubland area in the intact or interior area density 

classes in 1,460-acre neighborhoods for forest area density (top), grassland area density (middle), and 

shrubland area density (bottom). Compare to figure 16. ............................................................................................................... 37

Figure 23—Percent of total forest area in each State in four landscape background classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent forest (fig. 5). Compare to figure 18. ................................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 24—Percent of total grassland area in each State in four landscape background classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 18. ........................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 25—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in four landscape background classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 18. .......................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 26—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in the 

mixed landscape mosaic background class in 1,460-acre neighborhoods. .................................................................................... 44

Figure 27—Percent of total forest area in each State in three developed interface zones for neighborhood 

sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest (fig. 5). ...................... 48

Figure 28—Percent of total grassland area in each State in three developed interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5). ............................................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 29—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in three developed interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5). .............................................................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 30—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in a 

developed interface zone in 1,460-acre neighborhoods; the developed interface zone includes the 

developed-dominant and developed-subdominant interface zones. .............................................................................................. 51

Figure 31—Percent of total forest area in each State in three agriculture interface zones for neighborhood 

sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest (fig. 5). ...................... 52

Figure 32—Percent of total grassland area in each State in three agriculture interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5). ............................................................................................................................................................... 53

Page
viii

Figure 33—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in three agriculture interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5). .............................................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 34—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in an 

agriculture interface zone in 1,460-acre neighborhoods; the agriculture interface zone includes the 

agriculture-dominant and agriculture-subdominant interface zones. ............................................................................................. 55

Figure 35—Percent of total forest area in each State in six structure classes for edge widths of 98 feet 

(left) and 787 feet (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest (fig. 5). .......................................................... 59

Figure 36—Percent of total grassland area in each State in six structure classes for edge widths of 98 feet 

(left) and 787 feet (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent grassland (fig. 5). .................................................... 60

Figure 37—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in six structure classes for edge widths of 98 feet 

(left) and 787 feet (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent shrubland (fig. 5). ................................................... 61

Figure 38—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in the 

connector structure class for a 787-foot edge width. ..................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 39—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in the 

islet structure class for a 787-foot edge width. .............................................................................................................................. 63

Page
The inventory statistics in this report were prepared to 

support the 2010 RPA Assessment. Many environmental 

processes are affected by, or depend on, the spatial 

arrangement of land cover. RPA land cover pattern 

assessments have focused solely on the role of pattern as a 

modifier of wildlife habitat quality, but land cover patterns 

are of interest for many other reasons. Society is informed 

of landscape changes through headline indicators of 

urban sprawl and forest fragmentation. In spatial ecology, 

the pattern-process hypothesis implies that many other 

ecological processes and biophysical phenomena 

depend on land cover patterns. Land cover patterns 

partly determine the available spectrum of recreation 

opportunities, and land-use planners often consider land 

cover patterns as they define “sense of place.” Resource 

managers need to know where to manage what types 

of land cover in order to produce a desired balance of 

ecological goods and services.

There has been research on the specific causes or effects 

of land cover patterns in particular situations, but most 

of that information is either too limited in geographic 

extent or too detailed in ecological scope to form the basis 

of a national inventory of land cover patterns. Instead, 

a generic and extensible approach informed by specific 

research findings is required. A generic approach provides 

information that may be interpreted consistently across the 

Nation and in relation to more than one socio-ecological 

process or resource management question. An extensible 

approach retains flexibility, enabling users to expand or 

add to the capabilities of the information according to 

local requirements. For example, other research results 

could be used to interpret nationally consistent statistics 

in particular situations, perhaps by combining national 

maps of land cover patterns with more detailed maps of 

local conditions (Riitters and others 2003). A generic 

and extensible approach to an inventory of land cover 

patterns promotes integrated landscape management by 

enabling common usage of the same information across 

disciplines and locations (Riitters and others 2000). It also 

permits rigorous evaluations of the tradeoffs or synergies 

involved in land cover pattern management. In a top-down 

Abstract

Land cover patterns inventoried from a national land cover map provide 

information about the landscape context and fragmentation of the Nation’s 

forests, grasslands, and shrublands. This inventory is required to quantify, 

map, and evaluate the capacities of landscapes to provide ecological goods 

and services sustainably. This report documents the procedures to inventory 

and summarize land cover composition, juxtaposition, and structure as 

exhibited at several measurement scales. National and regional results are 

summarized in tabular form, and representative statistics are illustrated in 

figures (for States) and maps (for counties). The baseline information in this 

inventory is a starting point for future analyses of landscape changes.

Keywords: Forest, fragmentation, grassland, inventory, land cover pattern, 

Resources Planning Act, shrubland. 

INTRODUCTION

In 1974, the U.S. Congress called for an assessment of the 

Nation’s renewable resources because reliable information 

was necessary to manage the resources properly and to 

inform policy decisions. This mandate is embodied in the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

(RPA) of 1974, P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 475, as amended. The 

need for reliable information continues, as does the need for 

a broad perspective that considers the social, economic, and 

ecological aspects of natural resource conditions, ecosystem 

health, and sustainability. This report addresses the RPA 

requirement for “an inventory...of present and potential 

renewable resources, and an evaluation of opportunities 

for improving their yield of tangible and intangible 

services....” The RPA requires a U.S. Department of 

Agriculture assessment every 10 years. The 2010 RPA 

Assessment provides a snapshot of current U.S. forest 

and rangeland conditions and trends on all ownerships, 

identifies drivers of change, and projects conditions 50 

years into the future. Included in the 2010 RPA Assessment 

are analyses of the status and trends of recreation, water, 

timber, wildlife, and range resources as well as land use 

change, climate change, and urban forestry.

Spatial Patterns of Land Cover 

in the United States: 

A Technical Document Supporting 

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment

Kurt H. Riitters
2

Introduction

The primary data used for this report comes from a national 

land cover map (fig. 1), circa 2001, from the National Land 

Cover Database (NLCD) (Homer and others 2004, 2007). 

The NLCD map is a product of an ongoing Federal effort 

to map land cover and other biophysical attributes of the 

United States periodically, consistently, and across the 

Nation. An upcoming update of the NLCD for the year 2006 

supports analysis of trends in a future RPA assessment.1

Unlike a sample-based inventory or a compendium of 

local maps, a wall-to-wall national map such as the NLCD 

supports a complete census of land cover patterns in a 

consistent way nationwide. 

NLCD definitions of land cover types may differ from 

other RPA definitions and, as a result, absolute area 

measurements from the NLCD map are not comparable to 

other RPA area estimates. To discourage such comparisons, 

the statistics in this report are expressed in terms of 

percentages of total areas as defined by the NLCD map. 

Sampling errors are not reported here because the inventory 

was a complete census. Land cover labeling errors on the 

NLCD map are translated to measurement errors when 

measuring patterns on that map.

This inventory used three basic pattern metrics to describe 

the spatial patterns and landscape context of forests, 

grasslands, and shrublands. The “area density” and “land 

cover structure” metrics are used to evaluate the occurrence 

of each of those land cover types in relation to itself 

(i.e., to each type), thereby describing attributes such as 

fragmentation, dominance, edge abundance, and patchiness. 

A third metric called “landscape mosaic” is used to evaluate 

the juxtaposition of anthropogenic and natural land cover, 

thereby describing the landscape context within which 

those three land cover types were found, e.g., the context 

of a forest-urban interface. Each measurement was taken at 

several measurement scales for the following reasons: land 

cover patterns are naturally scale-dependent; there is no 

optimum measurement scale; and patterns as exhibited at 

different measurement scales are all potentially meaningful. 

In addition, how a given pattern metric changes with 

measurement scale may also be interpreted with respect to 

a different aspect of pattern (Riitters 2005) or the range of 

scales over which certain types of patterns exist (Zurlini and 

others 2007). Statistics derived from the three metrics were 

then summarized nationally and by RPA region (fig. 2), with 

examples shown by State and by county (fig. 3).

framework for resource management, a national inventory 

is suitable for regional and national applications and is not 

expected to answer local questions in detail.

The focus of this inventory is on land cover pattern 

itself, and not on pattern as a cause or consequence of 

some other environmental attribute. One reason is that 

information about pattern itself is needed to inform 

resource management questions about the current 

locations of different types of patterns, opportunities for 

restoring natural patterns, or mitigating effects caused by 

undesirable patterns. The second reason is that reliable 

measurement of pattern itself is prerequisite to interpreting 

the causes or consequences of pattern (Bogaert 2003). 

Apart from the specific consequences of pattern, the 

physical structure of land cover constrains a landscape’s 

capacity to sustain ecological goods and services 

(Burkhard and others 2009, O’Neill and others 1997), 

and it may indicate future landscape transformations 

(Riitters and others 2009a). For example, the existence 

of agriculture juxtaposed with forest in a given landscape 

limits the capacity of that landscape to provide amenities 

associated with intact forest. While the presence of intact 

forest does not by itself guarantee that such amenities will 

be realized, the absence of intact forest certainly precludes 

their realization. A national inventory of land cover 

patterns helps in identifying constraints, opportunities, and 

tradeoffs for improving the yield of socio-ecological goods 

and services.

Previous national assessments of land cover patterns for the 

RPA focused solely on forest land cover. Those assessments 

indicated that forest was usually the dominant land cover 

type where it occurred and was typically close to other 

forest, but also that fragmentation was so pervasive that 

the majority of forest land was at risk from edge effects 

extending only 100 m from forest edge (Riitters and others 

2002, 2004b). The importance of anthropogenic land use 

as a cause of fragmentation is clear in the pervasiveness of 

roads (Riitters and Wickham 2003) and in the concentration 

of the least-fragmented forest in public ownership (e.g., 

large parks and public forests) and remote locations 

(Heilman and others 2002, Riitters and others 2004a). The 

observed geographic variation in the proximate causes, 

types, and scales of fragmentation implies substantial 

geographic variation in the mechanisms of actual impacts 

from fragmentation (Riitters and Coulston 2005, Wade 

2004, Wade and others 2003). For this report, the inventory 

of land cover patterns was extended to include the 

shrubland and grassland land cover types as well as new 

measures of landscape patterns not specific to one land 

cover type.

1

 Wickham and others (2008) assessed temporal trends of forest patterns by 

using forest maps derived from the 1992 and 2001 NLCD maps, but those 

maps are not strictly comparable to the original 2001 NLCD land cover map 

that is used here.
3

Introduction

0 250 500

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

Generalized

Land Cover

Water, Ice

Developed

Barren

Forest

Shrubland

Grassland

Agriculture

Wetland

0 100 200

Miles

0 300 600

Miles

AK

PR HI

Figure 1—Generalized land cover map of the United States, 2001.
4

Introduction

Pacific

Coast

Alaska

Rocky Mountain

North

South

Figure 2—Five Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) assessment regions used to 

summarize land cover pattern metrics.

AK

PR HI

County or equivalent

Figure 3—State and county (or equivalent) boundaries of the United States.
5

Figure 4B illustrates the three-class legend, which highlights 

the developed and agriculture land cover types in relation to 

natural, i.e., neither agriculture nor developed, land cover 

types. Maps that show only one of the eight generalized land 

cover types identify shrubland (fig. 4C), grassland (fig. 4D), 

or forest (fig. 4E). 

The patterns of any land cover type are influenced by the 

absolute amount of that land cover type that is present (e.g., 

if a given area is completely grassland, then the grassland 

pattern cannot be fragmented and conversely, if it contains 

only a small amount of grassland, then that grassland is 

more likely to appear fragmented). The percent of total 

area covered by the eight generalized land cover types is 

summarized nationally and by RPA region in table 2. The 

majority of States contain at least 20 percent forest land 

cover, but fewer than 15 States contain more than 20 percent 

grassland or shrubland land cover, and three States (the 

District of Columbia, Delaware, and Maryland) contain no 

grassland and no shrubland land cover (fig. 5). Similarly, 

pattern metrics describing proximity to anthropogenic 

land cover types depend on the presence of agriculture or 

developed land cover types. For example, there cannot be 

any agriculture-grassland interface if there is no agriculture 

land cover. The national picture of large and distinct regions 

dominated by forest, grassland, shrubland, or agriculture 

(fig. 1) is mirrored by maps of the county-level percents of 

those land cover types (fig. 6).

METHODS

Land Cover Map

The 2001 NLCD land cover map (Homer and others 2004, 

2007) covers the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico (hereafter, all are referred to as States). It has 

a spatial resolution of 0.09 ha (0.22 acres) per pixel. The 

original NLCD map legend identifies 16 land cover types 

(table 1) with a minimum mapping unit of five pixels (0.45 

ha; 1.11 acres). The analyses of the NLCD map included 

adjacent ocean water area, but the map extent was limited to 

the boundaries of detailed State maps (ESRI 2005) (fig. 1) 

when preparing data summaries. The accuracy assessment 

of the 2001 NLCD has been reported in detail elsewhere 

(Wickham and others 2010).

The NLCD map legend was generalized to an eight-class 

legend and a three-class legend (table 1) for analyses. The 

eight-class legend was used to distinguish forest, grassland, 

and shrubland from other types of land cover. The threeclass legend was used to implement the landscape mosaic 

measurements. An example map near Fort Collins, CO, (fig. 

4) illustrates the different versions of the map legend. In 

the eight-class legend (fig. 4A), the northwest part of Fort 

Collins is represented by the large developed region, and the 

map extends west through agricultural, grassland/shrubland, 

and forest regions as the topography (not shown) extends 

from relatively flat ground through foothills to mountains. 

Table 1—Definition of land-cover legends used for the pattern analyses 

NLCD legenda Eight-class legend Three-class legend 

Water Water Natural 

Perennial ice/snow Water Natural 

Developed, open space Developed Developed 

Developed, low intensity Developed Developed 

Developed, medium intensity Developed Developed 

Developed, high intensity Developed Developed 

Barren land (rock/sand/clay) Barren Natural 

Deciduous forest Forest Natural 

Evergreen forest Forest Natural 

Mixed forest Forest Natural 

Shrub/scrub Shrubland Natural 

Grassland/herbaceous Grassland Natural 

Pasture/hay Agriculture Agriculture 

Cultivated crops Agriculture Agriculture 

Woody wetlands Forest Natural 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands Wetland Natural 

a

 Homer and others 2007.
6

Methods

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 

Table 2—Percent of total area of eight generalized land cover types, national and by Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region 

RPA region Water Developed Barren Forest Shrubland Grassland Agriculture Wetland 

------------------------------------------------------------------Percent------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

Alaska 8.9 0.1 8.4 29.0 43.1 7.3 < 0.1 3.3 

North 2.6 8.9 0.2 42.6 1.2 2.0 40.9 1.6 

Pacific Coast 1.3 5.2 3.3 32.3 37.3 9.1 10.8 0.6 

Rocky Mountain 1.1 2.1 1.9 16.3 33.9 27.3 16.8 0.7 

South 2.2 7.1 0.4 39.2 15.2 11.0 23.2 1.8 

National 2.9 4.5 2.4 30.1 25.2 13.8 19.5 1.6 

Water, Ice

Developed

Barren

Forest

Shrubland

Grassland

Agriculture

Wetland

Natural

Developed

Agriculture

Nonshrubland

Shrubland

Nongrassland

Grassland

Nonforest

Forest

A

C

B

D

E

0 5

Miles

Figure 4—Preparation of input maps for pattern measurements; see text for 

explanation. Fort Collins, CO at lower right.
7

Methods

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Forest

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Grassland

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Shrubland

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total State area

Forest

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DC

DE

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total State area

Grassland

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DC

DE

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total State area

Shrubland

Figure 5—Percent of forest, grassland, and shrubland within each State. States are sorted in descending order separately for 

each land cover type.
8

Methods

Percent of

County Area

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Shrubland Land Cover

Grassland Land Cover

Forest Land Cover Agriculture Land Cover

Developed Land Cover

Figure 6—Percent of total county area with forest, grassland, shrubland, agriculture, and developed land cover. 
9

Methods

for forest, grassland, and shrubland, for each of the six 

neighborhood sizes, yielding a total of 18 national maps.

The mapped area density classes may be post-stratified or 

aggregated in different ways to answer different assessment 

questions. In this report, geographic stratifications 

were performed by aggregating pixel values nationally, 

within RPA regions, within States, and within counties. 

A landscape level summary includes all pixels within 

a geographic region, irrespective of the underlying 

land cover of those pixels. In some cases, a sector level 

summary was also prepared by selecting subsets of pixels 

according to their land cover type, i.e., their sector—forest, 

grassland, or shrubland. For example, forest area density 

values were summarized for all pixels in a State (landscape 

level) and for only the forest pixels in that State (sector 

level). The same measurement at a given location is used 

in both landscape level and sector level summaries, with 

the only difference whether a given location is included in 

a summary.

Figure 8 illustrates the area density measurements with 

a forest example. The input map (top left) was prepared 

by reclassifying the NLCD land cover as forest and 

nonforest land cover types. For this example, the moving 

neighborhood algorithm was applied with neighborhood 

sizes of 37.6 acres and 1,460 acres, yielding two landscape 

level maps (middle row), one for each neighborhood size. 

Two sector level maps (bottom row) were obtained by 

overlaying the forest map on the landscape level maps, 

retaining only the forest pixels. Note that the forest area 

density class “none” does not appear on the sector level 

map because every included pixel is a member of its own 

sector. For that reason, summaries of landscape level and 

sector level maps show seven and six area density classes, 

respectively. The examples in figure 8 also illustrate that 

the choice of neighborhood size serves to highlight either 

lower-frequency variance (larger neighborhood) or higherfrequency variance (smaller neighborhood) of forest area 

density; smaller neighborhood sizes are more robust to 

finer-scale forest patterns and larger neighborhoods are more 

robust to coarser-scale forest patterns. 

Landscape mosaic—Landscape mosaic is the classification 

of a location according to the relative proportions of 

agriculture, developed, and natural (i.e., all other) land cover 

types in a neighborhood surrounding that location (Riitters 

and others 2000, 2009a). The natural land cover type includes 

forest, grassland, shrubland, water, barren, and wetland 

land cover types (table 1) because the landscape mosaic 

classification model is designed to highlight the juxtaposition 

of anthropogenic (agriculture or developed) land cover in 

Land Cover Patterns

Three basic pattern metrics—area density, landscape mosaic, 

and land cover structure—were measured on the NLCD 

land cover map. This section describes how the metrics were 

calculated, mapped, and summarized.

Area density—Area density is the proportion of a fixedarea neighborhood surrounding a location which is a given 

land cover type. Area density was measured separately 

for the forest (forest area density), grassland (grassland 

area density), and shrubland (shrubland area density) land 

cover types. At each location, the measurements were 

made within six neighborhood sizes which define six 

measurement scales2

—10.9 acres, 37.6 acres, 162 acres, 

1,460 acres, 13,100 acres, and 118,000 acres (fig. 7). Area 

density was measured as a proportion and was converted 

to an ordered categorical variable as one of seven area 

density classes: intact, interior, dominant, transitional, 

patchy, rare, and none (table 3). Along the gradient from 

intact to none, there is less of the given land cover type 

within the given neighborhood size. The classification of 

a given location may change with neighborhood size as 

more or less of the surrounding area is considered.

The area density measurements were implemented with 

a moving (overlapping) neighborhood algorithm that 

created new maps of the area density classes. For a 

given neighborhood size, the process began by centering 

the neighborhood on a subject pixel of the land cover 

map, measuring area density in that neighborhood, and 

determining the area density class (table 3), which was 

stored in a new map at the location of the subject pixel. 

The neighborhood was then centered on the adjacent 

subject pixel for the next measurement. In other words, 

for each neighborhood size and land cover type, the area 

density surrounding each pixel is calculated and stored 

in a new map. After repeating that process for all subject 

pixels on the land cover map, the result was a national map 

of area density classes with the same pixel size as the land 

cover map. A pixel value on such a map represents the area 

density class in the neighborhood of that pixel, i.e., it is 

a measure of the context of that pixel, not the contents of 

that pixel. The entire procedure was repeated separately 

2

 Hereafter, neighborhood sizes are shown in acres with three significant 

digits. The exact neighborhood sizes in pixel dimensions and metric area 

units are: 7 pixels x 7 pixels or 4.410 ha (10.9 acres); 13 pixels x 13 pixels 

or 15.210 ha (37.6 acres); 27 pixels x 27 pixels or 65.610 ha (162 acres); 81 

pixels x 81 pixels or 590.490 ha (1,460 acres); 243 pixels x 243 pixels or 

5314.410 ha (13,100 acres), and; 729 pixels x 729 pixels or 47829.690 ha 

(118,000 acres).
10

Methods

Water, Ice

Developed

Barren

Forest

Shrubland

Grassland

Agriculture

Wetland

0 1 2 3 4 5

Miles

13,100

acres

1,460

acres

162

acres

37.6

acres

10.9

acres

Figure 7—Relative sizes for five of the six neighborhoods used to measure the area density and landscape 

mosaic metrics. The largest neighborhood size (118,000 acres) is nine times greater than the largest 

neighborhood shown. Fort Collins, CO, at lower right.

Table 3—Area density class definitions 

Area density class Area density (p) 

Intact p = 1.0 

Interior 0.9 ≤ p < 1.0 

Dominant 0.6 ≤ p < 0.9 

Transitional 0.4 ≤ p < 0.6 

Patchy 0.1 ≤ p < 0.4 

Rare 0.0 ≤ p < 0.1 

None p = 0.0 
11

Methods

Forest class

Forest

Nonforest

Forest area density class

Intact

Interior

Dominant

Transitional

Patchy

Rare

None

37.6 acre neighborhood

Landscape level

1,460 acre neighborhood

Landscape level

37.6 acre neighborhood

Forest sector level

1,460 acre neighborhood

Forest sector level

Figure 8—Forest area density classifications using two neighborhood sizes at landscape and sector levels; see text 

for explanation.
12

Methods

The input map (top) was prepared by converting the 

NLCD land cover map to a map of natural, developed, and 

agriculture land cover types (table 1). For this example, 

the moving neighborhood algorithm was applied with 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres and 1,460 acres, yielding 

two landscape level maps (middle row). Two sector level 

maps (bottom row) were obtained by overlaying the forestnonforest map (not shown; a subset of the natural pixels) on 

the landscape level maps, retaining only the forest pixels. 

Comparable sector level maps for grassland and shrubland 

would be obtained by overlaying maps of grassland and 

shrubland on the same landscape level maps, retaining only 

the grassland or shrubland pixels. The landscape mosaic 

classes DD and AA do not appear on a forest, grassland, or 

shrubland sector level map because every included location 

has at least one natural pixel (i.e., the location itself) in its 

neighborhood. Smaller neighborhood sizes are more robust 

to finer-scale patterns, and larger neighborhoods are more 

robust to coarser-scale patterns. 

relation to natural land cover. The landscape mosaic model 

extends the well-known concept of the wildland-urban 

interface (Radeloff and others 2005, Stewart and others 

2007) to other types of interfaces, using only a national land 

cover map as input data (Riitters and others 2000). 

Like the area density measurements, the landscape mosaic 

was measured with a moving neighborhood algorithm 

using the same neighborhood sizes to produce six 

national maps of the landscape mosaic metric (one for 

each neighborhood size). To classify landscape mosaic 

from the NLCD land cover map, the land cover legend 

was condensed to the three-class legend (table 1). The 

proportions of agriculture, developed, and natural land 

cover types were then measured in the neighborhood of 

a given pixel, and a tri-polar classification model3

 (fig. 9) 

was used to assign one of 19 landscape mosaic classes to 

that neighborhood. The assigned value was stored at the 

location of the given pixel, and a national map of landscape 

mosaic was obtained after repeating the process for all 

pixels on the NLCD land cover map. 

The nomenclature of the landscape mosaic legend is 

as follows: the letters D, A, and N refer to developed, 

agriculture, and natural, respectively. A letter appears in 

upper case if a neighborhood contains at least 60 percent 

of the corresponding land cover type, and in lower case if a 

neighborhood contains at least 10 percent but < 60 percent 

of that land cover type. A letter is absent if there is < 10 

percent of that land cover type. Double upper case letters 

indicate neighborhoods that contain 100 percent of one land 

cover type. For example, a neighborhood classified as Ad 

contains at least 60 percent but < 100 percent agriculture, 

and at least 10 percent but < 60 percent developed land 

cover. The inset in figure 9 shows the colors used to create 

maps of the landscape mosaic metric; the intensities of the 

red, green, and blue components of a color are related to 

the proportions of the developed (red), natural (green), and 

agricultural (blue) land cover types.

Landscape level summaries of landscape mosaic include 

every pixel in a geographic region, while sector level 

summaries include only pixels of a given land cover type. 

Both types of summaries were prepared nationally, by 

RPA region, by State, and by county. Figure 10 illustrates 

landscape mosaic mapping with a forest sector example. 

3

 The model is analogous to the ‘soil triangle’ classification model (Gee and 

Bauder 1986) by which soil texture is classified according to the fractions 

of sand, silt, and clay in a soil sample. Here, the measured proportions of 

agriculture, developed, and natural land cover in a neighborhood replace the 

proportions of sand, silt, and clay in a soil sample.

Natural

0 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Developed

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 ad

dn an

adn

Na

Nad

N

Nd

D

Dn

Da

Dan

A

An

Ad

Adn

NN

DD AA

Agriculture

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.0

Figure 9—Landscape mosaic classification model; see text for 

explanation. Inset shows colors used to render maps of landscape 

mosaics.
13

Methods

Land cover class

Natural

Developed

Agriculture

Land cover mosaic class

A

D

N

Ad

An

Dn

Da

Na

Nd

Adn

Dan

Nad

ad

an

dn

adn

NN

AA

DD

37.6 acre neighborhood

Landscape level

1,460 acre neighborhood

Landscape level

37.6 acre neighborhood

Forest sector level

1,460 acre neighborhood

Forest sector level

Figure 10—Landscape mosaic classifications using two neighborhood sizes at landscape and sector levels; see text 

for explanation.

The 19 landscape mosaic classes were combined in 

different ways to highlight several uses of the landscape 

mosaic information (fig. 11). Landscape mosaic was 

converted to landscape background by grouping the 19 

classes into four classes that indicate if the neighborhood 

is dominated by (i.e., contains at least 60 percent of) 

developed, agriculture, or natural land cover, or is not 

dominated by any of them (fig. 11, top). Landscape 

background is indicative of the types of anthropogenic 

influences (e.g., edge effects versus matrix effects) likely 

to operate in a given landscape (Riitters and others 2009b). 

Landscape mosaic was also converted to two versions 

of landscape interface by different groupings of the 19 

landscape mosaic classes. Three types of developed 

interface (fig. 11, middle) identify locations dominated by 

developed land cover (developed-dominant), or containing 
14

Methods

at least 10 percent but < 60 percent developed land cover 

(developed-subdominant), or containing < 10 percent 

developed land cover (developed-minor). Three types of 

agriculture interface (fig. 11, bottom) called agriculturedominant, agriculture-subdominant, and agricultureminor are analogous to developed interface. In the case 

of landscape interfaces, different neighborhood sizes are 

conceptually similar to different buffer distances (Stewart 

and others 2007).

Land cover structure—The land cover structure of a given 

location refers to the structural role that is played by that 

location in relation to nearby locations of the same land 

cover type. Land cover structure was measured separately 

for forest, grassland, and shrubland using the morphological 

spatial pattern analysis algorithm described by Soille and 

Vogt (2009) (see also Vogt and others 2007a, 2007b).4

The algorithm assigns each pixel of forest, grassland, or 

shrubland to one of 11 mutually exclusive structure classes 

(table 4), depending on the scale parameter of edge width 

(Soille and Vogt 2009). For each land cover type, the 

algorithm begins by identifying core structures as the subset 

of pixels of that land cover type that are more than the edge 

width distance away from a different land cover type. The 

remaining pixels are subdivided according to their location 

and connectedness with respect to core. The perforated 

pixels form interior perimeters (within core) and the edge 

pixels form exterior perimeters (around core). The connector 

pixels link different clusters of core and the islet pixels are 

not linked to core.

For this report, the measurements were made with four edge 

widths5

 which define four measurement scales: 98 feet, 197 

feet, 394 feet, and 787 feet. The structural role played by a 

given pixel may change with edge width (Ostapowicz and 

others 2008, Vogt and others 2007a) (e.g., a pixel may be 

core when edges are relatively narrow, but that same pixel 

may be part of a connector when edges are relatively wider). 

For this report, the 11 structure classes were combined 

into six classes (table 4): core, perforated, edge, connector, 

branch, and islet. These classes are useful in identifying 

structural phase transitions in dynamic landscapes (Riitters 

and others 2007).

Figure 12 illustrates land cover structure classification 

with a forest sector example. The input map (fig. 12, 

top) was prepared by converting the NLCD land cover 

map to a forest–nonforest map (table 1). In this example, 

the classification was performed with edge widths of 98 

feet (fig. 12, middle) and 787 feet (fig. 12, bottom). The 

examples show that increasing the edge width parameter 

reduces the amount of the core class, and may change the 

classification of the remaining forest pixels. A smaller edge 

width parameter is more robust to finer-scale patterns while 

larger parameter values are more robust to coarser-scale 

patterns. Unlike the area density and landscape mosaic 

Agriculture

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Natural

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Developed

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Natural

Agricultural

Developed

Mixed

Natural

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Developed

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Landscape Mosaic

Developed Interface

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Landscape Mosaic

Background

Agriculture

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

p

Developed-minor

Agriculture

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Natural

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Developed

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Landscape Mosaic

Agriculture Interface

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

Figure 11—Simplifications of the landscape mosaic classification 

model used to identify four landscape background classes (top), 

three developed interface classes (center), and three agriculture 

interface classes (bottom); see text for explanation.

4

 See also the URL http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/software/guidos 

for additional examples and documentation of the GUIDOS software. 5

 Hereafter the edge widths are rounded to the nearest foot. The exact edge 

widths (m) are: 30 m (98 feet); 60 m (197 feet); 120 m (394 feet), and 240 m 

(787 feet).
15

Methods

three agriculture interface classes). The land cover structure 

maps were produced and summarized at the sector level for 

the forest, grassland, and shrubland sectors. 

Notes on States and Counties

The 52 States referred to in this report include the 50 

actual States along with the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico. Since Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

and Maryland contained no grassland and no shrubland, 

the State sector level statistics for grassland and shrubland 

land cover patterns are missing for those States. This 

report recognized a total of 3,219 geographic units referred 

to as counties (fig. 3), including 3,007 true counties, 16 

boroughs and 11 census areas (in Arkansas), 64 parishes (in 

Louisiana), 78 Municipios (in Puerto Rico), a district (the 

District of Columbia), and 42 independent cities (one each 

in Maryland, Missouri, and Nevada, and 39 in Virginia). 

Four counties contained no forest land cover, 212 counties 

contained no grassland land cover, and 395 counties 

contained no shrubland land cover. In the sector level county 

maps shown in this report, the counties lacking a given 

cover-type are shown as missing counties.

metrics, the land cover structure metric is by definition 

a sector level metric because it only addresses a single 

land cover type. Sector level summaries were prepared 

nationally, by RPA region, by State, and by county.

Implementation summary—Table 5 summarizes the 

implementation of metrics for this report. Thirty-six national 

maps of land cover patterns were produced from the 2001 

NLCD land cover map, including: forest, grassland, and 

shrubland area density maps at six measurement scales 

(18 maps), landscape mosaic at six measurement scales 

(6 maps), and forest, grassland, and shrubland structure 

maps at four measurement scales each (12 maps). The 36 

derived maps are geographically comparable on a pixel 

by pixel basis with the NLCD map and with each other. 

The area density maps were summarized at landscape 

level (seven area density classes) by including every pixel 

in a defined geographic region, and at three sector levels 

(forest, grassland, and shrubland; six area density classes) 

by including only the pixels of a given land cover type. 

The landscape mosaic maps were summarized at landscape 

level (four landscape background classes) and at three 

sector levels (forest, grassland, shrubland; four landscape 

background classes, three developed interface classes, and 

Table 4—Conversion of MSPA (morphological spatial pattern analysis) classes to structure classes 

MSPA classa Structure class Descriptionb

Core Core Foreground pixels whose distance to the background is greater 

than the edge width 

Islet Islet Cluster of foreground pixels that is too small to contain core, 

and is not a connector or branch 

Perforation 

 Bridge in perforation 

 Loop in perforation 

Perforated The interior perimeter around a hole (inclusion) in a cluster of 

core pixels 

Edge 

 Bridge in edge 

 Loop in edge 

Edge The exterior perimeter around a cluster of core pixels 

Bridge 

 Loop 

Connector Cluster of pixels linking two or more edge pixels, or two or more 

perforated pixels 

Branch Branch Cluster of pixels connected to one edge pixel or one perforated 

pixel 

a

 Soille and Vogt (2009). 

b “Foreground” is the one analyzed land cover type (forest, grassland, or shrubland) and “background” is the complement 

of foreground; “edge width” is an analysis parameter.
16

Methods

Forest class

Forest

Nonforest

Forest structure

class

Nonforest

Branch

Edge

Islet

Core

Connector

Perforated

Edge width

98 feet

Edge width

787 feet

Figure 12—Forest structure classifications using two edge widths at sector 

level; see text for explanation.
17

Methods

Table 5—Land cover pattern metrics and measurement scales summarized at landscape 

and sector levels 

Metric 

Measurement 

scale units Landscape level Sector level 

Area density Neighborhood 

size 

Forest area density 

Grassland area density 

Shrubland area density 

Forest area density 

Grassland area density 

Shrubland area density 

Landscape 

mosaic 

Neighborhood 

size 

Landscape background Forest background 

Grassland background 

Shrubland background 

Forest-agriculture interface 

Forest-developed interface 

Grassland-agriculture interface 

Grassland-developed interface 

Shrubland-agriculture interface 

Shrubland-developed interface 

Land cover 

structure 

Edge width Forest structure 

Grassland structure 

Shrubland structure 
18

11), and shrubland area in six shrubland area density classes 

(table 12) is shown for six neighborhood sizes. Comparable 

statistics for neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres and 1,460 

acres are shown by State for forest (fig. 19), grassland (fig. 

20), and shrubland (fig. 21). The percent of forest, grassland, 

or shrubland area that is either intact or interior area density 

may help in identifying regions where the current land cover 

is relatively unfragmented, considering the amount of a land 

cover that is present. Figure 22 illustrates the percent of total 

forest, grassland, or shrubland area within a county that is 

either intact or interior forest, grassland, and shrubland for a 

neighborhood size of 1,460 acres (compare to figure 16).

Landscape background—Tables 13, 14, and 15 show the 

national and regional percent of total forest, grassland, and 

shrubland area, respectively, in four landscape background 

classes for six neighborhood sizes. Comparable State 

statistics are shown for neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres and 

1,460 acres in figure 23 (forest), figure 24 (grassland), and 

figure 25 (shrubland). The percent of a given land cover type 

that is in the mixed background class may help in identifying 

regions with high proportions of current forest, grassland, 

and shrubland in landscapes undergoing transitions from 

natural to anthropogenic dominance; figure 26 illustrates 

the county percent of total forest, grassland, and shrubland 

area that is in the mixed landscape background class for a 

neighborhood size of 1,460 acres.

Landscape interfaces—Tables 16, 17, and 18 contain the 

national and regional percent of total forest, grassland, and 

shrubland area, respectively, in three developed interface 

classes and three agriculture interface classes, for six 

neighborhood sizes. Note that a given location is in both a 

developed interface and an agriculture interface; the row 

totals are 100 percent within each type of interface. 

The State percent of forest (fig. 27), grassland (fig. 28), 

and shrubland (fig. 29) in three developed interface classes 

is shown for neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres and 1,460 

acres. The percent of those land cover types in either the 

developed-dominant or developed-subdominant classes may 

help to identify counties with high fractions of the existing 

forest, grassland, and shrubland in a developed interface 

zone; figure 30 illustrates those county percents for a 

neighborhood size of 1,460 acres. 

The State percent of forest (fig. 31), grassland (fig. 32), 

and shrubland (fig. 33) in three agriculture interface classes 

is shown for neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres and 1,460 

acres. The percent of those land cover types in either the 

agriculture-dominant or agriculture-subdominant classes 

may help in identifying counties with high fractions of the 

RESULTS

Landscape Level Statistics

The landscape level statistics for the area density and 

landscape background metrics describe land cover patterns 

in terms of the total area within geographic strata. National 

and regional results are presented in tabular form for all six 

neighborhood sizes (measurement scales). Representative 

statistics are illustrated by State in stacked bar charts for the 

37.6-acre and 1,460-acre neighborhood sizes, and by county 

in maps for the 1,460-acre neighborhood size.

Area density—The national and regional percent of 

total area in seven area density classes is shown for six 

neighborhood sizes in table 6 (forest), table 7 (grassland), 

and table 8 (shrubland). The comparable State results for 

37.6-acre and 1,460-acre neighborhood sizes are illustrated 

in figure 13 (forest), figure 14 (grassland), and figure 15 

(shrubland). The percent of total area that is either intact 

or interior area density may help in identifying regions 

containing large tracts of relatively unfragmented land 

cover; figure 16 illustrates the percent of total county area 

characterized as either intact or interior for forest, grassland, 

and shrubland for a neighborhood size of 1,460 acres.

Landscape background—Table 9 shows the national and 

regional percent of total area in four landscape background 

classes for six neighborhood sizes. The comparable State 

statistics are shown in figure 17 for neighborhood sizes 

of 37.6 acres and 1,460 acres. Figure 18 illustrates the 

comparable percent of total county area in four landscape 

background classes for a neighborhood size of 1,460 acres.

Sector Level Statistics

The sector level statistics for the area density, landscape 

mosaic, and structure metrics describe forest, grassland, 

or shrubland as a fraction of the total area of each land 

cover type within geographic strata. National and regional 

results are presented in tabular form for six neighborhood 

sizes for the area density and landscape mosaic metrics, 

and four edge widths for the structure metrics. Comparable 

results by State are illustrated in stacked bar charts for two 

neighborhood sizes (37.6 acres and 1,460 acres) or two edge 

widths (98 feet and 787 feet). Selected aspects of pattern 

metrics are illustrated by county in maps for a neighborhood 

size of 1,460 acres or an edge width of 787 feet.

Area density—The national and regional percent of total 

forest area in six forest area density classes (table 10), 

grassland area in six grassland area density classes (table 
19

Results

a given land cover type that is in the connector class may 

help in identifying regions where management of existing 

movement pathways (corridors) is likely of concern, while 

islet class percent may help in identifying regions where 

management could be aimed at the formation of such 

pathways between isolated fragments of land cover. Figures 

38 and 39 illustrate the percent of total forest, grassland, and 

shrubland area within a county in the connector class and 

islet class, respectively, for a 787-foot edge width. 

existing forest, grassland, and shrubland in an agriculture 

interface zone; figure 34 illustrates those county percents for 

a neighborhood size of 1,460 acres. 

Land cover structure—The national and regional percent 

of total forest, grassland, and shrubland area in six structure

classes for four edge widths is shown in tables 19, 20, 

and 21, respectively. Comparable State statistics for edge 

widths of 98 feet and 787 feet are shown for forest (fig. 35), 

grassland (fig. 36), and shrubland (fig. 37). The percent of 
20

Results

Table 6—Forest area density, landscape level. Percent of total area in seven forest area density classes, for 

six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region 

and national 

Neighborhood 

size

Region None Rare Patchy Transitional Dominant Interior Intact

 -------------------------------------------Percent-------------------------------------------------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 55.0 4.0 9.7 5.0 8.1 4.2 14.0

North 35.3 5.3 13.1 7.1 12.7 6.1 20.5

Pacific Coast 53.3 3.1 8.2 5.0 9.9 5.0 15.4

Rocky Mountain 73.0 3.1 6.6 2.9 4.5 2.2 7.7

South 38.3 5.1 13.6 7.7 12.8 5.9 16.7

National 53.1 4.1 10.1 5.4 9.0 4.4 13.9

 

37.6 acres Alaska 48.7 8.6 11.0 5.7 10.3 6.8 8.9

North 25.6 10.8 16.7 8.8 16.2 10.1 11.9

Pacific Coast 48.4 6.0 9.4 5.9 12.9 8.5 8.8

Rocky Mountain 67.1 7.7 7.8 3.3 5.6 3.6 4.8

South 30.0 9.1 16.9 9.8 16.5 9.0 8.7

National 46.0 8.6 12.3 6.5 11.6 7.1 8.1

 

162 acres Alaska 41.1 14.0 12.6 6.7 12.6 9.2 3.7

North 15.1 16.1 20.8 10.9 19.8 13.1 4.1

Pacific Coast 42.9 9.4 10.5 6.9 16.4 10.9 2.9

Rocky Mountain 58.3 15.3 9.0 3.8 6.9 5.0 1.9

South 22.4 11.9 19.8 12.8 20.7 9.8 2.6

National 37.6 13.9 14.5 8.0 14.3 8.9 2.8

 

1,460 acres Alaska 33.4 18.5 15.0 8.6 15.6 8.7 0.3

North 7.0 18.7 25.5 13.2 24.2 11.3 0.2

Pacific Coast 36.6 13.0 11.9 8.2 21.1 9.0 0.1

Rocky Mountain 47.0 24.8 10.5 4.4 8.4 4.7 0.1

South 16.0 13.7 21.7 16.9 25.8 5.8 0.2

National 29.1 18.9 16.8 10.0 17.8 7.2 0.2

 

13,100 acres Alaska 27.1 21.3 18.1 10.4 17.6 5.4 0.0

North 3.2 18.7 28.9 14.1 27.7 7.3 0.0

Pacific Coast 30.4 16.5 13.8 9.9 24.8 4.7 0.0

Rocky Mountain 36.3 33.3 12.5 5.6 9.7 2.6 0.0

South 12.4 14.4 22.6 20.1 28.0 2.5 0.0

National 22.5 22.7 19.0 11.8 20.0 4.1 0.0

 

118,000 acres Alaska 21.3 23.2 22.4 12.3 18.2 2.5 0.0

North 0.8 18.5 31.8 14.7 30.5 3.9 0.0

Pacific Coast 22.8 19.0 18.8 12.1 26.1 1.2 0.0

Rocky Mountain 24.0 41.6 16.9 7.5 9.2 0.8 0.0

South 9.6 14.8 23.4 23.4 28.0 0.8 0.0

National 15.7 26.0 22.2 13.8 20.6 1.7 0.0

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures.
21

Results

Table 7—Grassland area density, landscape level. Percent of total area in seven grassland area density classes, 

for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region 

and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region None Rare Patchy Transitional Dominant Interior Intact

-----------------------------------------Percent------------------------------------------ 

10.9 acres Alaska 82.2 3.3 6.9 2.5 2.6 0.9 1.6

North 90.2 3.5 5.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1

Pacific Coast 78.1 4.2 8.2 2.9 3.3 1.1 2.2

Rocky Mountain 54.1 5.0 11.7 5.4 7.9 3.2 12.7

South 71.0 6.4 11.6 3.5 3.8 1.2 2.5

National 71.5 4.7 9.4 3.4 4.3 1.6 5.2

 

37.6 acres Alaska 76.7 8.2 7.8 2.6 2.9 1.0 0.7

North 82.2 11.6 5.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 70.0 11.2 9.9 3.1 3.5 1.3 1.1

Rocky Mountain 45.4 11.4 14.0 6.2 9.2 5.5 8.3

South 59.8 16.3 13.5 3.8 4.0 1.4 1.2

National 62.9 12.1 10.9 3.7 4.8 2.4 3.2

 

162 acres Alaska 69.2 14.6 9.1 2.9 3.1 0.9 0.2

North 67.1 27.3 5.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 57.5 22.0 12.1 3.2 3.4 1.4 0.4

Rocky Mountain 34.7 18.9 17.1 7.5 10.7 7.3 3.9

South 45.4 28.9 16.0 4.1 4.0 1.3 0.4

National 50.8 22.4 12.9 4.2 5.3 3.0 1.4

 

1,460 acres Alaska 62.2 20.5 10.6 3.2 3.0 0.5 0.0

North 48.6 47.0 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 42.2 35.7 14.7 3.3 3.1 1.0 0.0

Rocky Mountain 24.6 24.2 21.5 9.4 12.6 7.1 0.6

South 33.1 39.1 18.6 4.5 3.9 0.7 0.0

National 38.7 32.4 15.3 5.0 5.8 2.7 0.2

 

13,100 acres Alaska 56.6 25.2 11.9 3.4 2.7 0.3 0.0

North 37.5 58.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 30.0 46.4 17.0 3.4 2.7 0.5 0.0

Rocky Mountain 17.5 27.2 25.6 11.1 13.6 5.0 0.0

South 27.1 44.2 19.7 5.1 3.7 0.3 0.0

National 30.9 38.5 17.1 5.7 6.0 1.8 0.0

 

118,000 acres Alaska 50.5 30.8 13.1 3.3 2.2 0.1 0.0

North 30.3 66.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 19.7 54.8 20.2 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0

Rocky Mountain 10.7 30.0 29.5 13.0 13.9 3.0 0.0

South 23.3 47.3 20.4 5.5 3.3 0.0 0.0

National 24.6 43.3 18.9 6.4 5.8 1.0 0.0

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures.
22

Results

Table 8—Shrubland area density, landscape level. Percent of total area in seven shrubland area density classes, for six 

neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region None Rare Patchy Transitional Dominant Interior Intact

-----------------------------------------Percent-------------------------------------------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 33.8 5.3 13.8 7.9 13.2 6.6 19.4

North 93.5 2.6 3.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 39.7 6.2 14.8 6.6 8.6 3.4 20.8

Rocky Mountain 49.2 4.0 10.6 5.6 8.1 3.5 19.1

South 68.7 5.7 10.1 3.3 4.0 1.5 6.7

National 58.6 4.5 10.0 4.5 6.5 2.9 12.9

37.6 acres Alaska 25.7 10.6 15.9 8.9 16.5 10.4 11.9

North 88.0 8.6 3.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 29.5 13.4 18.2 7.3 9.5 5.3 16.7

Rocky Mountain 43.2 8.3 12.3 6.1 9.4 5.6 15.1

South 59.0 14.6 11.4 3.3 4.3 2.3 5.0

National 51.1 10.7 11.5 5.0 7.7 4.5 9.6

162 acres Alaska 17.2 15.6 18.6 10.6 19.7 13.6 4.8

North 77.3 19.8 2.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 18.7 20.3 22.7 8.0 10.1 8.1 12.0

Rocky Mountain 36.6 12.6 14.4 6.8 10.4 8.6 10.5

South 46.0 26.0 13.5 3.4 4.4 3.3 3.3

National 41.5 18.3 13.5 5.5 8.6 6.5 6.1

1,460 acres Alaska 9.7 17.4 23.2 13.6 22.9 12.7 0.5

North 67.0 30.6 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 10.5 23.0 29.0 8.7 11.1 12.8 4.9

Rocky Mountain 31.3 14.8 17.4 7.8 11.9 12.7 4.1

South 36.3 33.6 16.2 3.4 4.6 4.7 1.2

National 33.7 23.4 16.3 6.3 9.7 8.5 2.2

13,100 acres Alaska 5.6 15.8 28.7 16.6 24.7 8.7 0.0

North 61.7 36.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 7.1 20.5 34.9 10.0 12.7 14.3 0.3

Rocky Mountain 28.1 14.8 20.0 9.1 14.2 13.3 0.4

South 30.6 37.7 17.8 3.6 4.9 5.2 0.1

National 29.3 24.9 18.9 7.4 11.0 8.3 0.2

118,000 acres Alaska 2.9 12.5 34.9 19.6 25.7 4.5 0.0

North 57.9 40.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 4.7 16.7 41.0 11.7 14.9 11.0 0.0

Rocky Mountain 25.3 14.0 22.5 10.6 17.9 9.7 0.0

South 26.0 41.1 18.8 4.0 5.3 4.8 0.0

National 26.0 25.3 21.5 8.6 12.6 6.0 0.0

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures.
23

Results

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

37.6 acre

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

1,460 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total State area

37.6 acre

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total State area

1,460 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

Figure 13—Percent of total State area in seven forest area density classes for neighborhood sizes of 

37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest (see 

fig. 5).
24

Results

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

37.6 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

1,460 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total State area

37.6 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total State area

1,460 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

Figure 14—Percent of total State area in seven grassland area density classes for neighborhood sizes 

of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent grassland 

(see fig. 5).
25

Results

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

37.6 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

1,460 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total State area

37.6 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total State area

1,460 ac

None Rare

Patchy Transitional

Dominant Interior

Intact

Figure 15—Percent of total State area in seven shrubland area density classes for neighborhood sizes 

of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent shrubland 

(see fig. 5).
26

Results

Percent of County Area

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Intact Plus Interior Grassland

Intact Plus Interior Forest

Intact Plus Interior Shrubland

Figure 16—Percent of total county area in both the intact or interior area density classes in 

1,460-acre neighborhoods for forest area density (top), grassland area density (middle), and 

shrubland area density (bottom).
27

Results

Table 9—Landscape mosaic background, landscape level. Percent of total area in four 

landscape background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region Natural Agricultural Developed Mixed

--------------------Percent--------------------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 84.1 10.5 3.0 2.4

Pacific Coast 79.9 16.3 0.6 3.1

Rocky Mountain 67.5 20.2 3.4 9.0

South 46.9 39.2 4.5 9.4

National 74.5 18.3 2.1 5.1

37.6 acres Alaska 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 45.9 38.8 4.0 11.4

Pacific Coast 84.2 10.4 2.7 2.7

Rocky Mountain 79.6 16.1 0.5 3.7

South 67.1 18.7 3.0 11.3

National 74.1 17.8 1.9 6.3

162 acres Alaska 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 44.6 37.7 3.5 14.2

Pacific Coast 84.1 10.1 2.5 3.4

Rocky Mountain 79.1 15.5 0.5 4.9

South 66.8 16.2 2.6 14.4

National 73.7 16.7 1.7 7.9

1,460 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 43.3 36.2 2.8 17.8

Pacific Coast 84.0 9.3 2.1 4.6

Rocky Mountain 78.7 14.1 0.3 6.8

South 67.4 12.6 2.0 18.0

National 73.4 15.1 1.3 10.2

13,100 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 42.6 35.3 2.0 20.2

Pacific Coast 84.3 8.2 1.6 5.9

Rocky Mountain 78.9 12.6 0.2 8.3

South 68.5 9.9 1.3 20.3

National 73.6 13.7 0.9 11.8

118,000 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 42.9 34.8 1.1 21.2

Pacific Coast 85.2 6.5 0.9 7.5

Rocky Mountain 79.2 11.2 0.1 9.5

South 69.5 7.1 0.6 22.9

National 74.1 12.3 0.5 13.1

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
28

Results

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PR

PA

OR

OK

OH

NY

NV

NM

NJ

NH

NE

ND

NC

MT

MS

MO

MN

MI

ME

MD

MA

LA

KY

KS

IN

IL

ID

IA

HI

GA

FL

DE

DC

CT

CO

CA

AZ

AR

AL

AK

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

VA

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PR

PA

OR

OK

OH

NY

NV

NM

NJ

NH

NE

ND

NC

MT

MS

MO

MN

MI

ME

MD

MA

LA

KY

KS

IN

IL

ID

IA

HI

GA

FL

DE

DC

CT

CO

CA

AZ

AR

AL

AK

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

WY

WV

WI

WA

VT

VA

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PR

PA

OR

OK

OH

NY

NV

NM

NJ

NH

NE

ND

NC

MT

MS

MO

MN

MI

ME

MD

MA

LA

KY

KS

IN

IL

ID

IA

HI

GA

FL

DE

DC

CT

CO

CA

AZ

AR

AL

AK

Percent of total State area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

WY

WV

WI

WA

VT

VA

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PR

PA

OR

OK

OH

NY

NV

NM

NJ

NH

NE

ND

NC

MT

MS

MO

MN

MI

ME

MD

MA

LA

KY

KS

IN

IL

ID

IA

HI

GA

FL

DE

DC

CT

CO

CA

AZ

AR

AL

AK

Percent of total State area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

Figure 17—Percent of total State area in four landscape background classes for neighborhood sizes of 

37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted alphabetically.
29

Results

Agriculture Background Mixed Background

Natural Background Developed Background

Percent of

County Area

at 1,460 ac

Scale 0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Figure 18—Percent of total county area in the natural, agriculture, developed, and mixed landscape background classes for a 1,460-acre 

neighborhood size.
30

Results

Table 10—Forest area density, forest sector level. Percent of total forest area in six forest area density classes, for 

six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and 

national 

Neighborhood 

size Region Rare Patchy Transitional Dominant Interior Intact

----------------------------Percent------------------------------ 

10.9 acres Alaska 0.0 6.2 8.6 22.6 14.2 48.2

North 0.0 4.4 8.4 25.0 14.1 48.0

Pacific Coast 0.0 4.1 7.5 25.1 15.4 47.8

Rocky Mountain 0.0 7.1 9.2 22.7 13.7 47.3

South 0.0 5.1 9.9 27.5 14.8 42.6

National 0.0 5.4 9.0 25.0 14.4 46.2

37.6 acres Alaska 0.7 7.3 9.8 28.7 22.9 30.7

North 0.5 6.7 10.5 31.3 23.2 27.8

Pacific Coast 0.4 5.3 8.9 32.5 25.6 27.3

Rocky Mountain 1.1 9.1 10.3 28.2 21.9 29.4

South 0.5 7.5 12.4 34.9 22.4 22.3

National 0.6 7.3 10.8 31.6 22.9 26.8

162 acres Alaska 1.2 8.6 11.6 34.7 31.0 12.9

North 1.0 9.6 12.9 37.3 29.8 9.6

Pacific Coast 0.7 6.5 10.5 40.5 32.8 9.0

Rocky Mountain 2.3 11.0 11.6 33.6 29.9 11.7

South 0.8 10.0 16.1 42.3 24.3 6.5

National 1.2 9.5 13.2 38.1 28.6 9.5

1,460 acres Alaska 1.7 10.7 15.1 42.5 29.0 1.0

North 1.4 13.1 15.5 44.1 25.4 0.5

Pacific Coast 1.0 7.8 12.7 51.3 26.8 0.4

Rocky Mountain 3.7 12.9 13.8 41.1 27.9 0.7

South 1.1 12.5 21.4 50.4 14.1 0.4

National 1.7 12.0 16.7 46.0 23.0 0.6

13,100 acres Alaska 2.1 13.9 18.8 47.3 17.9 0.0

North 1.6 15.4 16.7 50.1 16.2 0.0

Pacific Coast 1.2 9.2 15.8 60.2 13.6 0.0

Rocky Mountain 5.0 14.8 18.1 46.9 15.3 0.0

South 1.2 13.6 25.8 53.3 6.1 0.0

National 2.1 13.9 20.0 51.1 12.9 0.0

118,000 acres Alaska 2.4 18.0 22.7 48.6 8.2 0.0

North 1.8 17.1 17.8 54.9 8.5 0.0

Pacific Coast 1.1 12.5 20.1 62.7 3.6 0.0

Rocky Mountain 6.3 20.1 24.9 43.9 4.9 0.0

South 1.2 14.5 30.3 52.1 1.9 0.0

National 2.4 16.5 23.9 51.9 5.3 0.0

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures.
31

Results

Table 11—Grassland area density, grassland sector level. Percent of total grassland area in six grassland area density 

classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) 

region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region Rare Patchy Transitional Dominant Interior Intact

------------------------------Percent-------------------------------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 0.1 18.8 17.7 29.1 12.2 22.1

North 0.5 50.2 24.4 18.4 3.5 2.9

Pacific Coast 0.1 16.7 17.2 29.9 11.9 24.3

Rocky Mountain 0.0 7.8 10.3 23.8 11.5 46.5

South 0.4 19.9 17.5 29.1 10.4 22.7

National 0.1 12.7 13.0 25.5 11.2 37.5

37.6 acres Alaska 3.0 21.9 18.9 32.4 13.7 10.1

North 16.0 55.2 16.7 10.1 1.5 0.4

Pacific Coast 2.9 21.5 18.3 30.8 14.1 12.4

Rocky Mountain 1.0 9.8 11.6 27.6 19.4 30.6

South 4.1 24.0 18.6 29.9 12.8 10.7

National 2.3 15.4 14.1 28.2 16.9 23.2

162 acres Alaska 5.3 25.5 20.8 33.4 11.9 2.9

North 35.4 51.3 9.0 3.9 0.3 0.0

Pacific Coast 6.0 26.9 18.8 29.4 14.7 4.3

Rocky Mountain 1.8 12.3 13.9 31.7 26.1 14.4

South 7.4 29.0 19.6 29.1 11.6 3.3

National 4.3 18.4 15.7 30.5 20.8 10.3

1,460 acres Alaska 8.1 31.1 22.9 30.9 6.8 0.2

North 58.2 38.5 2.4 0.9 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 10.9 32.3 18.8 26.8 11.0 0.2

Rocky Mountain 2.5 16.5 17.3 36.2 25.3 2.1

South 11.6 33.7 20.7 27.2 6.3 0.4

National 6.7 22.5 18.1 32.6 18.6 1.4

13,100 acres Alaska 10.3 35.4 24.0 27.0 3.3 0.0

North 69.8 29.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 15.2 37.0 19.9 22.9 5.0 0.0

Rocky Mountain 3.0 20.3 20.5 38.4 17.8 0.0

South 14.5 35.0 23.1 25.1 2.2 0.0

National 8.3 25.6 20.7 33.0 12.4 0.0

118,000 acres Alaska 12.7 39.5 24.0 22.1 1.7 0.0

North 79.2 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 19.7 43.4 21.3 15.3 0.4 0.0

Rocky Mountain 3.4 23.4 24.0 38.9 10.3 0.0

South 16.3 36.4 25.4 21.8 0.2 0.0

National 9.6 28.3 23.4 31.8 6.8 0.0

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
32

Results

Table 12—Shrubland area density, shrubland sector level. Percent of total shrubland area in six shrubland area 

density classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region Rare Patchy Transitional Dominant Interior Intact

------------------------------Percent-------------------------------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 0.0 5.9 9.2 24.6 15.2 45.2

North 0.6 55.2 20.8 16.5 3.9 2.8

Pacific Coast 0.0 7.3 9.3 18.6 9.0 55.8

Rocky Mountain 0.0 6.0 8.4 18.9 10.2 56.5

South 0.3 13.0 11.4 21.2 9.8 44.3

National 0.1 7.6 9.3 20.7 11.3 51.1

37.6 acres Alaska 0.6 7.1 10.4 30.7 23.5 27.7

North 21.5 50.9 14.6 10.9 1.8 0.3

Pacific Coast 0.8 9.8 10.2 20.5 13.8 44.9

Rocky Mountain 0.6 7.5 9.2 21.9 16.1 44.6

South 2.7 15.0 11.7 22.7 14.7 33.2

National 1.1 9.2 10.1 24.2 17.5 38.0

162 acres Alaska 0.9 8.6 12.3 36.3 30.7 11.1

North 40.6 44.0 10.0 5.1 0.3 0.0

Pacific Coast 1.5 12.6 10.9 21.5 21.2 32.3

Rocky Mountain 1.0 9.0 10.2 24.1 24.7 31.1

South 4.5 17.8 11.7 22.9 21.1 22.0

National 1.9 10.9 11.1 26.8 25.1 24.2

1,460 acres Alaska 1.2 11.3 16.1 41.9 28.4 1.2

North 59.3 35.8 4.1 0.8 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 2.3 16.0 11.7 23.4 33.6 13.1

Rocky Mountain 1.3 11.0 11.4 27.4 36.6 12.2

South 6.6 20.7 11.1 23.2 30.3 8.2

National 2.7 13.4 12.6 30.0 32.7 8.6

13,100 acres Alaska 1.2 15.2 19.7 44.8 19.2 0.0

North 70.3 28.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 2.4 18.8 13.4 26.9 37.6 0.9

Rocky Mountain 1.4 12.7 13.2 33.1 38.4 1.3

South 7.6 21.4 11.9 24.6 33.6 0.9

National 3.0 15.6 14.7 34.0 32.0 0.8

118,000 acres Alaska 1.1 19.3 23.5 46.3 9.8 0.0

North 78.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific Coast 2.2 22.1 15.6 31.5 28.6 0.0

Rocky Mountain 1.3 14.6 15.3 41.3 27.5 0.0

South 8.0 21.9 13.2 26.3 30.6 0.0

National 3.0 18.0 17.2 38.8 23.0 0.0

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 

.
33

Results

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

37.6 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

1,460 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

37.6 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

1,460 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

Figure 19—Percent of total forest area in each State in six forest area density classes for neighborhood 

sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent 

forest (fig. 5). Compare to figure 13.
34

Results

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

37.6 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

1,460 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

37.6 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

1,460 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

Figure 20—Percent of total grassland area in each State in six grassland area density classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 14.
35

Results

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

37.6 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

1,460 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

37.6 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

1,460 ac

Rare Patchy

Transitional Dominant

Interior Intact

Figure 21—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in six shrubland area density classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order 

by percent shrubland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 15.
36

Results

Percent of County Forest

 at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Grassland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Shrubland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Intact Plus Interior Forest

Intact Plus Interior Grassland

Intact Plus Interior Shrubland

Figure 22—Percent of total forest, grassland, or shrubland area in the intact or interior area density 

classes in 1,460-acre neighborhoods for forest area density (top), grassland area density (middle), and 

shrubland area density (bottom). Compare to figure 16.
37

Results

Table 13—Landscape mosaic background, forest sector level. Percent of total forest area 

in four background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region Natural Agricultural Developed Mixed

------------------Percent------------------ 

10.9 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 91.1 1.9 0.2 6.8

Pacific Coast 99.1 0.1 0.1 0.7

Rocky Mountain 98.4 0.5 0.0 1.0

South 93.6 1.0 0.3 5.1

National 95.3 0.9 0.2 3.6

37.6 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 87.4 3.4 0.4 8.9

Pacific Coast 98.9 0.1 0.1 0.8

Rocky Mountain 98.0 0.8 0.0 1.2

South 90.9 1.7 0.4 7.1

National 93.4 1.6 0.2 4.8

162 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 82.8 5.1 0.5 11.7

Pacific Coast 98.6 0.2 0.2 1.0

Rocky Mountain 97.5 1.1 0.0 1.4

South 87.5 2.4 0.5 9.7

National 91.1 2.3 0.3 6.4

1,460 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 77.4 6.9 0.6 15.1

Pacific Coast 98.3 0.3 0.2 1.2

Rocky Mountain 96.9 1.3 0.0 1.7

South 83.9 2.6 0.5 13.1

National 88.4 2.9 0.3 8.4

13,100 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 74.7 7.9 0.5 17.0

Pacific Coast 98.2 0.3 0.1 1.4

Rocky Mountain 96.7 1.5 0.0 1.8

South 82.2 2.4 0.4 15.0

National 87.2 3.1 0.3 9.5

118,000 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 73.8 8.6 0.3 17.4

Pacific Coast 98.3 0.2 0.1 1.4

Rocky Mountain 96.7 1.5 0.0 1.8

South 81.1 1.9 0.1 16.8

National 86.6 3.1 0.1 10.2

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
38

Results

Table 14—Landscape mosaic background, grassland sector level. Percent of total 

grassland area in four background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region Natural Agricultural Developed Mixed

------------------Percent------------------ 

10.9 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 69.4 10.8 0.5 19.3

Pacific Coast 96.1 0.7 0.4 2.8

Rocky Mountain 95.5 1.3 0.0 3.2

South 90.4 2.0 0.2 7.4

National 94.3 1.5 0.1 4.1

37.6 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 63.2 15.5 0.7 20.7

Pacific Coast 95.2 0.9 0.6 3.3

Rocky Mountain 94.0 1.9 0.0 4.0

South 88.2 2.7 0.3 8.9

National 92.7 2.2 0.1 5.0

162 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 55.9 20.3 0.8 23.0

Pacific Coast 94.0 1.2 0.6 4.1

Rocky Mountain 91.6 2.8 0.0 5.6

South 85.4 3.3 0.3 11.0

National 90.4 3.0 0.1 6.5

1,460 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 47.7 26.7 0.8 24.8

Pacific Coast 91.9 1.7 0.7 5.8

Rocky Mountain 87.4 4.3 0.0 8.3

South 81.9 3.8 0.2 14.0

National 86.7 4.3 0.1 8.9

13,100 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 43.8 31.0 0.7 24.5

Pacific Coast 89.8 2.0 0.6 7.6

Rocky Mountain 84.5 5.0 0.0 10.5

South 80.4 3.7 0.2 15.8

National 84.3 4.8 0.1 10.8

118,000 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 42.9 34.9 0.5 21.7

Pacific Coast 88.0 2.1 0.3 9.7

Rocky Mountain 82.2 5.0 0.0 12.9

South 79.7 2.9 0.1 17.3

National 82.6 4.8 0.0 12.6

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
39

Results

Table 15—Landscape mosaic background, shrubland sector level. Percent of total 

shrubland area in four background classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national

Neighborhood 

size Region Natural Agricultural Developed Mixed

------------------Percent------------------ 

10.9 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 86.2 4.3 0.2 9.3

Pacific Coast 98.8 0.2 0.1 1.0

Rocky Mountain 99.4 0.1 0.0 0.5

South 95.0 1.2 0.1 3.8

National 98.7 0.3 0.0 1.0

37.6 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 83.4 5.7 0.3 10.6

Pacific Coast 98.5 0.4 0.1 1.1

Rocky Mountain 99.3 0.1 0.0 0.5

South 94.0 1.5 0.1 4.3

National 98.5 0.4 0.0 1.1

162 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 80.8 6.8 0.3 12.0

Pacific Coast 98.0 0.5 0.1 1.4

Rocky Mountain 99.1 0.2 0.0 0.6

South 93.0 1.7 0.1 5.2

National 98.2 0.5 0.0 1.3

1,460 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 78.5 7.2 0.4 13.9

Pacific Coast 97.2 0.7 0.1 1.9

Rocky Mountain 98.9 0.2 0.0 0.9

South 91.7 1.8 0.1 6.4

National 97.8 0.5 0.0 1.7

13,100 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 77.6 6.7 0.3 15.3

Pacific Coast 96.4 0.9 0.1 2.6

Rocky Mountain 98.9 0.2 0.0 0.9

South 91.2 1.6 0.0 7.2

National 97.6 0.5 0.0 1.9

118,000 acres Alaska 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North 78.1 6.5 0.1 15.2

Pacific Coast 95.6 0.8 0.1 3.5

Rocky Mountain 99.1 0.1 0.0 0.8

South 90.5 0.9 0.0 8.5

National 97.5 0.3 0.0 2.2

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures.
40

Results

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

Figure 23—Percent of total forest area in each State in four landscape background classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order 

by percent forest (fig. 5). Compare to figure 18.
41

Results

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

Figure 24—Percent of total grassland area in each State in four landscape background classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 18.
42

Results

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

Natural Agricultural

Developed Mixed

1,460 ac

Figure 25—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in four landscape background classes for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5). Compare to figure 18.
43

Results

Percent of County Forest

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Grassland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Shrubland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Forest in Mixed Background

Grassland in Mixed Background

Shrubland in Mixed Background

Figure 26—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in the 

mixed landscape mosaic background class in 1,460-acre neighborhoods.
44

Results

Table 16—Landscape mosaic interface zones, forest sector level. Percent of total forest area in three types of 

developed and three types of agriculture interface classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region

DevelopeddominantDevelopedsubdominantDevelopedminorAgriculturedominantAgriculturesubdominantAgricultureminor

--------Percent-------- --------Percent-------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.2 12.9 86.9 1.9 18.1 80.0

Pacific Coast 0.1 8.0 91.9 0.1 1.0 98.9

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.7 98.3 0.5 2.6 96.8

South 0.3 12.7 87.0 1.0 16.1 82.9

National 0.2 8.5 91.4 0.9 10.3 88.8

37.6 acres Alaska 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.4 12.9 86.7 3.4 23.5 73.2

Pacific Coast 0.1 7.8 92.1 0.1 1.4 98.4

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.7 98.3 0.8 3.0 96.2

South 0.4 12.5 87.2 1.7 22.3 76.0

National 0.2 8.3 91.4 1.6 13.7 84.7

162 acres Alaska 0.0 0.3 99.7 0.0 0.1 99.9

North 0.5 12.0 87.6 5.1 29.7 65.2

Pacific Coast 0.2 6.2 93.6 0.2 2.0 97.8

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.5 98.5 1.1 3.6 95.3

South 0.5 11.0 88.5 2.4 31.0 66.6

National 0.3 7.4 92.3 2.3 18.2 79.5

1,460 acres Alaska 0.0 0.3 99.7 0.0 0.1 99.9

North 0.6 11.3 88.2 6.9 36.9 56.2

Pacific Coast 0.2 4.4 95.4 0.3 3.1 96.6

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.0 99.0 1.3 4.5 94.2

South 0.5 9.9 89.6 2.6 43.6 53.8

National 0.3 6.7 93.0 2.9 24.2 72.9

13,100 acres Alaska 0.0 0.3 99.7 0.0 0.1 99.9

North 0.5 12.3 87.3 7.9 41.3 50.8

Pacific Coast 0.1 4.6 95.3 0.3 4.4 95.3

Rocky Mountain 0.0 0.9 99.1 1.5 5.4 93.2

South 0.4 11.3 88.4 2.4 54.0 43.7

National 0.3 7.3 92.4 3.1 28.9 68.1

118,000 acres Alaska 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.1 99.9

North 0.3 13.7 86.0 8.6 45.4 46.0

Pacific Coast 0.1 5.4 94.6 0.2 6.5 93.2

Rocky Mountain 0.0 0.9 99.0 1.5 7.1 91.3

South 0.1 13.0 86.8 1.9 63.7 34.4

National 0.1 8.3 91.5 3.1 33.5 63.4

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
45

Results

Table 17—Landscape mosaic interface zones, grassland sector level. Percent of total grassland area in three types of 

developed and three types of agriculture interface classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region

DevelopeddominantDevelopedsubdominantDevelopedminorAgriculturedominantAgriculturesubdominantAgricultureminor

--------Percent-------- --------Percent-------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.5 27.9 71.7 10.8 35.5 53.7

Pacific Coast 0.4 13.0 86.5 0.7 4.7 94.6

Rocky Mountain 0.0 6.7 93.2 1.3 8.6 90.2

South 0.2 16.4 83.3 2.0 17.9 80.1

National 0.1 8.9 91.0 1.5 10.1 88.4

37.6 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.7 25.8 73.5 15.5 39.9 44.6

Pacific Coast 0.6 13.2 86.2 0.9 6.5 92.6

Rocky Mountain 0.0 4.3 95.7 1.9 11.9 86.2

South 0.3 13.4 86.3 2.7 23.1 74.2

National 0.1 6.7 93.2 2.2 13.4 84.4

162 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.8 20.9 78.3 20.3 44.1 35.5

Pacific Coast 0.6 11.7 87.6 1.2 9.2 89.5

Rocky Mountain 0.0 2.8 97.2 2.8 17.6 79.6

South 0.3 10.8 88.9 3.3 31.5 65.2

National 0.1 5.1 94.8 3.0 18.9 78.1

1,460 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.8 16.1 83.1 26.7 44.7 28.6

Pacific Coast 0.7 10.4 88.9 1.7 14.5 83.8

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.2 98.8 4.3 26.4 69.4

South 0.2 8.4 91.4 3.8 42.6 53.5

National 0.1 3.4 96.5 4.3 26.9 68.8

13,100 acres Alaska 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.7 15.9 83.4 31.0 44.0 25.1

Pacific Coast 0.6 11.4 88.1 2.0 21.1 76.9

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.0 99.0 5.0 33.4 61.6

South 0.2 8.6 91.2 3.7 51.6 44.7

National 0.1 3.3 96.6 4.8 33.5 61.7

118,000 acres Alaska 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.5 14.6 84.8 34.9 42.5 22.6

Pacific Coast 0.3 13.9 85.8 2.1 30.5 67.4

Rocky Mountain 0.0 0.9 99.1 5.0 39.7 55.3

South 0.1 9.0 90.9 2.9 60.6 36.5

National 0.0 3.5 96.5 4.8 39.8 55.4

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
46

Results

Table 18—Landscape mosaic interface zones, shrubland sector level. Percent of total shrubland area in three types of 

developed and three types of agriculture interface classes, for six neighborhood sizes, by Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Neighborhood 

size Region

DevelopeddominantDevelopedsubdominantDevelopedminorAgriculturedominantAgriculturesubdominantAgricultureminor

--------Percent-------- --------Percent-------- 

10.9 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.2 13.5 86.3 4.3 21.4 74.3

Pacific Coast 0.1 5.0 94.9 0.2 1.9 97.9

Rocky Mountain 0.0 2.2 97.8 0.1 1.3 98.6

South 0.1 8.4 91.5 1.2 9.9 88.9

National 0.0 3.0 97.0 0.3 2.4 97.3

37.6 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.3 12.6 87.1 5.7 24.0 70.3

Pacific Coast 0.1 5.0 94.9 0.4 2.6 97.1

Rocky Mountain 0.0 2.4 97.6 0.1 1.7 98.2

South 0.1 7.4 92.5 1.5 12.3 86.2

National 0.0 2.9 97.1 0.4 3.0 96.6

162 acres Alaska 0.0 0.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.3 10.9 88.7 6.8 26.8 66.4

Pacific Coast 0.1 4.3 95.6 0.5 3.8 95.6

Rocky Mountain 0.0 2.0 97.9 0.2 2.4 97.4

South 0.1 5.6 94.3 1.7 16.0 82.3

National 0.0 2.4 97.6 0.5 4.1 95.5

1,460 acres Alaska 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.4 9.1 90.5 7.2 30.6 62.1

Pacific Coast 0.1 3.3 96.6 0.7 6.3 92.9

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.3 98.7 0.2 4.1 95.7

South 0.1 3.5 96.4 1.8 21.2 76.9

National 0.0 1.6 98.4 0.5 5.9 93.6

13,100 acres Alaska 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.3 9.0 90.7 6.7 33.8 59.5

Pacific Coast 0.1 3.6 96.3 0.9 9.4 89.7

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.2 98.8 0.2 6.0 93.8

South 0.0 3.6 96.3 1.6 25.9 72.5

National 0.0 1.6 98.3 0.5 7.9 91.6

118,000 acres Alaska 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

North 0.1 8.7 91.2 6.5 36.9 56.6

Pacific Coast 0.1 4.3 95.6 0.8 13.1 86.1

Rocky Mountain 0.0 1.0 98.9 0.1 8.0 91.9

South 0.0 3.6 96.4 0.9 31.5 67.6

National 0.0 1.6 98.3 0.3 10.1 89.6

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
47

Results

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

37.6 ac

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

1,460 ac

Figure 27—Percent of total forest area in each State in three developed interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent forest (fig. 5).
48

Results

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

37.6 ac

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

1,460 ac

Figure 28—Percent of total grassland area in each State in three developed interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5).
49

Results

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

37.6 ac

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

Developed-dominant

Developed-subdominant

Developed-minor

1,460 ac

Figure 29—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in three developed interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5).
50

Results

Percent of County Forest

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Grassland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Shrubland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Forest in Developed Interface Zone

Grassland in Developed Interface Zone

Shrubland in Developed Interface Zone

Figure 30—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in a 

developed interface zone in 1,460-acre neighborhoods; the developed interface zone includes the 

developed-dominant and developed-subdominant interface zones.
51

Results

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

37.6 ac

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

1,460 ac

Figure 31—Percent of total forest area in each State in three agriculture interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order 

by percent forest (fig. 5).
52

Results

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

37.6 ac

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

1,460 ac

Figure 32—Percent of total grassland area in each State in three agriculture interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent grassland (fig. 5).
53

Results

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

37.6 ac

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

1,460 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

37.6 ac

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

Agriculture-dominant

Agriculture-subdominant

Agriculture-minor

1,460 ac

Figure 33—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in three agriculture interface zones for 

neighborhood sizes of 37.6 acres (left) and 1,460 acres (right). States are sorted in descending order by 

percent shrubland (fig. 5).
54

Results

Percent of County Forest

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Grassland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Shrubland

at 1,460 ac Scale

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Shrubland in Agriculture Interface Zone

Forest in Agriculture Interface Zone

Grassland in Agriculture Interface Zone

Figure 34—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in an 

agriculture interface zone in 1,460-acre neighborhoods; the agriculture interface zone includes the 

agriculture-dominant and agriculture-subdominant interface zones.
55

Results

Table 19—Forest structure. Percent of total forest area in six structure classes, for four edge widths, by Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Edge width Region Core Islet Perforated Edge Connector Branch

-----------------------------------Percent----------------------------------

98 feet Alaska 70.9 3.2 4.9 10.9 6.1 3.8

North 74.4 1.5 2.7 15.4 2.6 3.4

Pacific Coast 73.9 1.7 4.9 12.7 3.6 3.3

Rocky Mountain 71.3 3.5 4.9 12.3 3.7 4.4

South 71.1 1.8 2.3 17.8 3.1 4.0

National 72.2 2.2 3.5 14.6 3.6 3.8

197 feet Alaska 57.6 5.5 5.8 15.4 11.6 4.1

North 59.0 3.5 3.2 22.6 6.1 5.5

Pacific Coast 58.8 3.4 5.8 19.1 8.4 4.5

Rocky Mountain 57.1 6.9 5.7 16.7 8.1 5.6

South 54.3 4.1 2.1 25.7 7.4 6.4

National 57.0 4.6 4.0 21.1 7.9 5.5

394 feet Alaska 45.4 7.2 5.4 19.9 18.6 3.4

North 44.7 6.5 3.0 27.9 11.7 6.2

Pacific Coast 44.5 5.1 5.1 25.3 15.8 4.3

Rocky Mountain 44.4 10.1 5.4 20.8 14.3 5.1

South 39.1 6.9 1.5 31.1 14.2 7.3

National 43.0 7.2 3.5 26.2 14.4 5.7

787 feet Alaska 27.3 10.0 3.4 23.8 33.8 1.7

North 24.2 13.6 1.6 29.9 26.7 3.9

Pacific Coast 23.6 7.9 2.1 29.1 35.1 2.2

Rocky Mountain 26.0 14.7 3.1 24.4 29.3 2.6

South 18.9 13.2 0.6 29.9 32.5 4.9 

National 23.3 12.6 1.9 27.9 30.9 3.5

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
56

Results

Table 20—Grassland structure. Percent of total grassland area in six structure classes, for four edge widths, by Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Edge width Region Core Islet Perforated Edge Connector Branch

--------------------------------------Percent-------------------------------------- 

98 feet Alaska 46.3 12.2 3.5 18.0 12.0 8.0

North 18.9 34.2 0.1 24.1 7.9 14.8

Pacific Coast 50.1 9.3 1.6 22.6 8.0 8.4

Rocky Mountain 68.7 4.1 2.6 14.1 5.9 4.5

South 47.8 12.4 1.3 22.1 8.0 8.5

National 60.4 7.5 2.3 16.7 7.0 6.1

197 feet Alaska 30.7 20.5 2.7 20.0 19.2 7.0

North 6.5 62.4 0.0 14.0 7.8 9.2

Pacific Coast 33.2 18.7 1.3 23.4 14.7 8.7

Rocky Mountain 55.4 7.6 2.9 18.4 10.8 4.9

South 31.5 22.4 1.2 23.2 13.4 8.4

National 46.2 13.6 2.4 19.6 12.2 6.1

394 feet Alaska 19.8 27.3 1.6 20.1 26.3 4.9

North 2.1 81.1 0.0 7.0 6.1 3.8

Pacific Coast 22.1 27.9 0.9 21.5 21.5 6.2

Rocky Mountain 43.6 10.9 2.8 21.7 16.7 4.4

South 20.0 31.8 0.8 21.8 18.8 6.7

National 34.7 19.1 2.1 21.2 17.9 5.0

787 feet Alaska 8.4 37.6 0.7 14.5 36.9 1.9

North 0.3 94.8 0.0 1.6 2.8 0.5

Pacific Coast 10.7 42.2 0.5 15.2 29.4 2.1

Rocky Mountain 27.2 16.9 2.3 22.9 28.2 2.5

South 8.7 46.3 0.4 15.1 26.7 2.8

National 20.4 27.7 1.7 19.7 28.1 2.4

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
57

Results

Table 21—Shrubland structure. Percent of total shrubland area in six structure classes, for four edge widths, by Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) region and national 

Edge width Region Core Islet Perforated Edge Connector Branch

--------------------------------------Percent-------------------------------------- 

98 feet Alaska 69.2 2.8 5.1 12.0 6.9 4.0

North 16.9 41.7 0.2 20.7 7.4 13.1

Pacific Coast 72.8 3.6 2.2 12.1 5.0 4.4

Rocky Mountain 73.7 3.0 3.3 10.4 5.8 3.8

South 63.0 8.5 2.6 13.7 6.7 5.6

National 70.3 4.2 3.5 11.6 6.1 4.3

197 feet Alaska 54.9 5.0 5.7 16.8 13.1 4.5

North 6.2 66.4 0.1 12.2 7.9 7.2

Pacific Coast 62.1 7.7 2.6 13.4 9.5 4.6

Rocky Mountain 63.1 5.8 3.8 12.3 11.0 4.0

South 51.2 14.7 3.1 14.5 11.7 5.0

National 58.5 7.6 4.0 14.0 11.4 4.4

394 feet Alaska 42.3 6.9 5.1 20.9 21.0 3.7

North 2.2 79.0 0.0 7.3 7.8 3.7

Pacific Coast 54.0 11.9 3.0 13.7 14.1 3.4

Rocky Mountain 54.5 8.3 4.0 13.5 16.7 3.0

South 42.3 20.0 3.2 14.5 16.6 3.4

National 48.9 10.7 4.0 15.6 17.4 3.3

787 feet Alaska 24.4 10.2 3.1 23.2 37.4 1.7

North 0.2 92.8 0.0 1.5 4.8 0.6

Pacific Coast 42.8 18.2 3.4 13.5 20.8 1.4

Rocky Mountain 42.3 12.3 3.8 14.5 25.9 1.3

South 31.1 26.9 3.3 12.9 24.6 1.2

National 35.5 15.3 3.4 16.4 28.0 1.4

Rows may not add up to 100 due to rounding off the figures. 
58

Results

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

98 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

787 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

98 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ND

NE

SD

KS

IA

NV

DC

WY

TX

AZ

IL

NM

OK

MT

IN

CA

UT

HI

AK

DE

CO

OH

MN

ID

OR

MO

MD

LA

WA

FL

PR

WI

NJ

MS

KY

MI

TN

AR

NC

RI

SC

GA

NY

PA

AL

MA

CT

VA

VT

ME

WV

NH

Percent of total forest area

787 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

Figure 35—Percent of total forest area in each State in six structure classes for edge widths of 98 feet 

(left) and 787 feet (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent forest (fig. 5).
59

Results

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

98 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

787 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

98 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

NJ

VT

CT

NH

PA

MS

MA

IL

ME

NY

RI

AR

WV

MO

VA

IN

LA

OH

WI

AL

MN

TN

NV

KY

IA

MI

OR

FL

WA

NC

AZ

UT

AK

GA

SC

CA

ID

HI

TX

PR

WY

ND

NM

CO

OK

KS

MT

SD

NE

Percent of total grassland area

787 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

Figure 36—Percent of total grassland area in each State in six structure classes for edge widths of 98 

feet (left) and 787 feet (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent grassland (fig. 5).
60

Results

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

98 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

787 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

98 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DE

DC

MD

WV

IL

NE

NJ

IA

IN

KY

OH

KS

MO

VA

RI

WI

MI

PA

ND

MA

CT

MN

GA

SD

VT

NH

SC

NC

TN

PR

AR

NY

FL

OK

ME

LA

AL

MS

MT

CO

WA

HI

ID

CA

TX

AK

OR

NM

UT

WY

AZ

NV

Percent of total shrubland area

787 ft

Core Islet

Perforated Edge

Connector Branch

Figure 37—Percent of total shrubland area in each State in six structure classes for edge widths of 98 

feet (left) and 787 feet (right). States are sorted in descending order by percent shrubland (fig. 5).
61

Results

Percent of County Forest

for 787 ft Edge Width

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Grassland

for 787 ft Edge Width

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Shrubland

for 787 ft Edge Width

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Forest in Connector Structure

Grassland in Connector Structure

Shrubland in Connector Structure

Figure 38—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in the 

connector structure class for a 787-foot edge width.
62

Results

Percent of County Forest

for 787 ft Edge Width

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Grassland

for 787 ft Edge Width

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Percent of County Shrubland

for 787 ft Edge Width

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

Forest in Islet Structure

Shrubland in Islet Structure

Grassland in Islet Structure

Figure 39—Percent of total county forest (top), grassland (middle), and shrubland (bottom) area in the 

islet structure class for a 787-foot edge width.
63

Summary

O’Neill, R.V.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Jones, K.B. [and others]. 1997. 

Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. 

BioScience. 47: 513-519.

Ostapowicz, K.; Vogt, P.; Riitters, K.H. [and others]. 2008. Impact 

of scale on morphological spatial pattern of forest. Landscape 

Ecology. 23: 1107-1117.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I. [and others]. 2005. 

The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 799-805.

Riitters, K. 2005. Downscaling indicators of forest habitat structure 

from national assessments. Ecological Indicators. 5: 273-279.

Riitters, K.H.; Coulston, J.W. 2005. Hot spots of perforated forest 

in the Eastern United States. Environmental Management. 35: 

483-492.

Riitters, K.H.; Coulston, J.W.; Wickham, J.D. 2003. Localizing 

national fragmentation statistics with forest type maps. Journal 

of Forestry. 101: 18-22.

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D. 2003. How far to the nearest road? 

Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. 1: 125-129.

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.; Coulston, J. 2004a. Use of road 

maps in national assessments of forest fragmentation in the 

United States. Ecology and Society. 9(2): 13. http://www.

ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art13. [Date accessed: 

November 15, 2010].

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; Coulston, J.W. 2004b. A 

preliminary assessment of Montreal Process indicators of forest

fragmentation for the United States. Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment. 91: 257-276.

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; O’Neill, R.V. [and others]. 2002. 

Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems. 

5: 815-822.

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; Vogelmann, J.E.; Jones, K.B. 2000. 

National land cover pattern data. Ecology. 81: 604-608.

Riitters, K.H.; Vogt, P.; Soille, P. [and others]. 2007. Neutral model 

analysis of landscape patterns from mathematical morphology. 

Landscape Ecology. 22: 1033-1044.

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; Wade, T.G. 2009a. An indicator of 

forest dynamics using a shifting landscape mosaic. Ecological 

Indicators. 9: 107-117.

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; Wade, T.G. 2009b. Evaluating 

anthropogenic risk of grassland and forest habitat degradation 

using land cover data. Landscape Online. 13: 1-14.

SUMMARY

This report was prepared in response to the requirement for 

an inventory of land cover spatial patterns in support of the 

2010 RPA Assessment. The inventory provides information 

to help address the sustainability of a wide range of social 

and ecological amenities that are derived from forest, 

grassland, and shrubland in the United States. The inventory 

methods are designed to be generic and extensible, and 

suitable for application with only a national land cover map 

at several measurement scales. This report documents the 

inventory procedures, and presents national and regional 

summaries of land cover pattern statistics along with 

illustrative figures and maps showing State and county 

results. Additional information is available online at 

http://www.forestthreats.org. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bogaert, J. 2003. Lack of agreement on fragmentation metrics 

blurs correspondence between fragmentation experiments 

and predicted effects. Ecology and Society. 7(1): r6. http://

ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss1/resp6. [Date accessed: 

November 15, 2010].

Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Muller, F.; Windhorst, W. 2009. 

Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a 

concept for land cover based assessments. Landscape Online. 

15: 1-22.

ESRI. 2005. ESRI Data & Maps 2005 [DVD]. Redlands, CA: 

Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In: Klute, A., 

ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical 

Methods. Second Edition. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. 

Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy: 383-411.

Heilman, G.E.; Strittholt, J.R.; Slosser, N.C.; Dellasala, D.A. 

2002. Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: 

assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial 

characteristics. BioScience. 52: 411-422.

Homer, C.; Dewitz, J.; Fry, J. [and others]. 2007. Completion of the 

2001 national land cover database for the conterminous United 

States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 73: 

337-341.

Homer, C.; Huang, C.; Yang, L. [and others]. 2004. Development 

of a 2001 national land cover database for the United States. 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 70: 

829-840.
64

Literature Citations

Soille, P.; Vogt, P. 2009. Morphological segmentation of binary 

patterns. Pattern Recognition Letters. 30: 456-459.

Stewart, S.I.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Hawbaker, T.J. 2007. 

Defining the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry. 105: 

201-207.

Vogt, P.; Riitters, K.H.; Estreguil, C. [and others]. 2007a. Mapping 

spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landscape 

Ecology. 22: 171-177.

Vogt, P.; Riitters, K.H.; Iwanowski, M. [and others]. 2007b. 

Mapping landscape corridors. Ecological Indicators. 7: 481-488.

Wade, T. 2004. Causes of forest fragmentation in the United States 

– 270 meter resolution. National Atlas of the United States. 

Reston, VA: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/metadata/frfrg2i270l.

faq.html. [Date accessed: November 15, 2010].

Wade, T.G.; Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; Jones, K.B. 2003. 

Distribution and causes of global forest fragmentation. Ecology 

and Society. 7(2): 7. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/

iss2/art7. [Date accessed: November 15, 2010].

Wickham, J.D.; Riitters, K.H.; Wade, T.G.; Homer, C. 2008. 

Temporal change in fragmentation of continental U.S. forests. 

Landscape Ecology. 23: 891-898.

Wickham, J.D.; Stehman, S.V.; Fry, J.A. [and others]. 2010. 

Thematic accuracy of the NLCD 2001 land cover for the 

conterminous United States. Remote Sensing of Environment. 

114: 1286-1296.

Zurlini, G.; Riitters, K.H.; Zaccarelli, N.; Petrosillo, I. 2007. 

Patterns of disturbance at multiple scales in real and simulated 

landscapes. Landscape Ecology. 22: 705-721.
Riitters, Kurt H. 2011. Spatial patterns of land cover in the United States: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-136. Asheville, NC: 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 64 p.

Land cover patterns inventoried from a national land cover map provide information about the 

landscape context and fragmentation of the Nation’s forests, grasslands, and shrublands. This inventory 

is required to quantify, map, and evaluate the capacities of landscapes to provide ecological goods and 

services sustainably. This report documents the procedures to inventory and summarize land cover 

composition, juxtaposition, and structure as exhibited at several measurement scales. National and 

regional results are summarized in tabular form, and representative statistics are illustrated in figures 

(for States) and maps (for counties). The baseline information in this inventory is a starting point for 

future analyses of landscape changes.

Keywords: Forest, fragmentation, grassland, inventory, land cover pattern, Resources Planning Act, 

shrubland. 

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), 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 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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, 

or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 ( TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-136

April 2011