F O R E S T S O N T H E E D G E

HOUSI NG DE V EL OPMEN T ON A MERICA’S PRI VATE FORE STS

Susan M. Stein, Ronald E. McRoberts, 

Ralph J. Alig, Mark D. Nelson, David M. 

Theobald, Mike Eley, Mike Dechter, and 

Mary Carr

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-636

May 2005

USDA Forest Service Susan Stein


Introduction

America’s private forests are changing. Many are located at the edges of growing towns and cities, or in prime recreation areas popular for second-home development. As more housing is built in private forests, their 

values and uses can be altered. Increases in housing density 

and associated development (such as power lines, septic and 

sewer systems, and shopping centers) can be linked to: 

g	 Decreases in native fish and wildlife and

their habitats.

g	 Changes in forest health.

g	 Reduced opportunities for outdoor

recreation.

g	 Poorer water quality.

g	 Altered hydrology.

g	 Greater loss of life and property to wildfire.

g	 Changes in traditional uses of forests.

g	 Decreases in the production of timber and

other forest products.

Concern about the effects of development on America’s 

private forests has risen sharply since the 1990s, when the 

conversion of forest land to developed uses reached a million 

acres per year. Even when we consider that some agricultural lands are converted to forest each year, Forest Service 

researchers estimate that, by 2050, an additional 23 million 

acres of forest lands in net may be lost (Alig et al. 2003).

The Forests on the Edge project aims to increase public 

understanding of the contributions of and pressures on 

our private forests, and to create new tools for strategic 

planning. Many private forests are on the edge or interface 

where development pressures may affect forest attributes 

and management. The Forests on the Edge project seeks 

to improve our understanding of the processes and thresholds associated with increases in housing density in private 

forests and likely effects on the contributions of America’s 

private forests to timber, wildlife, and water resources. 

This report, the first in a series, displays and describes housing density projections on private forests, by watershed, 

across the conterminous United States (commonly called the 

lower 48, not including Alaska, Hawaii, and island territories, for which data were not available). Future reports will 

assess the contributions of private forests to timber, wildlife, 

and water resources; they will also provide housing density 

projections on a wider range of vegetation types, including 

the arid land vegetation found in the West. 

Abstract

Stein, Susan M.; McRoberts, Ronald E.; Alig, Ralph J.; 

Nelson, Mark D.; Theobald, David M.; Eley, Mike; 

Dechter, Mike; Carr, Mary. 2005. Forests on the edge: 

housing development on America’s private forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 16 p.

The private working land base of America’s forests is being 

converted to developed uses, with implications for the condition 

and management of affected private forests and the watersheds 

in which they occur. The Forests on the Edge project seeks to 

improve understanding of the processes and thresholds associated with increases in housing density in private forests and 

likely effects on the contributions of those forests to timber, 

wildlife, and water resources. This report, the first in a series, 

displays and describes housing density projections on private 

forests, by watershed, across the conterminous United States. 

An interdisciplinary team used geographic information system 

(GIS) techniques to identify fourth-level watersheds containing 

private forests that are projected to experience increased housing density by 2030. Results indicate that some 44.2 million 

acres (over 11 percent) of private forests—particularly in the 

East, where most private forests occur—are likely to see 

dramatic increases in housing development in the next three 

decades, with consequent impacts on ecological, economic, 

and social services. Although conversion of forest land to other 

uses over time is inevitable, local jurisdictions and states can 

target efforts to prevent or reduce conversion of the most valuable forest lands to keep private working forests resilient and 

productive.

Keywords: Fourth-level watershed, land use change, private 

forest, water quality, ecological services.

AUTHORS

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

and Mike Dechter is a natural resource specialist, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative 

Forestry Staff, Mail Stop 1123, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW, Washington, DC 20250-1123. Ronald E. McRoberts is 

a group leader for research and analysis and Mark D. Nelson

is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, 

St. Paul, MN 55108. Ralph J. Alig is a research forester, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. David M. Theobald is a 

research scientist, Colorado State University, Natural Resource 

Ecology Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499. Mike Eley

is a GIS coordinator, American Farmland Trust, 1200 18th

Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Mary Carr is a technical 

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

Service, CAT Publishing Arts, 1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW, 

Olympia, WA 98512.

Photo credits: All photos courtesy of USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service except where otherwise noted.


Results from this phase of the project indicate that many private 

forests—particularly in the East, where most private forests 

occur (fig. 1)—are likely to see dramatic increases in housing 

development in the next three decades, with consequent impacts 

on ecological, economic, and social services. Sustaining our 

forests and their benefits in the face of continuing population 

growth is and will be a key challenge. 

Private Forests Play a Key Role in 

Protecting Water Quality

Forests are critical to providing and protecting 

water. Covering nearly one-third of the Nation’s 

land, forests supply over 50 percent of freshwater flow in the lower 48 States. Forests protect water 

quality by slowing runoff, stabilizing soils, preventing 

erosion and floods, and filtering pollutants. According 

to Forest Service estimates, some 180 million people 

depend on forests for their drinking water1 (Stein and 

Butler 2004).

What Is A “Private” Forest?

A private forest is forest land owned by 

individuals, families, corporations, organizations, tribes, or the forest industry. 

Figure 1—Location of private and public forest, nonforest, and urban areas. About three-quarters of America’s private forests are in 

the East.

1 Sedell, J. 2005. Personal communication. Station Director, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 

94701-0245.


What Is A Forest?

The term “forest” has different meanings, depending on 

where you live or your interest in forests. For this project, 

we used “land that is at least 1 acre and at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any size” (Smith et al. 2004). This 

is the definition most commonly used by Forest Service 

Forest Inventory and Analysis scientists, who monitor 

the status of our Nation’s forests each year. The source 

Forests cover 749 million acres of the Nation’s 

landscape. Hardwoods, conifers, and mixed 

species paint a diverse forest palette that 

ranges from sparse dry forest in the arid, 

interior West to lush rain forests in the Pacific 

Northwest, and highly productive moist 

forests in the South.

of our data for forest cover was the National Land 

Cover Data compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, 

which divides the country into small units (or pixels) 

of 323 square feet and assigns each unit to 1 of 21 

vegetation categories. We selected categories that 

contained vegetation that was closest to our definition of forest. 

Private forests constitute nearly 60 percent (about 430 million 

acres) of America’s total forest land (Smith et al. 2004) and 

thereby provide nearly 60 percent of all waterflow originating 

on U.S. forests (and nearly 30 percent of all waterflow originating on land in the lower 48) in a typical year.2

Private forests provide many other benefits to the American 

public. They furnish diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, 

providing the key to the conservation of many species. In some 

regions, such as the Pacific Northwest, private forests provide a 

significant amount of habitat for threatened or endangered species, such as the threatened spotted owl (Holthausen et al. 1995). 

These habitats are important considerations for public land 

managers in the development and monitoring of recovery plans 

for such species (USDI FWS 1992). Private forests also provide 

2 Brown, T. 2005. Personal communication. Hydrologist, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. A, Suite 376, Fort Collins, CO 

80526-1891.

Tom Iraci, USDA Forest Service A. Price, Utah Division of Forestry


the foundation for timber and other forest products businesses 

and accounted for 92 percent of all timber harvested in the United 

States in 2001 (Smith et al. 2004). Private forests in the Southern 

United States alone produce more timber than both private and 

public forests in any other country (Wear and Greis 2002a). 

Long-Term Trends in Forest Changes

Although the amount of private forest land is increasing 

in some places in the country, the total area of private 

forest land has been gradually declining since the mid 

20th century. From 1953 to 1997, 26 states have had a net loss in 

forest area. In 15 years alone (1982 to 1997), 10.3 million acres 

of nonfederal forest land, most of which is private, were converted to developed uses and urban areas. This is the equivalent of 

680,000 acres per year. The rate of conversion jumped to 1 million 

acres per year during the last 5 years of this period (1992 to 1997), 

when 5 million acres of nonfederal forest land were permanently 

converted (Alig et al. 2003). Although such statistics may seem 

inconsequential at a national scale, we are learning 

that, in certain localities, housing density is increasing 

dramatically. Forests on the Edge is helping to identify 

those areas where housing development is most likely 

to affect our private forests. 

Assessing housing development on private 

forests, 2000 to 2030

An interdisciplinary team of specialists used 

geographic information system (GIS) techniques to identify watersheds across the 

conterminous United States containing private forests 

that are projected to experience increased housing 

density by 2030.

Watershed selection criteria—

We selected only those watersheds that had 10 percent 

or more forest cover and that had 50 percent or more 

of their forests in private ownership. A total of 1,026 

of the Nation’s 2,149 fourth-level watersheds met the 

selection criteria. These criteria resulted in a focus on 

the Eastern United States, where private forest cover is 

more extensive than in other parts of the country and 

where most forest land is in private ownership. Only 

the conterminous 48 States were included because 

data for Alaska, Hawaii, and the island territories are 

not adequate at this time.

Housing density projections—

Housing density projections were based on many factors, including past and current statistics on housing 

density and population, road density, past growth patterns, 

and locations of urban areas. A more detailed description of 

this and other aspects of this study can be found in Stein et al. 

(in press).

Information sources—

The following data layers were used in this analysis:

• Fourth-level watershed boundaries (defined by eight-digit 

 hydrologic unit codes) (Steeves and Nebert 1994).

• Forest cover (DellaSala et al. 2001). 

• Land ownership (DellaSala et al. 2001, Vogelmann 

 et al. 2001).

• Housing density for 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001).

Housing density projections for 2030.3

Watersheds Come In Different Sizes

To highlight the important connection between private 

forests and water, Forests on the Edge studied projected 

increases in housing density in private forests across watersheds. A watershed is an area of land that drains into a river, 

stream, or other body of water (see diagram below). To 

facilitate the study of watersheds of different sizes, the U.S. 

Geological Survey devised a system that organizes the country into watershed units. There are 2,108 watersheds in the 

conterminous United States at the size used for this project 

(referred to as “fourth-level”), which have an average of a 

million acres (ranging from 21,760 to about 13 million acres).

3 Theobald, D.M. [N.d.]. Sprawling in the USA? Landscape effects of 

urban and exurban development. Manuscript in preparation.

U.S. Geological Survey


Definitions— 

Private forest—For this project, included tribal, forest industry, and nonindustrial private ownerships; excluded 

public lands and private lands protected through conservation easements.

Rural—Private forest lands with 16 or fewer housing units 

per square mile. Forest lands with this housing density can 

generally support a diversity of economic and ecological 

functions commonly associated with private forests, such 

as management for timber, most wildlife species, and water 

quality.

Exurban—Private forest lands with 16 to 64 housing units 

per square mile. Lands with these higher housing densities 

can still support many wildlife species and other ecological functions, although perhaps at a reduced level. However, 

management for commercial timber may be less likely.

Urban—Private forest lands with 64 or more housing units 

per square mile. Such lands are less likely to be used for timber production or to contribute to wildlife habitat and water 

quality because of increased road density, infrastructure, 

and human population levels. Such forest patches, however, 

are often highly valued for their aesthetics, noise abatement 

properties, and positive effect on property values.

Key Findings

Some 44.2 million acres (over 11 percent) of private forest 

across the conterminous United States could experience substantial increases in housing density by 2030 

(fig. 2). Private forests in watersheds across the Eastern United 

States and in parts of California and the Pacific Northwest are 

projected to experience the most extensive increases. The area 

projected to have the most overwhelming impacts is the Southeast, considered the “wood basket” of the United States and an 

area of high biodiversity. 

This finding complements the conclusions of other recent studies such as the Southern Forest Resource Assessment (Wear and 

Greis 2002a), which identified development as the most pertinent force of change facing forests in the South. This region has 

been characterized as having the highest rate of urban development in the country (Macie and Hermansen 2003). In the 1990s, 

urban development in the South surpassed agriculture as the 

leading cause of forest loss. Causes of expansion of developed 

area in the South include above-average population growth, 

above-average consumption of land per additional resident, 

and income growth (Alig et al. 2004).

Although most watersheds meeting our selection criteria are 

projected to undergo significant housing density shifts on less 

than 5 percent of their surface area, these shifts could have significant impacts at the local level. Twenty-six watersheds were 

projected to experience increased housing development on more 

than 20 percent of the watershed’s area. On a national level this 

may not be considerable; however, such a level of change could 

have tremendous impacts on many ecological values in these 

watersheds, including water quality.

The Top 15

More than 15 watersheds of the 1,026 that met the selection 

criteria are projected to experience housing density increases 

on more than 200,000 acres of their surface area. The following 

tabulation depicts the number of acres of forest expected to shift 

either (a) from rural to exurban or (b) from rural or exurban to 

urban in each of the top 15 watersheds (all these watersheds are 

located in the Eastern United States):

Documenting Change

A challenge for researchers is to document the net change compared to gross changes 

in forest area (Alig et al. 2003). Many acres converted to housing and thus leaving the 

forest land base may still have substantial tree cover and may have older trees. Many 

acres entering the forest base (by tree planting on agricultural land, for example) will 

not have substantial tree cover for many years, and the new forest cover may differ 

substantially from the forests lost in age, composition, quality, and ecological and 

productive value. Thus, forest conditions in a particular area can change substantially 

even when there is little or no net change in forest cover. 


Two Types of Shift Across the United States

From rural or exurban to urban—

g A total of 21.7 million acres across the country

are projected to shift from rural or exurban

to urban by 2030.

g Two watersheds (one in Maine and one in

California) are projected to experience this

shift on 20 to 30 percent of their area (fig. 3).

g Thirty-eight watersheds may have a shift

from nonurban to urban use levels on 10

to 20 percent of their area.

g Most affected watersheds are scattered

across the Eastern United States,

although some are located in the

Sierra foothills of California and

in northern Washington state.

From rural to exurban—

g A total of 22.5 million acres across the

country are projected to shift from rural

to exurban by 2030.

g Twenty-seven watersheds contain forests

projected to experience this shift on more

than 10 to 20 percent of their area (fig. 4).

g Hardest hit will be 12 states in the

Northeast and the South.

Special Considerations: Urban Areas and the West

Because this study focuses on future change, this report 

does not call attention to areas that are already urbanized—for example, around many northeastern cities 

such as Providence, Rhode Island. In such areas, the remaining 

acres of private forests, important at the local level, could be 

under intense development pressures. 

Except for certain watersheds in California and the Pacific Northwest, most Western watersheds under high development pressures 

are not identified in our maps because relative to the country as a 

whole, little private forest occurs in most of the West. 

Jeff Kline, USDA Forest Service

The top 15 watersheds with increased housing density projected

Watershed Acres4 State(s)

1 Lower Penobscot 310,206 Maine

2 Deep 269,817 North Carolina

3 Upper Oconee 269,003 Georgia

4 Etowah 265,961 Georgia

5 Pamunkey 262,003 Virginia

6 Lower Cumberland 259,035 Kentucky and Tennessee

7 Upper Roanoke 257,110 Virginia

8 Lower Lead 242,758 Mississippi

9 Lower Pee Dee 239,558 North and South Carolina

10 Little Kanawha 225,760 West Virginia

11 Middle Hudson 221,384 New York and Massachusetts

12 Upper Green 215,579 Kentucky

13 Lower Androscoggin 213,808 Maine and New Hampshire

14 Lower Kennebec 210,005 Maine

15 North Branch Potomac 209,187 Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia

4

 Number of private forest acres projected to experience increase in housing density.

 











 









 


Figure 2—Watersheds in which housing density is projected to increase on private forests by 2030.

10

Figure 4—Percentage of watersheds with private forests that are projected to shift from rural to exurban by 2030.

Figure 3—Percentage of watersheds with private forests that are projected to shift from rural or exurban to urban by 2030.
11

Three of the fastest growing states—Utah, Nevada, and Idaho—

contain only about 1.5 percent of our Nation’s private forests. 

The predominance of public forest land in the West may overshadow the smaller but vital parcels of private forest whose loss 

could be critical at the local level and should not be discounted 

(see sidebar below). 

The next phases of Forests on the Edge will focus more on 

development impacts on public and private forest in the West. 

Important parcels of private forest in the urbanized East and 

in the West have already been identified by state governments 

through forest-land protection programs such as the Forest 

Service’s Forest Legacy Program and in coordination with 

nongovernmental land trusts.

Implications

The changes in housing density documented by Forests 

on the Edge have implications for the condition and 

management of affected private forests and the watersheds in which they occur. Increased housing density in forested 

areas and decreased parcel sizes can be associated with:

g Decreases in native wildlife populations owing

to decreased wildlife habitat quantity and quality, increased predation and mortality, and other

consequences of human activity that change the

relationships many wildlife species have with

their environments (Engels and Sexton 1994;

Harris 1984; Theobald et al. 1997; Vogel 1989;

Wear and Greis 2002a, 2002b).

g Alterations in forest structure and function

that can derail ecological processes on which

forests and forest dwellers depend, resulting

in less biodiversity and more opportunities

for invasions of nonnative species, insects, and

diseases (Ferreira and Laurance 1997, Meekins

and McCarthy 2002) (fig. 5).

g Long-term modifications to and reductions in

water quality and aquatic diversity when forests

can no longer regulate the movement of storm

water across the landscape, leading to changes

in streamflows, increases in sediment, reshaped

stream bottoms and banks, and impacts on water quality and aquatic species such as fish and

mussels (Booth and Henshaw 2001, Bryan 1972,

Fisher et al. 2000, Jones and Holmes 1985, Paul

and Meyer 2001).

g Decreases in timber production and active

forest management when population densities

increase (Gobster and Rickenbach 2004, Kline

et al. 2004, Wear et al. 1999) (fig. 6).

Pinyon-juniper vegetation in the Southwest is an example 

of vegetation cover that is vulnerable to development in 

some areas but is not always considered forest. The landcover layer we used for this study classified tall and dense 

pinyon-juniper vegetation as forest land, whereas sparse 

and stunted pinyon-juniper was classified as shrubland. 

Pinyon-juniper 

shrubland.

Inclusion of shrubland would have resulted in a map portraying more pinyon-juniper lands as forest but would have 

also classified all Eastern shrublands as forest, thus portraying a substantially larger area of forest land than has been 

reported in national inventories of forest resources. Thus, 

shrubland areas are not highlighted on the current map. Photos by A. Price, Utah Division of Forestry, 

Fire and State Lands

Vulnerable Forests in the West: A Mapping Challenge
12

Figure 6—In western Virginia, increasing human population densities have affected long-term timber management 

capabilities by reducing area of timberland and commercial 

volume of growing stock by some 40 percent from their measured values. Researchers found that the probability of forest 

management approaches zero at population densities of 

about 150 people per square mile (Wear et al. 1999).

Figure 5—Private forest landowners in Georgia’s metropolitan counties are less likely to participate in government incentive 

programs for protecting soils and tree planting than are landowners in more rural counties (Harris and DeForest 1993).

g Increases in fire risk because increased housing

densities in forested landscapes generate more

potential for ignitions; make firefighting and

fire preparedness in such areas more difficult,

dangerous, and expensive; and restrict available

management options for mitigating threats to

forest lands (Grace and Wade 2000, Podur et al.

2002, Russel and McBride 2003).

g Greater loss of life and property owing to

wildfire because houses located in forested

landscapes are more likely to experience

threats from wildfire (Beringer 2000).

g	 Changes in scenic quality and recreational

opportunities owing to loss of open space, decreased parcel size, and fragmentation, all of

which can degrade the recreational experience

for hikers, campers, and mountain bikers and

lead to increased likelihood of land use conflicts

(Gobster and Rickenbach 2004, Patterson et al.

2003).

USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service
13

Figure 7—Private forest stakeholders in Wisconsin indicated 

in a recent survey that parcelization resulting from development makes timber production less profitable and leads to a 

shift from commercially valued species to less valued species 

(Gobster and Rickenbach 2004).

g	 Shifts in price levels and economic benefits

for forest-based products—including fewer

options for timber management, recreation, and

other uses whose economic benefits rely on large

forested areas; shifts in forest-based products

from large-scale recreation to specialty products

that may still be cost-effective on smaller forest

tracts; and potentially increased property values

associated with trees in urban areas (Ellis et

al., in press; Tyrväinen 1997; Tyrväinen and

Väänänen 1998; Weeks 1990) (fig. 7).

Future Options

This study is but one chapter in the story of constant 

flux experienced by our Nation’s private forest lands. 

Although projections of this scope and nature do not 

necessarily provide precise predictions of the future in all parts 

of the study area, they do provide an important step toward 

understanding those factors that could alter the conservation 

functions and values of private forest lands. Spatial information 

about land use changes resulting from this and similar studies 

can help scientists, resource managers, and communities plan 

for future growth and implement plans and policies that conserve our natural resources.

The conversion of some private forest land over time is inevitable. Although development will occur, local jurisdictions and 

states can plan and target efforts to prevent or reduce conversion of some of their most valuable forest lands—such as large 

contiguous forest tracts, forests adjacent to headwaters or riparian areas, forests with high timber or wildlife values, and forests 

with valuable scenic and social qualities—to keep our private 

working forests resilient and productive long into the future.

Acknowledgments

This publication would not have been possible without 

the dedicated help of many people. We especially thank 

Larry Payne, Director of the Forest Service Cooperative 

Forestry staff, for his outstanding leadership on issues relating 

to loss of open space; Ted Beauvais, Assistant Director of Cooperative Forestry, for his excellent advice and support; Sara 

Comas, Cooperative Forestry, for assisting with the management of the Forests on the Edge project; and Jimmy Daukas, 

American Farmland Trust, for sharing his experiences on 

American Farmland Trust’s Farming on the Edge project. We 

also thank the following individuals for their detailed reviews 

of our draft report: Dave Wear and John Greis, Forest Service 

Southern Research Station; Mike Foreman, Virginia Department of Forestry; Don Van Hassent, Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources; and Gary Lettman, Oregon Department of 

Forestry.

What Can We Learn From 

Monitoring Changes in Land Use?

Knowledge of land use changes can help people 

and communities adjust to shifting demands for and 

supplies of renewable resources from the Nation’s 

forest and aquatic ecosystems. Monitoring those 

changes over time can help us:

g Understand whether we can sustain increased 

consumption of forest products while preserving resource stewardship options for future 

generations.

g Compile data that can be used to project 

timber harvests, wildlife habitat, and other 

natural resource conditions.

g Appreciate the importance of looking across 

the landscape and across boundaries to determine the sustainability of our activities.

g Plan for sustainable growth.

Source: Adapted from Alig et al. 2003.

USDA Forest Service
14

Fisher, D.S.; Steiner, J.L.; Endale, D.M.; Stuedemann, J.A.; 

Schomberg, H.H.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Wilkinson, S.R. 

2000. The relationship of land use practices to surface water 

quality in the upper Oconee Watershed of Georgia. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 128: 39–48.

Gobster, P.H.; Rickenbach, M.G. 2004. Private forestland 

parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: 

perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 69(2–3): 165–182.

Grace, S.; Wade, D. 2000. Ecological and economic 

consequences of the 1998 Florida wildfires. Florida 

Department of Forestry. http://flame.fl-dof.com/joint_fire_

sciences/exec_sum.pdf. (01 March 2005).

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography 

theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 211 p.

Harris, T.; DeForest, C. 1993. Policy implications of 

timberland loss, fragmentation, and urbanization in Georgia 

and the Southeast. In: Wear, D.N., ed. Proceedings of the 

1993 Southern forest economics workshop. Durham, NC: 

Duke University: 70–83.

Holthausen, R.S.; Raphael, M.G.; McKelvey, K.S.; 

Forsman, E.D.; Starkey, E.E.; Seaman, D.E. 1995. The 

contribution of federal and non-federal habitat to persistence 

of the northern spotted owl on the Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington: report of the reanalysis team. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-352. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 68 p.

Jones, R.C.; Holmes, L.F. 1985. Effects of land use practices 

on water resources in Virginia. Virginia Water Resources 

Research Center Bulletin 144. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University. 115 p.

Kline, J.D.; Azuma, D.L.; Alig, R.J. 2004. Population growth, 

urban expansion, and private forestry in western Oregon. 

Forest Science. 50(1): 1–11.

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

forest ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface 

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

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

Service, Southern Research Station. 160 p.

Meekins, J.F.; McCarthy, B.C. 2002. Effects of environmental 

variation on the invasive success of a nonindigenous forest 

herb. Ecological Applications. 11(5): 1336–1348.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Acres .405 Hectares

Square feet .0929 Square meters

Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers

Literature Cited

Alig, R.J.; Kline, J.D.; Lichtenstein, M. 2004. Urbanization 

on the U.S. landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 219–234. 

Alig, R.J.; Plantinga, A.J.; Ahn, S.; Kline, J.D. 2003.

Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 

1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050—a technical 

document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-587. Portland, OR: 

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

Northwest Research Station. 92 p.

Beringer, J. 2000. Community fire safety at the urban/rural 

interface. Fire Safety Journal. 35: 1–23.

Booth, D.B.; Henshaw, P.C. 2001. Rates of channel erosion in 

small urban streams. In: Wigmosta, M.S.; Burges, S.J., eds. 

Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and 

geomorphology in urban and forest areas—AGU monograph 

series, water science and application. Washington, DC: 

American Geophysical Union: 17–38. Vol. 2.

Bryan, E.H. 1972. Quality of stormwater drainage from urban 

land. Water Resources Bulletin. 8: 578–588.

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

Iacobelli, A. 2001. An updated protected areas database 

[PAD] for the United States and Canada. Natural Areas 

Journal. 21(2): 124–135. 

Ellis, C.D.; Lee, S-W.; Kweon, B-S. [In press]. Retail land 

use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: an 

investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of 

trees and shrubs. Landscape and Urban Planning.

Engels, T.; Sexton, C. 1994. Negative correlation of blue 

jays and golden-cheeked warblers near an urbanizing area. 

Conservation Biology. 8: 286–290.

Ferreira, L.V.; Laurance, W.F. 1997. Effects of forest 

fragmentation on mortality and damage of selected trees in 

Central Amazonia. Conservation Biology. 11(3): 797–801.
15

Patterson, M.E.; Montag, J.M.; Williams, D.R. 2003. 

The urbanization of wildlife management: social science, 

conflict, and decision-making. Urban Forestry and Urban 

Greening. 1(3): 71–183.

Paul, M.J.; Meyer, J.L. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. 

Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 32: 333–365.

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

control analysis of forest fire activity in Canada. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 32(2): 195–205. 

Russel, W.H.; McBride, J.R. 2003. Landscape scale 

vegetation-type conversion and fire hazard in the San 

Francisco Bay area open spaces. Landscape and Urban 

Planning. 64: 201–208.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Vissage, J.S.; Pugh, S.A. 2004. 

Forest resources of the United States, 2002. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NC-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 137 p. 

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc241.pdf. 

(28 February 2005).

Steeves, P.A.; Nebert, D.D. 1994. Hydrologic unit maps of 

the conterminous United States [Database]. U.S. Geological 

Survey, open-file dataset “huc250k,” ed. 1. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/

usgswrd/XML/huc250k.xml. (1 March 2005).

Stein, S.; Butler, B. 2004. On the frontline: private forests 

and water resources. Wildland Waters. Summer. FS 790. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 24 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/wildlandwaters/. 

(1 February 2005).

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

Eley, M.; Dechter, M. [In press]. Forests on the edge: a 

GIS-based approach to projecting housing development on 

private forests. In: Aguirre-Bravo, C., ed., Proceedings: 

monitoring science and technology symposium: unifying 

knowledge for sustainability in the western hemisphere. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Theobald, D.M.; Miller, J.R.; Hobbs, N.T. 1997. Estimating 

the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 39: 25–36.

Tyrväinen, L. 1997. The amenity value of the urban forest: an 

application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 37(3–4): 211–222.

Tyrväinen, L.; Väänänen, H. 1998. The economic value of 

urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent 

valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning. 43(1–3): 

108–115.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 summary file 1 

technical documentation. Washington, DC. http://www.

census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf. 634 pp. (1 March 

2005).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USDI FWS]. 1992. Final draft recovery plan for the 

northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. 322 p. Vol. 1.

Vogel, W.O. 1989. Response of deer to density and 

distribution of housing in Montana. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 17: 406–413.

Vogelmann, J.E.; Howard, S.M.; Yang, L.; Larson, C.R.; 

Wylie, B.K.; VanDriel, J.N. 2001. Completion of the 1990s 

national land cover data set [NLCD] for the conterminous 

United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote 

Sensing. 67: 650–662. 

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2002a. Southern forest resource 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 635 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002b. Southern forest resource 

assessment: summary of findings. Journal of Forestry. 

100(7): 6–15.

Wear, D.N.; Liu, R.; Foreman, J.M.; Sheffield, R.M. 1999. 

The effects of population growth on timber management and 

inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management. 

118: 107–115.

Weeks, E.C. 1990. Mill closures in the Pacific Northwest: 

the consequences of economic decline in rural industrial 

communities. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., 

eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of 

natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 125–140.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest 

resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and 

private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide 

increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

USDA is committed to making its information materials accessible to all USDA customers and employees.

Forests on the Edge: Pressures and Opportunities on America’s Private Forests

Phase 1 of Forests on the Edge, documented 

in this report, identifies forested watersheds 

most likely to experience housing development. Future phases will explore: 

g Private forest opportunities and threats in more 

detail—presenting additional data related to 

water quality, timberland, and wildlife values, as 

well as maps showing where private forests are 

most susceptible to development, fire, insects 

and diseases, and deterioration of air quality. 

g Housing density projections in the vicinity of 

public forests. 

g Detailed descriptions of the “top 10” watersheds 

of concern and of promise in the conterminous 

United States.

For further information on Forests on the Edge, 

contact: 

Susan Stein

Private Forest Land Studies Coordinator

USDA Forest Service

Cooperative Forestry Staff

Mail Stop 1123

Washington, DC 20250-1123 

Phone: (202) 205-0837

Fax: (202) 205-1271

sstein@fs.fed.us

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

Mark Godfrey © 2004 The Nature Conservancy