12

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

THIS SECTION describes maps that rank watersheds across the conterminous 

United States according to the relative contributions of their private forests to 

water quality, timber volume, habitat for at-risk species, and interior forest. We 

also provide a ranking of watersheds relative to the prospect that these goods and 

services might be altered by future increases in housing density between 2000 and 

2030. Watersheds receiving the highest rankings are those that make the greatest 

contributions and also have the greatest percentages of private forest projected to 

experience increased housing density. 

Descriptions of each contribution include discussions of the implications of 

increased housing density. The actual impacts of the housing density increases 

projected in our analysis will be influenced by many factors, including the 

level of housing density increase and local environmental and socioeconomic 

characteristics. For example, a shift from the rural I to the rural II category will 

likely have different impacts than a shift from the rural I category to the urbanexurban category. The same shift in two ecologically different areas will likely 

have different impacts as well.

Private Forest Benefits and Housing Density Increases

© Jerry and Marcy Monkman/EcoPhotography.com
13

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

According to our analysis, over 57 million acres of rural forest land could 

experience a substantial increase in housing density from 2000 to 2030. As 

displayed in figure 4, watersheds with the highest percentages of private forest 

to be developed are concentrated in the East—in particular in Michigan, 

in the southern Appalachians (at the intersection of North Carolina, South 

Carolina, northern Georgia, and Tennessee), in North Carolina, and in Florida. 

Western States with highly ranked watersheds include Washington, Colorado, 

and California. Many of the highest ranking watersheds are adjacent to large 

metropolitan areas such as Denver, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Washington DC, 

Atlanta, and Knoxville.

Figure 4—Watersheds by percentage of private forest projected to experience increased housing density.
14

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

The top 15 watersheds in terms of total acreage 

of private forest projected to experience increased 

housing density are located in the East (see fig. 5). 

The Merrimack watershed of Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire is at the top of the list, with over 400,000 

acres of private forest projected to shift out of one of 

our two rural categories to the next highest density 

category. Eight of the top watersheds form an arc 

extending from northern Alabama through Georgia 

and South Carolina, to North Carolina. Others are 

located in north Florida, Kentucky, and New England. 

Jeff Kline

Figure 5—Top 15 watersheds in terms of total acreage of private forest projected to experience increased housing density. 

Note: Because of the use of updated data and analysis, the top 15 watersheds presented in this table are different than the 

top 15 watersheds shown in a similar table in Stein 2005.

 Watershed Acres State(s)

1 Merrimack 416,192 Massachusetts, New Hampshire

2 Middle Chattahoochee– 346,163 Alabama, Georgia

 Lake Harding

3 Piscataqua–Salmon Falls 345,070 Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire

4 Etowah 330,625 Georgia

5 Upper Neuse 323,468 North Carolina

6 Upper Broad 320,688 North Carolina, 

South Carolina

7 Lower St. Johns 314,466 Florida

8 Lower Kennebec 308,017 Maine

9 Upper Ocmulgee 306,174 Georgia

10 Saluda 294,915 North Carolina, 

South Carolina

11 Upper Catawba 280,136 North Carolina, 

South Carolina

12 Upper Oconee 277,620 Georgia

13 Saco 259,896 Maine, New Hampshire

14 Middle Coosa 257,556 Alabama

15 Lower Kentucky 244,192 Kentucky
15

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Data and Analysis Considerations 

DATA USED for this report represent the most recent and nationally consistent 

data available. As with all large-scale geographic information system analyses, this analysis has a number of constraints. For example, many western 

woodlands were not included in our analysis because they do not meet the tree 

height or canopy cover requirements needed to be identified as forest in the 

National Land Cover Data. The same is true of many riparian forests located in 

the Plains States. Our study focused on identifying lands that would shift out of 

the rural I or rural II housing density categories, into the next highest category. 

However, housing density shifts within each of our housing density categories 

also could create important impacts. Housing density increases within the rural 

I category in particular are of increased concern in many Western States. Jeff Kline
16

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Water Quality

Tom Iraci

Assessment of Current Situation

Approximately 53 percent of the water supply in the conterminous 48 states originates on forests (Brown et al. 2005)—and that water is widely recognized as clean 

compared to waterflow from other sources. Watersheds with more forest cover have 

been shown to have higher groundwater recharge, lower stormwater runoff, and 

lower levels of nutrients and sediment in streams than do areas dominated by urban 

or agricultural uses (Brett et al. 2005, Crosbie and Chow-Fraser 1999, Matteo et 

al. 2006). With more than half the Nation’s forests in private ownership, the contribution of private forests to the supply of high-quality water in the conterminous 

United States is exceptional: more than a quarter of our fresh water flows from and 

is filtered by private forest lands. 

Private forests provide other vital water-related ecological goods and services, 

including protection from soil erosion (especially during floods); filtration of 

More than a quarter 

of America’s water 

is filtered by private 

forests.
17

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

fertilizers and pesticides; prevention of sediment runoff to streams; and support 

of riparian and wetland habitat for many fish and wildlife species. Although the 

contributions of public forests to water quality are not considered in this analysis, 

public forests also play a critical role in providing clean water.

Figure 6 depicts watersheds according to the relative contribution of private 

forests to the production of clean water. Rankings are based on a combination 

of factors including the percentage of each watershed in private forest as well as 

the percentage of all forest that is private. Watersheds whose private forests are 

providing relatively high contributions to the production of clean water are located 

primarily in the East. Watersheds in the 90th percentile are concentrated in Maine, 

West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama. 

Figure 6—Watersheds by relative contribution of private forests to the production of clean water.
18

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Identifying Areas of Future Change in Water Quality 

Associated With Projected Increases in Housing Density

Figure 7 displays watersheds according to the contributions of private forests 

to water quality combined with the potential for increased housing density. Not 

surprisingly, watersheds in the East have the highest potential for future change in 

water quality as a result of future housing density increase. Areas with the largest 

concentrations of high-ranked watersheds include central New England and an 

area stretching from the North Carolina coast through the southern Appalachians. 

Highest ranking watersheds in the West are in the Pacific Northwest, central 

California, and northern Idaho.

Watersheds where 

water quality contributions could be most 

affected by increased 

housing density are 

in the East.

Figure 7—Watersheds by potential for changes in water quality as a result of projected increases in housing density on private 

forest lands.
19

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Table 1—The 15 watersheds projected to experience the most change in water quality as a result of increases 

in housing density on private forest lands

Water Private forest to

Numerical quality experience increased

rank Watershed State(s) indexa housing density

Percent

1 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire 74.6 63

2 Contoocook New Hampshire 75.5 55

3 Etowah Georgia 68.1 51

4 Merrimack Massachusetts, New Hampshire 66.3 50

5 Seneca North Carolina, South Carolina 68.5 46

6 Deep North Carolina 74.4 35

7 Coosawattee Georgia 65.8 45

8 Haw North Carolina 65.1 46

9 Upper Bear California 63.7 47

10 Upper Cape Fear North Carolina 61.3 51

11 Upper Broad North Carolina, South Carolina 69.9 36

12 Saluda North Carolina, South Carolina 70.9 34

13 Upper Neuse North Carolina 60.6 50

14 Four Hole Swamp South Carolina 69.1 35

15 Rivanna Virginia 68.3 36

a Water quality indices are based on a combination of factors including the percentage of each watershed in private forest and the 

percentage of all forest that is private (see appendix for details).

Table 1 presents the 15 watersheds that could experience the largest changes 

in water quality as a result of increases in housing density on private forest land; 

3 of the 4 highest ranked watersheds occur at least partially in New Hampshire, 

and 7 of the 13 highest ranked watersheds are located, either entirely or in part, 

in North Carolina.

Implications

Water quality and quantity can be altered when forest 

vegetation is replaced by housing and associated 

roads, parking lots, driveways, and rooftops. When 

urbanization increases, volume and peak rate of runoff 

also increase (Im et al. 2003); furthermore, depending 

on the land use, urban runoff can carry pesticides, 

fertilizers, oils, and metals (Stein and Butler 2004). 

The size of the forested area is important—wetlands 

adjacent to large forested tracts have lower levels of 

harmful nutrients and pollutants than do wetlands 

adjacent to smaller forested tracts (Houlahan and 

Findlay 2004). 

Lynn Betts, Natural Resources Conservation Service
20

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Assessment of Current Situation

Private forest land makes a substantial contribution to America’s timber resources, 

accounting for 92 percent of all timber harvested in the United States in 2001 

(Smith et al. 2004). Trends and projections for coming decades show the forest 

products sector changing in response to several factors, including shifting 

populations, increased timber production in the South, and substantial 

changes in the types and intensities of forest management for private 

timberland owners (Egan et al. 2007, Haynes et al. 2001). The bulk of the 

Nation’s timber harvest is expected to occur in the Southeast. Forecasts 

indicate that, by 2050, roughly two-thirds of the softwood timber harvest 

will come from plantations on less than 20 percent of the timberland base 

(Alig and Butler 2004, Haynes et al. 2001).

Figure 8 displays the importance of watersheds according to the 

relative contribution of private forest land to growing stock volume1

(hereafter called timber volume), and is based on the most recent estimates 

by the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, 

which conducts the U.S. national forest inventory (see appendix for more 

details). Watersheds in the 90th percentile are located throughout the East, 

as well as in northern California and in western Washington and Oregon.

In addition to timber, private 

forests also provide a host of other 

economically and culturally 

valuable specialty products such 

as mushrooms, nuts, medicinal 

herbs, syrup, basketry materials, 

and floral greens. 

Timber Volume

Steve Nagy/DesignPics

Chris Evans, River to River CWMA, Bugwood.org

Over 90 percent of 

U.S. timber comes 

from private forests.

1 Growing stock volume is defined as the volume of trees of commercial species with 

diameters of at least 5 inches d.b.h. (diameter at breast height) growing on forest land.
21

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Privately held pine plantation acreage in the South increased by more than 25 million acres between 

1952 and 1997, more than a tenfold increase. An additional 14 million acres of private lands in the 

South are projected to be in pine plantation by 2050 (Alig and Butler 2004). 

U.S. Forest Service

Figure 8—Watersheds by relative contribution of private forests to the production of timber volume.
22

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Identifying Areas of Future Change In Timber Volume Associated 

With Projected Increases in Housing Density

Figure 9 displays watersheds according to the potential for changes in the amount of 

private timber volume as a result of future housing density increases. This map was 

produced by combining the growing stock volume and projected housing density 

increase layers using the method described on page 11. High-ranking watersheds are 

found throughout the East, especially in New England and the southern Appalachians. 

High-ranking watersheds in the West are scattered across western Washington, 

Oregon, and northern California.

Table 2 presents the 15 watersheds projected to experience the most changes in 

timber volume on private forest land as a potential result of increases in housing. As 

with the water quality findings, a number of watersheds occur at least partially in New 

Hampshire (4 of the 9 highest ranked) and North Carolina (7 of the 15 highest ranked). 

Watersheds where 

future increases 

in housing density 

could most affect 

timber volume are 

in the East and 

west-coast states.

Figure 9—Watersheds by potential for changes in timber volume as a result of projected increases in housing density on private 

forest lands.
23

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Table 2—The 15 watersheds projected to experience the most change in timber volume as a result of 

increases in housing density on private forest lands

 Estimated Private forest to

Numerical private experience increased

rank Watershed State(s) timber volume housing density

Million cubic feet Percent

1 Merrimack Massachusetts, New Hampshire 1,867 50

2 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire 1,094 63

3 Puget Sound Washington 1,754 42

4 Etowah Georgia 1,103 51

5 Lower Potomac Maryland, Virginia 1,229 47

6 Saco Maine, New Hampshire 1,134 45

7 Upper Catawba North Carolina, South Carolina 1,319 40

8 Haw North Carolina 1,048 46

9 Contoocook New Hampshire 919 55

10 Upper Broad North Carolina, South Carolina 1,378 36

11 Saluda North Carolina, South Carolina 1,439 34

12 Upper Neuse North Carolina 853 50

13 Upper French Broad North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee 1,346 34

14 Presumpscot Maine 797 55

15 Hiwassee Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee 1,008 38

Implications

The relationship between timber production and housing density is complex and not 

entirely predictable. Timber production and active forest management might decline 

or change in some areas as a consequence of increased housing density, generating 

a concern about wood supply (Egan et al. 2007) and price (LeVan 1995). One study 

in the South (Munn et al. 2002) concluded that urbanization led to lower rates of 

timber harvesting and to an overall decrease in regional short-term timber supply. 

Another study in the South documented expert opinions about a continuous, negative relationship between population density and commercial forestry; as population 

increased, commercial forestry decreased (Wear et al. 1999). A study of timberland 

in New Hampshire concluded that declining parcel size made forest management 

less profitable and that it was generally not profitable to harvest timber on parcels 

smaller than 10 to 20 acres (Thorne and Sundquist 2001). Such findings have been 

less conclusive in the Pacific Northwest, but researchers there did find a relationship between development and reduced private forest management and investment 

(Kline et al. 2004). However, in some places, changes in the management and 

harvest of private forests may be due to a variety of interacting factors, including 

geography, inherent site productivity, national and international markets, stumpage 

prices, and regulation (Egan et al. 2007, Kline and Alig 2005). 
24

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Habitats for At-Risk Species

Assessment of Current Situation

Approximately 60 percent of “at-risk” (see sidebar below) vertebrate and invertebrate animals and plants in the conterminous United States are associated with 

private forests, and two-thirds of the watersheds in the conterminous United States 

include private forests identified as having at-risk species (Robles et al. 2008). In 

most watersheds identified as having the greatest number of at-risk species, at least 

one species is found only on private land, and these forests are often isolated and 

particularly vulnerable to development (Robles et al. 2008). Private forests are especially critical for wide-ranging animals that cross patchworks of public and private 

lands at different seasons or life stages, such as the endangered Florida panther 

(Puma concolor coryi) or the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) (Robles et al. 

2008). Land use conversion owing to development has contributed to the decline of 

approximately 35 percent of all imperiled species nationwide (Wilcove et al. 2000). 

Figure 10 displays watersheds based on the number of at-risk species associated 

with private forests. Data on at-risk species were provided by NatureServe and its 

member Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centres in mid 2007. 

Watersheds in darkest green (90th percentile) provide habitats for up to 79 at-risk 

What Are At-Risk Species?

AT-RISK SPECIES include those plants and animals that are listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or that are designated as 

critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable according to the NatureServe Conservation Status Ranking system. 

The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a substantial portion of its range; a 

threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in 

the foreseeable future. Also considered at-risk are species that are 

candidates or proposed for possible addition to the federal ESA list.

The NatureServe ranking system is slightly different. Species that 

have 5 or fewer populations are labeled critically imperiled; those with 

20 or fewer populations are designated as imperiled; and those with 

80 or fewer populations are identified as vulnerable.

Natural Heritage databases are maintained by every state to 

record the presence of plants and animals. NatureServe is a nonprofit 

organization that works with each State Natural Heritage office to 

collect and display this information at larger scales. Red wolf (Canis rufus).

Valerie Abbott

Private forests 

provide critical 

habitat for at-risk 

species.
25

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

species. Much of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic have high concentrations of these 

watersheds. High numbers of at-risk species are also found in watersheds along the 

California coast and the Sierra Nevada range. The Southwest contains a few highranking watersheds and a large number with private forests providing habitat for 

6 to 21 at-risk species—relatively significant numbers considering that these areas 

have a lower diversity of species in general, relative to coastal areas.

Identifying Areas of Future Change in At-Risk Species Habitats 

Associated With Projected Increases in Housing Density

Figure 11 depicts watersheds according to the number of at-risk species associated 

with private forests and the percentage of private forest projected to experience 

increased housing density. Watersheds in red (upper 10th percentile) cover much of 

Florida panther (Puma concolor 

coryi).

Larry Richardson, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service

Figure 10—Watersheds by relative contribution of private forests to habitats for at-risk species.
26

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Florida and are also found along the Maine–New Hampshire border, in southern 

New Jersey, and in and around the Southern Appalachians, as well as in Michigan, 

eastern Texas, western Oregon, and central California. The highest ranking is the 

Upper Cape Fear watershed, located in central North Carolina and home to 37 

at-risk species associated with private forests. The San Pablo Bay watershed, the 

second-highest ranking watershed for this category, is located north of Berkeley, 

California, and contains 35 at-risk species associated with private forests. 

Table 3 presents the 15 watersheds projected to experience the most changes 

in habitat for at-risk species as a result of projected increases in housing density 

on private forest lands; all but 2 watersheds are located in the South, including 

parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia.

Figure 11—Watersheds by potential for changes in at-risk species habitats as a result of projected increases in housing density on private 

forest lands.
27

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Table 3—The 15 watersheds projected to experience the most change in at-risk species habitats as a result of 

increases in housing density on private forest lands

Private forest

Number of at-risk to experience

Numerical species associated increased

rank Watershed State(s) with private forests housing density

Percent

1 Upper Cape Fear North Carolina 37 51

2 San Pablo Bay California 35 51

3 Withlacoochee Florida 33 52

4 Seneca North Carolina, South Carolina 45 46

5 Tugaloo Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina 32 47

6 Upper Catawba North Carolina, South Carolina 58 40

7 Merrimac Massachusetts, New Hampshire 28 50

8 Kissimmee Florida 48 42

9 Oklawaha Florida 40 42

10 Upper Neuse North Carolina 26 50

11 Upper Little Tennessee Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee 44 37

12 Conasauga Georgia, Tennessee 28 41

13 Austin-Travis Lakes Texas 27 42

14 Lower St. Johns Florida 24 44

15 Upper Broad North Carolina, South Carolina 40 36

Implications

Changes in the presence and distribution of private forest habitats could cause 

populations of at-risk species to disappear, decline, or become more vulnerable to 

disturbance (Robles et al. 2008). Loss of habitat is highly associated with at-risk 

species that have declining populations, and is seen as the primary obstacle for 

their recovery (Donovan and Flather 2002, Kerr and Deguise 2004). 

Decreases in habitat quality and quantity associated with increases in houses, 

roads, fences, powerlines, and other factors related to development can lead to declines in terrestrial biodiversity (Findlay and Houlahan 1997, Graham 2007, Houlahan 

and Findlay 2003, Houlahan et al. 2006, USDA NRCS 2007); increases in invasions 

by exotic (nonnative) species along forest edges (Meekins and McCarthy 2001); 

creation of barriers to movement (Jacobson 2006); increases in predation (Coleman 

and Temple 1993, Engels and Sexton 1994, Kurki et al. 2000, Sieving and Willson 

1999, Woods et al. 2003); declines in pairing success (Lampila et al. 2005); and 

reproductive failures or mortality from parasitism and other factors (Hartley and 

Hunter 1998). Habitat degradation also has been determined to contribute to declines 

in fish numbers that could result in extinction within a century if trends continue 

(Ratner et al. 1997). The presence of roads alone can have impacts even tens to 

hundreds of yards away, including interruption of wildlife movement and modification 

of habitat, microclimate, and the chemical environment (Riitters and Wickham 2003).

Watersheds with 

the highest at-risk 

species counts 

and potential for 

increased housing 

density are in 

California and 

the East.
28

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Interior Forests

Bev McConnell, 

©iStockphoto.com

Assessment of Current Situation

Interior forest generally refers to an area of forest land that is surrounded by other 

forest (see the appendix for the detailed definition used for this study). Interior 

forests provide numerous public services including habitat for wildlife species. 

Interior forest is inversely related to the degree that a forested landscape is fragmented, or separated, into disconnected patches; as forests are fragmented, the 

relative amount of forest edge increases. More than 40 percent of all forests in the 

United States are estimated to be located within 90 meters (295 feet) of a forest 

edge (Riitters et al. 2002, Riitters and Wickham 2003). The amount of interior 

forest required by many species is not well-understood (Riitters et al. 2004); 

however, certain species are known to require larger expanses of interior forest 

than others, and the amount of interior forest can serve as an indicator of available habitat for species that are sensitive to fragmentation. For example, some bird 

species such as the red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) and the whitebreasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) show substantial preferences for foraging in 

interior forest rather than at forest edges (Whelan and Maina 2005), and 

small mammals such as the eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) spend 

substantially more time pausing (and less time foraging) at the forest edge 

than they do in interior forest, presumably because of increased predation 

risk (Mahan and Yahner 1999). The survival of many larger mammals—

such as the black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and river 

otter (Lutra canadensis)—in some places can hinge on the maintenance 

of large expanses of interior forest (Phelps and Hoppe 2002). 

Interior forests are 

essential to the 

survival of many 

large mammals.

Eric Foltz, 

©iStockphoto.com
29

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Figure 12 displays watersheds according to the percentages of private forest categorized as interior forest, based on 

NLCD forest cover data (Homer et al. 2007). This analysis 

involved dividing all private forests across the United States 

into pixels (30 by 30 meters [98.4 by 98.4 feet] each). To qualify 

as interior forest, each pixel had to be forested as did 90 percent 

of a surrounding 65-hectare (160.6-acre) window. Watersheds 

in the 90th percentile are concentrated along an axis running 

from northern Maine through southern Louisiana (particularly 

in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, northern New York, and 

West Virginia). High-ranking watersheds are also found in Arkansas, southern 

Missouri, northern Wisconsin and Minnesota, northern California, northern Idaho, 

western Montana, and scattered locations across the Southwest. 

Some small mammals spend substantially more 

time pausing (and less time foraging) at the forest 

edge than they do in interior forest (Mahan and 

Yahner 1999, USGS 2006).

Terry Spivey Photography, 

Bugwood.org

Figure 12—Watersheds by relative contribution of private forests to interior forest cover.
30

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Identifying Areas of Future Change in Interior 

Forest Associated With Projected Increases 

in Housing Density

Figure 13 identifies areas where private interior forest may 

be reduced by future housing density increases based on a 

combined ranking of the private interior forest and housing 

density data layers. Watersheds in the 90th percentile are 

again located along the Maine-Louisiana axis and are 

particularly concentrated in central New England, central 

Pennsylvania, and the southern Appalachian area. Highranking watersheds are also found along the coasts of 

South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida; along 

Puget Sound in Washington state; in the Sierra Nevada 

range of California; and outside Denver, Colorado. 

Figure 13—Watersheds by potential for changes in interior forest as a result of projected increases in housing density on private 

forest lands.

Jack Jelly, 

©iStockphoto.com
31

Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions

Table 4—The 15 watersheds projected to experience the most change in interior forest as a result of 

increases in housing density on private forest lands

Private forest to

Numerical Private forest experience increased

rank Watershed State(s) that is interior housing density

Percent

1 Contoocook New Hampshire 53 55

2 Sacandaga New York 70 34

3 Winooski New York, Vermont 52 38

4 Saco Maine, New Hampshire 43 45

5 Honcut headwaters California 46 40

6 Middle Delaware- New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania 58 32

Mongaup-Brodhead

7 Upper Little Tennessee Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee 47 37

8 Coosawattee Georgia 42 45

9 Lamoille New York, Vermont 48 36

10 Pemigewasset New Hampshire 69 29

11 St. Vrain Colorado 40 46

12 Tuckasegee North Carolina, Tennessee 57 30

13 Upper Spokane Idaho, Washington 38 49

14 Priest Idaho, Washington 43 38

15 West Vermont 63 27

Table 4 presents the 15 watersheds projected to experience the largest reduction in interior forest as a result of increases in housing density on private forests. 

Eight high-ranking watersheds are located in the Northeast, primarily in New 

York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The list also includes four Western 

watersheds, in Colorado, Idaho, Washington, and California. 

Implications

Forest fragmentation influences the ecology of most U.S. forests and is associated 

with numerous conservation problems. Impacts can include changes in microclimate, pollution deposition, and tree growth; the spread of invasive species; 

altered habitat suitability; and reductions of wildlife movement (Riitters et al. 

2002). Impacts of forest fragmentation are species specific (Debinski and Holt 

2000) and can adversely affect many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, 

mammals, and plants (Riitters et al. 2002). Specific documented impacts on 

wildlife include changes in the number (richness) of breeding bird species (Jones 

et al. 2000), decline in numbers of interior forest birds (McWilliam and Brown 

2001), altered species interactions (Taylor and Merriam 1995), and changes in 

species behavior and foraging success (Keyser 2002, Mahan and Yahner 1999, 

USGS 2006, Whelan and Maina 2005). 

Housing density 

increases in interior 

forest will be high 

along an axis from 

southern Maine 

to northern Georgia.
32

PRIVATE FORESTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS

Rick Dunning and his wife Karen purchased land 

in southwestern Washington in 1988 as a financial 

investment. After selling 35 acres, the Dunnings 

now have about 150 acres to plant, manage, and 

harvest timber; promote fish and wildlife conservation; and use for recreation. 

When the Dunnings bought their land they 

knew they couldn’t live on the income but recognized other returns they would reap from the 

forest—among them the ability to raise their family 

with the work ethic and lifestyle that comes from 

owning and working on the land. 

The area around the Dunning property is 

beginning to break into smaller parcels as a consequence of accelerating local growth. Developers 

have shown up on the doorstep, and solicitations by 

Using the Land Well

mail are frequent. The Dunnings have been offered 

“phenomenal” amounts for their land, and the pressure to develop is intense for local landowners.

Rick Dunning—who also wears the hat of 

executive director of the Washington Farm Forestry 

Association—prefers to look at development as an 

“opportunity” rather than an inherent “threat.” He 

suggests that regulation and taxation issues may 

overshadow housing development as the most 

serious challenge to private forest owners.

He is convinced that people don’t have to 

choose between forests and development. “You 

can have human population and working forests 

together,” he said. “If we have population and green 

areas mesh, we can absorb the population and still 

use the land well.”

Faces of Private Forest Owners Rick Dunning