C o o p e r a t i n g 

Ac r o s s B o u n d a r i e s

P a r t n e r s h i p s t o C o n s e r v e 

O p e n S p a c e i n R u r a l A m e r i c a

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

FS-861

August 2006
F OR F URTHER IN F ORMATION

Claire Harper

USDA Forest Service

Cooperative Forestry

1400 Independence Ave, SW

Mail Stop 1123

Washington, DC 20250-1123

Phone: (202) 205-1389

claireharper@fs.fed.us

Tom Crow

USDA Forest Service

Research & Development

1400 Independence Ave, SW

Mail Stop 1113

Washington, DC 20250-1113

Phone: (703) 605-5289

tcrow@fs.fed.us

www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats

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

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

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

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer
Cooperating Across Boundaries—

Partnerships to Conserve

Open Space in Rural America

Growth and land conservation are often seen as two 

opposing forces—with proponents of each scrambling 

to beat the other to valuable land. Fortunately, a new 

paradigm is emerging. Development and conservation of 

open space can be compatible and complementary when 

applied in strategic, collaborative ways. 

This publication focuses on the benefits of partnerships and working across jurisdictional boundaries to conserve the rapidly dwindling open space of rural America. 

We are losing 6,000 acres of open space each day across 

the United States, at a rate of 4 acres per minute. Our 

land development is outpacing population growth, especially in rural areas where the pattern of growth is low 

density, dispersed housing.

The Nation’s forests are particularly vulnerable. 

Counties with national forests and grasslands are 

experiencing some of the highest growth rates as people 

move to be close to public lands. Unfortunately, as lands 

near the national forest borders are subdivided, our ability 

to manage the public land for healthy forests and public 

enjoyment becomes increasingly difficult. The future is 

even less certain where forests are in private ownership 

—as the vast majority are—since residential growth alters 

the ability of these forests to provide ecosystem services 

and public benefits such as water quality, wildlife habitat, 

and a sustainable flow of forest products.

Our agency is committed to helping find solutions. 

Let me emphasize that the Forest Service is not in the 

business of regulating private lands—landowners and 

local elected officials have the principal responsibility for 

deciding which lands can be developed and which should 

be conserved as open space. We are also not the only 

agency with a role in open space conservation. However, 

we are committed to working in partnership with others 

on this issue and can contribute many resources to help 

conserve vital lands in rural America. 

 Vibrant rural economies and rural jobs are inextricably linked to conserving the foundation of today’s growth 

in our scenic rural communities—plentiful open space.

DALE N. BOSWORTH

Chief

USDA Forest Service

i

LETTER F ROM THE C HIE F

O F THE F OREST SERVI C E

Chief Bosworth (front) has identified the loss of open space as one of 

four threats facing our Nation’s forests and grasslands.
Many thanks to the following for sharing their 

time and expertise in writing and reviewing this 

publication.

FOREST SERVICE PROJECT TEAM

Claire Harper, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Tom Crow, Research & Development

Rick Cooksey, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Anne Hoover, Research & Development

FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH TEAM

Brett Butler, Northern Research Station

Curt Flather, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Dave Wear, Southern Research Station

Eric Gustafson, Northern Research Station

Jeff Kline, Pacific Northwest Research Station

Kurt Riitters, Southern Research Station

Paul Gobster, Northern Research Station

Ralph Alig, Pacific Northwest Research Station

Susan Stewart, Northern Research Station

FOREST SERVICE REVIEWERS

Beth Egan, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Cheryl Bailey, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Debbie Pressman, Wildlife, Fish & Water, National Forest 

System 

Debra Whitall, Partnership Office, National Forest System

Dustin Maghamfar, Partnership Office, National Forest System

Kathryn Conant, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Karen Liu, Ecosystem Management, National Forest System

Karen Solari, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Keith Cline, Urban & Community Forestry, State & Private 

Forestry

Loren Ford, Strategic Planning & Resource Assessment

Megan Roessing, Forest Management, National Forest System

Mike Dechter, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Mike Higgs, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Peggy Harwood, Urban & Community Forestry, State & Private 

Forestry

Ralph Giffen, Range Management, National Forest System

Ruth McWilliams, Sustainability, State & Private Forestry

Sally Claggett, Chesapeake Bay Program, Northeastern Area

Steve Marshall, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Susan Stein, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

Ted Beauvais, Cooperative Forestry, State & Private Forestry

PARTNERS

Ron Stewart, Boulder County

Lee Epstein, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Jacquelyn Corday, City of Missoula

Ted Knowlton, Coalition for Utah’s Future

David Theobald, Colorado State University

Eric Norland, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service

Matthew Dalbey, Environmental Protection Agency

Paula Vanlare, Environmental Protection Agency

Mary Maj, Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee

Ralph Knoll, Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands

Abigail Friedman, National Association of Counties

Ian MacFarlane, National Association of State Foresters

Gary Severson, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments

Eric Meyers, The Conservation Fund

Kate Dempsey, The Nature Conservancy, Maine

Laura Hubbard, The Nature Conservancy, Idaho

Louise Milkman, The Nature Conservancy

Sue Sitko, The Nature Conservancy, Arizona

Brett Rosenberg, US Conference of Mayors

Brad Pruitt, Washington Department of Natural Resources

Anita Jenkins, Wilson Miller, Inc.

WRITING AND PUBLISHING

Deborah Richie Oberbillig, Technical Writer, Deborah Richie 

Communications

Nancy Seiler Anderson, Graphic Design

Sara Comas, Photo Selection and Editing

Mary Jane Senter, Editing

ACKN OWLEDGEMEN TS

A C K NO W LEDGEMENTS

ii
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 4

Key Terms and Definitions....................................... 7

Fact Sheet: Why Are Open Spaces Important?........ 8

RATES AND TRENDS: A Changing Rural America... 10

Regional Snapshots................................................. 13

Case Study: Greater Wasatch Area, Utah............... 14

Index of Open Space Change in the United States ... 15

DRIVERS OF CHANGE: 

 Migration to Rural America .................................. 19

Case Study: Collier County, Florida....................... 23

SIGNIFICANCE OF OPEN SPACE........................ 24

 1. Fresh Water Delivery and Flood Control ........... 25

 Case Study: Chesapeake Bay Watershed .......... 26

2. Rural Ways of Life.............................................. 27

 Case Study: The Northern Forest..................... 28

3. Wildlife Diversity and Corridors........................ 29

Case Study: Greater Yellowstone Region ......... 31

4. Wildland Fire .................................................... 32

5. Recreation Opportunities.................................... 33

 Case Study: Washington State ......................... 34

6. Economic Benefits of Open Lands..................... 35

 Index of Open Space Significance and Threats .... 36

PARTNERSHIPS FOR COOPERATING 

ACROSS BOUNDARIES.................................... 37

Case Study: Boulder County, Colorado................. 40

CONCLUSION: Five Key Messages........................... 43

FOREST SERVICE TOOLS FOR OPEN SPACE 

CONSERVATION............................................... 44

REFERENCES ........................................................... 46

C ONTENTS

C O N T E N T S

Columbine and Parnassian Butterfly.

USFWS

Photos on cover provided by USDA Forest Service (USDA FS), USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS).
People are building homes in rural areas to enjoy scenic beauty and 

other open space amenities.

2

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

E X E C UTIVE SUMMAR Y

New houses with large lots are fragmenting forests and farms at a 

higher rate than if they were clustered together .

elbow room. This low-density growth (whether 5-acre or 

40-acre parcels) scattered across the landscape results in 

ecological and economic impacts as open spaces are divided 

into small ownership parcels. Each new house added to the 

rural landscape affects a larger area than a house on the urban 

fringe. Often, the most desirable home sites lie in ecologically 

fragile areas, like streamsides or winter ranges of deer or elk. 

As we subdivide forests and grasslands, rural areas face a 

dwindling of economic returns to farming, ranching, and 

logging enterprises. New roads and other infrastructure that 

serve scattered homes fragment wildlife habitat, block wildlife 

movement, and foster the spread of invasive species. Counties 

pay more for services to outlying residences than they take in 

from property taxes. Converting forests to buildings and paved 

surfaces, like roads and parking, results in the loss of natural 

filters that cleanse our water. 

When we build more homes within and adjacent to 

wildlands, we put more property and people at risk to 

wildfire. More than one-third of all houses now fall within 

this wildland-urban interface (Radeloff et al. 2005). In 

addition, the increasing population living near national forests 

and other public lands has led to an upsurge in unmanaged 

recreational use that damages fragile resources.

Finding a sustainable balance between built areas and 

open space helps protect water quality; conserves native 

wildlife; buffers homes from wildfire; assures a future for working farms, ranches, and timberlands; supplies access to outdoor 

recreation; elevates home values; reduces the cost of community services; and enhances our quality of life. 

RURAL AREAS with open space 

are experiencing unprecedented growth. Retirees, second 

home owners, commuters, and others are choosing 

to build homes in rural areas to enjoy the many benefits 

provided by forests, lakes, rivers, coasts, mountains, and public 

land. The fastest developing areas include the South, Northeast, Rocky Mountain West, Upper Great Lakes, and Ozarks. 

As more people have the means to move to scenic 

countrysides, the open space that attracts these new 

residents is increasingly at risk of development. The health and 

well-being of our rural open space affects city and 

country residents alike. Undeveloped forests and grasslands—

including working farms, ranches, and timberlands—provide 

clean drinking water, wood and agricultural products, wildlife 

habitat, recreation opportunities, and natural-resource-based 

jobs. Urban areas often depend on rural open spaces for water, 

food, and fiber production. 

Current growth trends are showing a steady loss of 

open space. From 1982 to 2001, 34 million acres of open 

space, equivalent to the State of Illinois, were converted to 

development. For forest land alone, the United States lost 10 

million acres to development from 1982 to 1997, with 26 million additional acres projected to be developed by 2030 (Alig 

and Plantinga 2004).

The patterns of rural growth are as significant as the total 

amount of development. People move to the country to find 

© Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

USDA NRCS
3

Who should read this publication:

County and municipal officials, landowners, State 

and Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, private 

companies, citizens, and others interested in conserving 

rural open space.

Purpose of the Document:

Encourage cross-boundary partnerships to 

strategically conserve open space across the landscape. Share 

research on the importance of open space and how growth 

trends may affect the benefits these lands provide to society. 

Offer Forest Service resources and information to help communities balance growth and conservation.

This Document includes:

• Key research findings from Forest Service and other researchers.

• Case studies of how communities across the United States 

are conserving open space and guiding growth in rural areas.

• Examples and highlights of how the Forest Service can help.

A promising strategy to 

achieve a sustainable balance 

is to work cooperatively across 

boundaries to protect and 

manage open spaces across the 

landscape. Case studies featured 

in this publication illustrate how 

communities are taking 

innovative approaches to protect 

open space and accommodate 

new growth.

Open space includes beautiful landscapes like this one in Idaho—natural 

areas that are also providing us with many services, from clean water to 

wildlife habitat (see factsheet on page 10).

USDA NRCS
4

“The quality of life offered by the experience of wild lands 

attracts people who want to move to our community: 

It attracts tourism visitors and it also attracts people who 

appreciate it so much they decide to relocate their businesses here, 

which in turn helps diversify our economy.” 

– Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce, Idaho (Rasker et al. 2004)

“It seems like every woodlot is for sale, and 

everybody’s looking for that piece of property that’s close 

to public property. They develop and build around it.” 

– Florida (USDA FS 2002)

Walk into the corner café in any “discovered” rural 

paradise and you might catch a heated conversation over 

mugs of coffee that goes something like—

 “All this growth is good for business. 

People moving in are keeping this place alive.”

“But everywhere you look, there’s a new house. 

We’re losing our open lands and that’s what folks are 

coming for.”

“It’s getting harder to get around. There’s more traffic and people who drive too fast. Don’t those new folks 

realize we live at a slower pace here?”

I N T R O D U C T I O N

INTRODU C TION

A C HANGING RURAL AMERI C A

Grappling with growth and change is a common 

theme in many parts of rural America. Trends reveal two 

interrelated types of rural growth. The first—and the focus of 

this publication—is driven by the appeal of natural amenities, 

outdoor recreation, and favorable retirement locations. The 

second kind of rural growth results from expanding urban 

and manufacturing areas, where people move for jobs 

or affordability. 

Businesses are increasingly locating in rural areas with 

open space amenities because of the competitive advantage of 

a high quality of life for their employees. Industries such as 

tourism, outdoor recreation, and second home construction 

capitalize on scenic beauty and the proximity of places to hike, 

bike, and fish.

As people seek the good life, rural communities 

struggle to adjust to change. While welcoming new jobs and 

economies, they are worried about losing the lands and way of 

life they have known.

USDA FS

Permanent migration to a rural area often follows three steps: 1. vacation, 2. second home ownership, and 3. migration (Stewart and Stynes 

1994).

USDA NRCS
5

C oming T ogether to

A ddress G rowth

What is the answer to those morning coffee debates 

in cafés across rural America? Establishing a dialogue and 

process for sharing information is a good place to start working 

together to build a landscape vision that maintains rural values 

important to both old and new residents. 

Who should sit at the table to help chart the course? In 

regions like the Eastern United States, open lands are predominantly in private ownership. Here, the stakeholders and 

partners might include large landowners, such as timber companies, family forest owners, State agencies, and local officials.

In the West where public lands can dominate, forest 

rangers, biologists, and other Federal and State agency officials have an opportunity to join with county commissioners; 

planners; homeowners; private landowners, such as farmers and 

ranchers; and others to tackle the issue of open space loss as a 

cross-boundary issue.

P ri v ate Land

C hanges

A ffect

P ub l ic Lands

Increasingly, 

national forests and other 

public lands are becoming 

islands of wild and semiwild lands embedded in a 

matrix of developed lands. 

Private lands in rural areas 

are developing because 

people are attracted to the 

amenities of public lands. 

Yet, many of these public 

land amenities are connected to open spaces on 

private lands. Water flows 

across borders. Wildlife migrates. Fires that maintain healthy 

forests and grasslands need room to burn without endangering 

people and their homes. Conserving open space is not a private 

land or a public land issue, but a common challenge to be addressed at local, regional, and national levels.

A private landowner in Colorado discusses growth issues with

representatives from the USDA Forest Service, Colorado State Forest 

Service, and other landowners. 

Public land, like these mountains and forests in Washington, attract 

growth to rural areas.

USDA FS

Brad Pruitt, WA Department of Natural Resources

USDA FS
6

T he N ation ’ s F orests and

the R o l e of the F orest S er -

v ice

The “Nation’s forests” consist of 749 million acres of 

public and private forests. The USDA Forest Service manages 

147 million of these acres, along with 45 million acres of range 

and grassland, as the “national forests and grasslands.” There 

are 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands, dispersed 

among 43 States and Territories, with the largest concentrations in the West (USDA FS Sept. 2005).

The USDA Forest Service also partners with other Federal agencies, States, and Territories to provide assistance to 

landowners and communities to care for private forests through 

State and Private Forestry programs. 

The largest forestry research organization in the world is 

housed within the USDA Forest Service. Scientists carry out 

basic and applied research to study biological, physical, and 

social sciences. Research provides information necessary to best 

manage and protect our Nation’s forests so they can continue 

providing quality water and air, wildlife habitat, forest 

products, and places for recreation and renewal.

MAP 1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

County & Municipal

10 million acres

State

63 million acres

Other Federal

98 million acres

Forest Service

148 million acres

Private

430 million acres

Public and Private Forest Ownership

in the United States

Who Owns the Nation’s Forests?

Source: Smith et al, 2004
7

K E Y T E R M S A N D D E F I N I T I O N S

Open Space. n. Natural areas such as forests and grasslands, as 

well as working farms, ranches, and timberlands. Open space 

also includes parks, stream and river corridors, and other natural areas within urban and suburban areas. Open space lands 

may be protected or unprotected, public or private. This report 

focuses on open space lands in rural areas. 

Open Space Amenities. n. Environmental, social, and economic benefits provided by open space. Amenities include 

scenic beauty; places to recreate; clean water; wildlife to view, 

hunt and fish; and land-based livelihoods like farming, ranching, and forestry. These amenities are attracting new residents 

to many rural areas throughout the United States. Favorite 

destinations include places with forests, lakes, rivers, coasts, 

mountains, and public land. 

Rural. adj. Areas outside of cities and suburbs with low population densities. Often a rural area includes towns surrounded 

by farms, forests, or ranches. Rural areas occur at the outskirts 

of cities as well as in remote, nonmetropolitan locations. The 

majority of land in rural areas remains as open space with few 

houses and other buildings. 

Urban. adj. Cities and suburbs with moderate to high population densities, and with the majority of land developed as 

residences, stores, offices, and roads. 

Rural Growth. n. The trend of building new homes and commercial structures at low densities in rural areas. This type 

of growth differs from “urban sprawl” in that houses are built 

on larger lots (1.7 to 40 acres) than in suburban areas. Some 

refer to this trend as “rural sprawl” or “exurban growth.” Rural 

growth can occur without a corresponding increase in population when the growth is predominately from vacation and 

second homes. 

Conservation. n. The preservation and management of open 

space to maintain environmental, economic, and social benefits. Key conservation tools include public purchase of land, 

conservation easements (see page 26), sustainable management 

practices (see page 28), and smart growth (see page 26). The 

case studies included in this publication provide examples of 

how these tools and others are being used to conserve open 

spaces throughout the United States. 

Housing developments in urban and suburban areas utilize less land per 

house than in rural areas.

The development trend in rural areas is to build houses on large lots.

©Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

USDA NRCS.
8

FA C T S H E E T

Open space is vital to our health, our 

economy, and our well-being. While we 

commonly place a dollar figure on the worth of 

goods from farms, ranches, and timberlands, 

only recently have we recognized that our 

natural open space is yielding ecosystem 

services worth trillions of dollars globally 

(Costanza et al. 1997). Those ecosystem 

services range from purifying air and water to 

pollinating crops, helping stabilize climate, and 

cycling nutrients. To simplify the list, consider 

what people and wildlife alike need to survive: 

water, food, and shelter. Open space—

natural areas plus working lands—is 

providing these basic needs every day.

WATER

Clean Water 

More than two-thirds of America’s water 

originates in forests (USDA-FS, Jan 2000). Forests naturally filter and remove pollutants, and 

lower the risk of sediment entering streams and 

rivers from landslides and erosion. This natural 

filter can help reduce the cost of purifying water 

to drinkable standards. When faced with a 

choice between spending $8 billion on a water 

treatment facility for New York City or $1 billion 

to protect and restore the watershed that produces much of the city’s drinking water, the city 

chose to conserve the watershed forests (Dudley 

and Stolton 2003). 

Natural Flood Control

Rain falling in forests is slowed by leaves and 

plants, and soaks into the soil, but rain pouring 

on bare soil or pavement runs off the surface, 

causing erosion and flash flooding. Nature’s 

stormwater management systems are intact 

forests. Natural flood control also comes in the 

form of wetlands like marshes and swamps that 

absorb storm deluges. 

Reliable Water Supply

Our farms and ranches require a steady 

source of water. Forests often capture and store 

water that fills our aquifers and reservoirs— 

important for irrigation and for drinking water. 

In many parts of the western United States, late 

summer water flows come from gradually 

melting snowpack in the forested watersheds 

of high mountains. Trees also work like a giant 

pump, returning water from the ground to 

the atmosphere. 

USDA NRCS

USFWS

Why is Open Space 

Important?
9

FOOD

Farms and Ranches Close to Home

When communities conserve fertile 

agricultural lands, they are keeping sources 

of food and rural livelihoods nearby, rather 

than relying on distant imports. Working and 

open lands also generate more tax revenue than 

they receive in public services—as shown by 

economic studies in 94 counties and townships. 

In contrast, residential properties on average 

generate less public revenue than they cost (AFT 

2002). 

Pollination

Worldwide, 100,000 species of pollinators 

—bees, birds, butterflies, bats, and more—are 

giving our wild plants and 70 percent of our 

agricultural crop species the chance to 

reproduce. In turn, these pollinators need a 

wide variety of habitats to survive. One-third of 

our food comes from plants that must have wild 

pollinators (Daily et al. 1997).

Wild Harvest

Hunters and anglers seek out open space 

to find trout in streams, waterfowl on lakes, 

upland birds on grasslands, and deer in forests. 

Open space also yields wild berries, mushrooms, 

and medicinal plants. An impressive 118 of the 

top 150 prescription drugs in the United States 

are based on natural sources, including 9 of the 

top 10 drugs (Daily et al. 1997).

SHELTER

Wildlife Habitat

While people are drawn to live close to 

open space, many species of wildlife require 

the shelter of open space, especially when 

conserved as contiguous blocks of habitat 

rather than patches. Just as our homes are 

more than roofs over our heads, open space 

needs to be of sufficient quality to maintain 

healthy animals, fish, and plant populations. 

Timber

We build our houses from natural 

materials—especially wood—that come from 

our working forests. When we conserve 

forests, we retain a source of timber within 

the United States. Private forests accounted 

for 92 percent of all U.S. timber harvested in 

2001 (Smith et al. 2004).

Scenery and Recreation

For many people, part of what makes a 

home livable is proximity to nature, whether 

a small park or a sweeping expanse of land 

for hiking, biking, birdwatching, or other outdoor pursuits. Open space can be considered 

a key part of human habitat as well as home 

for wildlife.

Deborah Richie Oberbillig

USFWS

9
10

finite land base. By 2100, the population is predicted to double 

from the year 2000—reaching 571 million. Key factors driving 

population growth are longer life expectancies, an average of 

2.1 births per woman, and a constant net immigration rate of 1 

million per year (Cordell and Overdevest 2001).

Much of that growth will take place near metropolitan 

areas, with the South (the sunbelt) generally growing 

fastest. Cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, are rapidly 

adding population and spreading out as new residents seek 

affordable homes with bigger lots. Charlotte’s population grew 

by 33 percent in the 1990s and its urban area by 44 percent 

(Alig and Plantinga 2004).

The trend for rural growth is dispersed development. This 

pattern of growth results in higher environmental impacts per 

house than urban or suburban development, due to the larger 

areas affected and incursion into areas less altered by human presence (Radeloff, Hammer, and Stewart 2005). Rural 

development on large lots (1.7 to 40 acres) has been growing at 

a rate of 10-15 percent per year, exceeding urban and suburban 

expansion rates (Theobald 2003).

10

“We’re 75 miles from Madison and 75 miles from LaCrosse, 

but in the last few years there have been many new homes 

going in within a few miles where I live. All of a sudden they just 

blossomed, some on wooded, some on open land.”

– Wisconsin (Gobster and Rickenbach 2004)

D e v e l o p m e n t R a t e s Exc e e d 

P o p u l a t i o n R a t e s

As the U.S. population grows, our development 

generally spreads at higher rates (See Chart 1). As a result, our 

cities are expanding and so are many of our rural communities. 

In the post World War II era, rural areas were viewed as places 

losing population to cities. However, rural areas with natural 

amenities are now developing quickly, with accelerated growth 

predicted. In addition, rural residences occupy more than 

seven times more land area than urban residences nationwide, 

as illustrated in Chart 2 (Theobald 2005). 

Approximately 297 million people live in the United 

States (US Census Bureau Nov 2005). By 2050, the United 

States is projected to gain 120 million more people sharing a 

R A T E S & T R E N D S

RATES & TRENDS

A C HANGING RURAL AMERI C A

CHART 2

Rural Residences Occupy More Land 

than Urban Residences

Source: Theobald 2005.

= 31 million acres 

While 31 million acres were settled 

at urban and suburban densities 

(less than 1.7 acres per dwelling) as of

2000, more than seven times 

that much land—227 million acres—

was settled at rural densities 

(1.7 to 40 acres per dwelling).

URBAN 

HIGH DENSITY 

RURAL 

LOW

DENSITY 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1982-1997 2000-2025

(projected)

Land Development

U.S. Population Growth

16%

24%

34%

79%

Source: Alig et al. 2004. US Census Bureau 2000 and 2001.

Percent Increase

Land Development is 

Outpacing Population Growth

CHART 1
11

F o r e s t l a n d R a t e s o f C h a n g e

“Two-thirds of the state is in forest cover. The trend is an increasing 

amount of forest cover. But if we could see property lines out there, 

we’d see many more forest landowners owning smaller and smaller 

parcels of forestland.”

– Virginia (USDA-FS 2002)

Forest lands of the United States are changing as more 

people seek homes in the woods. When measuring and projecting forest land rates of change, researchers evaluate three 

trends: conversion, fragmentation, and parcelization.

First, conversion refers to the replacement of trees with 

houses, buildings, lawns, and pavement. Forest Service 

researchers estimate that by 2030, we will convert 26 million 

acres of forest land (Alig and Plantinga 2004). This figure is 

based on examining the loss of forest cover. Regions that have 

seen net losses of forest cover include the South and Pacific 

Coast (Alig et al. 2003).

Not all regions are losing forests. Over the past 50 years, 

both Northeast and the Rocky Mountain States have seen net 

increases in forest cover. The primary driver of forest gains has 

been the regrowth of trees on agricultural lands. Many farms and 

ranches are no longer competitive in the marketplace as technological changes have enabled food to be produced on fewer acres. 

Other factors include a century of fire suppression leading to 

Between 1982 and 1997, 10 million acres 

of forests were developed (USDA NRCS 

2003). Forest Service researchers estimate that between 1997 and 2030, 

we stand to lose an additional 

26 million acres of forestland 

(Alig and Plantinga 2004). 

The total loss of forests 

from 1982 and projected to 2030 would 

be close to the size of 

the state of Georgia.

1982–1997

10 million acres

1997–2030

26 million acres

State of Georgia

38 million acres

CHART 3

U.S. Forest Land Change from 1982 to 1997

(with projections to 2030)

© Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Roads and other infrastructure that service homes on large lots divide forests into fragments.

more forest growth and tree planting. Despite net gains, significant 

losses of forests to development are 

still occurring in these regions—as 

forests are gained in one location, 

other forests are lost to development somewhere else (Alig et al. 

2003; Alig and Plantinga 2004).

The second trend, fragmentation, refers to the disturbance 

zone beyond the footprint of the 

development. Roads and power 

lines that service new homes divide 

forests into fragments. This lowers 
12

R A T E S & T R E N D S

Watersheds in Which Housing Density is Projected

to Increase on Private Forests by 2030

High change

Medium change

Low change

Public forest

Urban areas

Source: Stein et al. 2005

MAP 2

the quality of wildlife habitat provided by the forest, especially 

for those species that are sensitive to human disturbance. 

Fragmentation also encourages the spread of invasive species as 

roads and utility cooridors provide vectors for new invasions. 

One indicator of the degree of fragmentation across a 

landscape is housing density. This gives us a more detailed 

look at what is happening to our forests. While forests may 

appear unbroken from an aerial view, beneath the canopy there 

may be a surprising number of homes. Studies in the southern 

Appalachian forests demonstrate that measuring land cover 

changes alone cannot account for the impacts on biodiversity 

and ecosystems when houses are built within forests 

(Turner et al. 2003).

According to recent findings from the Forests on the Edge 

project of the Forest Service, more than 44 million acres of 

private forest lands could experience sizeable increases in 

housing density by 2030. The South, Northeast, and parts of 

California and the Pacific Northwest are projected to have the 

most extensive housing increases. The greatest impacts will be 

felt in the Southeast, a region of high biodiversity and timber 

productivity (Stein et al. 2005) (See Map 2). 

The third measure of forest change is parcelization. In 

general, as forest properties become smaller in size, the 

potential grows for those lands to be developed for housing. 

From 1993 to 2003, the number of family forest owners swelled 

from 9.3 million to 10.3 million, controlling 42 percent of the 

U.S. forest lands (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). 

Smaller properties tend to be also more difficult to manage 

for forest land values like timber, water, and wildlife. Nine of 10 

family forest owners have fewer than 50 acres, over half of which 

own 1-9 acres (usually as a houselot) (Butler and Leatherberry 

2004). Preliminary data from the National Woodland Survey 

indicates that the acreage of private forests held in small parcels 

has increased by almost 8 million acres since 1993, but still only 

accounts for approximately 20 percent of private forest land 

(National Woodland Survey 2004).
13

Forests owned as small parcels are more likely to be developed for housing.

NRCS

T r a ck i n g t h e 

R u r a l R e n a i s s a n c e

Rural living defined America in the late 1700s when only 

5 percent of people lived in cities, but by the 1820s the pace 

of city growth began to pick up markedly. The 20th century 

ushered in the Industrial Age and a steady exodus of rural residents to cities. By the 1920s, half the population lived in cities 

and suburbs. Today that number has swelled to 80 percent.

Post-World War II America experienced a sharp rise in 

population, land development, personal incomes, and 

suburbanization. During this era, population grew by more 

than half while the amount of developed land doubled. 

Average family income increased by 150 percent—giving 

more people the ability to own larger houses and yards at the 

urban fringe. 

Meanwhile, the rural decline continued. While farming 

and other land-based activities still prospered, the advent of 

big machines and corporate ownership drastically reduced the 

number of workers. 

Then something remarkable happened in the 1970s—a 

turnaround for parts of rural America. Suddenly, people were 

fleeing the cities and seeking a pastoral setting—resulting in a 

14-percent jump in population in sparsely populated areas. The 

farm crisis of the 1980s slowed and, in some cases, halted the 

rural renaissance—temporarily. In the 1990s, rural counties 

grew by 3 million people and benefited from a faster rate of job 

growth than metropolitan areas ( Johnson and Beale 1998).

Note that the return to rural living does not equate with 

a return to land-based activities like farming. Economic and 

technological changes are allowing people a greater mobility of 

workplace (as explored in Drivers of Change Section).

The revival of rural living is not happening everywhere. 

People continue to leave the Great Plains, Western Corn Belt, 

and Mississippi Delta—places closely linked to agriculture. 

The Mountain West, Upper Great Lakes, Ozarks, and parts of 

the South and Northeast show the greatest population gains 

( Johnson and Beale 1998). 

A study of western States found that rural counties with 

the strongest economic growth and higher wage service jobs 

share an important trait. Those counties are close to protected 

public lands, such as wilderness areas and national parks, and 

have air or road access to metropolitan areas (Rasker et al. 

2004).

Forest Service research on open space amenity migration 

shows that counties with national forests are seeing higher 

population growth rates than counties without these public 

lands. Long-term trends in the U.S. economy indicate that the 

migration to amenity-rich locations is likely to increase for the 

foreseeable future (Garber-Yonts 2004. Johnson and Stewart, 

in press). 

REGIONAL SNAPSHOTS

Research can help predict not just the rates of rural 

growth, but specific areas that have the right combination of 

features for growth in the future. As the following regional 

snapshots show, factors such as topography (how much developable land is available), land ownership, existing transportation networks, and land use planning influence rates and trends. 
14 C A S E S T U D Y

Greater Wasatch Area, Utah

Envision the Future to

Guide Growth

When planners in Utah forecasted 3 

million more residents living in the Salt Lake 

City area and close to the Uinta and WasatchCache National Forests by 2050, citizens and 

public officials took notice. Envision Utah, a 

public/private partnership that began in 1997, 

developed a strategy for growth that involves 

as many of today’s 1.6 million residents as 

possible. The new inhabitants of 2050 will 

mostly be their children and grandchildren.

Without changing patterns of growth, 

urbanized lands are predicted to quadruple 

by 2050. However, that picture could be far 

different under scenarios created by local 

residents, mayors, city council representatives, 

and other stakeholders. Dozens of 

community design workshops organized by 

Envision Utah

in 1998 gave participants the chance to take 

a look at where to place more people on the 

land within constraints of land and water.

Four growth scenarios for this Greater 

Wasatch Region (covering 23,000 square miles 

of central Utah) emerged from the workshops. 

Envision Utah shared these four scenarios in 50 

town meetings. Every household in the region 

received a newspaper insert with illustrations 

analyzing each scenario.

Over 19,000 citizens responded and the 

vast majority supported a growth strategy that 

promotes preservation of critical lands, 

supports a variety of transportation choices, 

and develops more walkable communities. 

Families would still enjoy single-family homes, 

but on slightly smaller lots situated in villages 

and towns. New development would be placed 

in existing urban areas or clustered along 

transit routes, leaving more land for open 

space and 

agriculture. 

Additional 

information:

www.envisionutah.org

Source:

Envision Utah 2004.

Coalition for Utah’s Future

Coalition for Utah’s Future
15

I n d e x o f Op e n S pa c e Cha n g e i n 

t h e U n i t e d S t at e s

• Percent of land considered rural: 83

• Percent of population that is rural: 20

• Amount of land settled at urban high densities as of 

2000, in acres: 31 million 

• Amount of land settled at rural low densities as of 2000, 

in acres: 227 million 

• Open space loss to development between 1992 to 1997, 

in square miles: 24,000 

• Size of West Virginia in square miles: 24,000

• Open space projected to be developed by 2020, in square 

miles: 100,000

• Size of California in square miles: 100,000

• Rate of open space loss per day, in acres: 6,000

• Rate of open space loss per minute, in acres: 4

• Percentage of forest lands that are privately owned in 

U.S.: 57

• Number of private forestland owners: ~10 million

• Amount of private forestland lost to development from 

1982-1997, in acres: 10 million 

• Net amount of forest projected to be developed from 

1997 to 2030, in acres: 26 million 

 Sources: Cordell and Overdevest 2001, Theobald 2005, 

USDA NRCS 2003, Alig and Plantinga 2004. 

0 

1

 Millions of Acres

2

3

4

5

7

6

Change in Developed Area 

in U.S. by Region, 1982-1997

The Southeast Experienced the Highest Growth

Sources: Alig et al. 2004. USDA NRCS 2001.

CHART 4

of which 132 are “of concern” and 28 are critically imperiled. 

The primary threat is habitat loss from converting or modifying lands (Wear and Greis 2002). The region also produces the 

most timber in the country and has 89 percent of its forests in 

private ownership. 

A comprehensive assessment of southern forests concluded that urbanization will have the “most direct, immediate and 

permanent” effects on southern forests—of all forces of change 

(Wear and Greis, Oct 2002). 

Southeastern forests are home to many endangered species like this Red 

Hills Salamander in Alabama.

USFWS

S o u t h e a s t

A warm climate and attractive natural features combine 

to make this the fastest growing region with the highest levels 

of sprawl outside cities. Some of the most desirable locations —coastal areas and southern Appalachians—are also 

the most fragile ecologically. The Southeast boasts high plant 

and wildlife diversity—a staggering 1,208 vertebrate species, 
16

R A T E S & T R E N D S

MAP 3 The Midwest is Experiencing Rapid Landscape Changes

Sources:

R.B. Hammer and V.C. Radeloff

University of Wisconsin-Madison (map)

Gobster and Haight 2004 (statistics)

Housing Units 

per Km2

0

0-2

water

2-4

4-8

State boundaries

8-16

16-128

>128

1940 2000

• Increase in housing units 

between 1940 and 2000 in the 

Midwest, percent: 146 

• Growth of medium density 

housing (4-32 houses per square 

km) between 1940 and 2000 in 

the Midwest, percent: > 250

Housing development next to farmland in Dane County, Wisconsin. 

NRCS

N o r t h C e n t r a l 

This land of many lakes and private 

forests that stretch across gentle terrain 

is undergoing rapid landscape changes 

(See Map 3). More and more second 

homes are sprouting around lakes, rivers, and in forests with good road access 

to major cities. Two-thirds of forests 

contain at least 10 housing units per 

square mile. Forests traditionally managed for timber are being subdivided. As 

large expanses of northern forests start 

to fragment, there is concern among 

biologists whether those forests will 

continue to serve as homes for wildlife 

that have lost habitat elsewhere (Gobster and Haight 2004). 
17

However, a 2004 voter-approved initiative now requires 

the State government to compensate landowners for property 

value losses from land-use decisions such as zoning. Whether 

Oregon’s land use planning can be enforced after this measure 

is questionable. Research predictions suggest that a lapse in 

zoning enforcement would result in greater development in 

western Oregon’s forests and agricultural lands (Kline, June 

2005). Today, planners, policymakers, and researchers in Oregon are taking a new look at whether zoning alone can be effective in the long run as populations and land values increase. 

USDA NRCS

Rural growth in the Rocky Mountain West is occuring in both forests 

and grasslands.

USDA FS

R o cky M o u n t a i n W e s t

In contrast to the Southeast and Northeast, there is a high 

level of public land ownership in western mountainous States. 

Much of the public land falls in higher elevation lands, 

including the dramatic Rockies—favored destinations for 

recreationists. Many kinds of wildlife—from elk to warblers 

—require both public lands of the mountains and lower elevation private lands for survival. Often, valleys and rivers in 

private ownership have the highest ecological values. Much of 

the region is arid, where wildfires play a natural role but also 

endanger the increasing number of houses and communities in 

the wildland-urban interface (Romme 1997). Fourteen of the 

fastest growing counties in the United States are in the Rocky 

Mountain West and rural population growth rates are exceeding urban rates (Cordell and Overdevest 2001). 

P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t – O r e g o n

Oregon is known for its rugged coastlines, lush forests, 

Cascade Mountains, and high 

desert. It is also known for a 

pioneering comprehensive 

statewide land use-planning 

program enacted in 1973. To 

achieve its goals, Oregon’s cities and counties are required to 

concentrate new development 

inside urban growth boundaries and to protect farm and 

forest uses through zoning outside the boundaries. Research 

suggests the program has been 

measurably successful at 

shaping development in ways 

that conserve prime farmlands, 

forests, and other open spaces 

(Kline 2005). Oregon has instituted urban growth boundaries to protect farms and forests.
18

R A T E S & T R E N D S

REGIONAL OPEN SPACE KEY QUESTIONS

• Can the South produce high levels of timber, protect and 

manage for biodiversity, meet the demand for outdoor recreation, and house millions more people in rural areas?

• Can the Great Lake States conserve northern forests and 

lakes that are strongholds for birds and animals that have 

lost habitat to the south?

• What are strategies to steer growth away from 

fire-prone forests in the Rocky Mountain West?

• Can Oregon still conserve forest and farmlands now that the 

2004 voter-approved initiative mandates affected landowners to be compensated for reductions in land values?

• How will Southern California accommodate increasing 

levels of recreation use on public lands? 

One million acres of Central Valley farmland are predicted to be lost by 

2040. (USDA FS 2003)

USDA NRCS

S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a

Four national forests are within easy driving distance of 

Los Angeles and other highly urbanized areas. The warm dry 

climate and Pacific coast have drawn people here for many 

years, making southern California the most populous region 

in the United States. Now the population is expanding from 

the coast counties into the Central Valley and Inland Empire, 

where population is forecast to increase from 5.4 million in 

1998 to 15.6 million by 2040. Demographics are shifting too, 

with an increase in Hispanic and Asian populations (USDA 

FS 2003). 

New homes are peppering canyons and hillsides that are 

at high risk for wildfires. Productive farms are giving way to 

housing developments; the predicted loss of farmland in the 

Central Valley is 1 million acres by 2040. The challenges for 

the region include managing increased and changing recreation 

use of public lands, conserving wildlife habitats and working 

farms, and contending with more houses in the wildlandurban interface (USDA FS 2003).
19

To better grasp why rural areas with open space amenities 

have become a target for growth, social scientists are studying 

the drivers behind rural growth. They have documented how 

we have become a nation of nomadic people —moving from 

place to place for jobs or to find a desirable location to put 

down roots.

Retirees and working-age people alike are relocating to 

rural areas where they can have daily access to the outdoors for 

recreation and for solitude. This greater mobility of where we 

live comes from rising incomes since World War II and 

transportation advances like the interstate highway system that 

put the countryside within commuting range of cities. 

This publication does not focus on suburban areas 

expanding from cities. However, there are rural areas just beyond the suburbs that are growing rapidly. People are willing to 

commute farther to work to experience a rural lifestyle and find 

affordable housing. Now, 3.4 million Americans endure a daily 

“extreme commute” of 90 minutes or more each way to work 

(U.S. Census 2005).

Meanwhile, a survey conducted for the National 

Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America found that 

79 percent of recent homebuyers ranked a commute time of 

45 minutes or less as a top priority in their choice of where to 

live. Another high priority (72 percent) is the ability to walk to 

shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and public transportation. 

For people planning to buy a home, 87 percent placed top priority on a shorter commute. The survey shows a clear demand 

for livable communities with walkable neighborhoods close to 

services rather than the traditional kind of large lot suburban 

setting (National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth 

America 2004). This suggests that one strategy to keep rural 

areas rural is to build communities that feature compact, mixed 

use, and walkable neighborhoods. 

D R I V E R S O F C H A N G E

DRIVERS O F C HANGE

MIGRATION TO RURAL AMERI C A

Catskill Mountain Foothills...New York

Type: Lakefront Land

Price: $172,500

Fronts a 46-acre Mountain Lake

“Exceptionally rare 25-acre lake front property with 

1,400 feet of lake frontage on a 46-acre mountain 

lake. Located on a quiet Town Road next to a 

1,000-acre private reserve. Pretty meadow, hardwoods, 

and a view. Walking trail along the lake. If it’s the lifestyle or simply an investment, look no further.”

Fullerton Gulch...Montana

Type: Ranch

Price: $250,000

Adjacent to the National Forest

“67 acres with year-round creek, national forest land 

on three sides. Great building site that is very remote 

yet only minutes to town by paved road. This is a mustsee if you’re looking for a real Montana home setting.” 

Rural Montana is growing faster than the State’s cities and towns 

(Theobald 2003).

USDA NRCS
20

W h o ’ s M o v i n g t o R u r a l 

A r e a s a n d W h y ?

Retirees and the Baby Boom Generation

Throughout the United States, people are moving to rural 

areas to enjoy open space amenities, such as lakes, scenic views, 

and forests. Retirees are a leading force behind this migration 

trend. Portable pensions and dispersed families enable retirees 

to choose amenity-rich locations. Between 1990 and 2000, 

counties with national forests, recreation opportunities, natural 

resources, and aesthetic qualities (see Map 4) experienced high 

population growth rates—between 15 and 30 percent. These 

growth rates are expected to accelerate as 70 million baby 

boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) reach retirement age 

( Johnson and Stewart, in press). 

D R I V E R S O F C H A N G E

National Forest and High-Amenity Counties

NF Alone

NF with High Amenity

High Amenity Alone

None

Analysis: K.H. Johnson, Loyola University Chicago

 Data: USDA Forest Service; USDA Economic 

 Research Service. Johnson and Beale (2002)

MAP 4

National forest and 

high-amenity counties 

are experiencing rapid 

growth. “High amenities” include natural 

amenities such as aesthetics, recreational 

opportunities, and 

retirement appeal.

USFWS
21

Working Age – the 30+ group

But it is not just retirees who have the ability to choose 

where they live. Working-age people have discovered an 

alternative to traffic jams on weekends and holidays. When 

faced with a choice of a higher salary living in the city or a 

pay cut to live close to their favorite outdoor recreation spots, 

the choice appears obvious to a growing number of city 

dwellers. 

Renewed rural prosperity reverses the trend of young 

adults leaving home to find jobs elsewhere. Now in some rural 

areas former residents are returning home to find jobs that 

did not exist before. Working-age residents tend to support 

schools and community programs. 

Technology and Accessibility 

The new economy of rural areas favors individual 

enterprise. Log onto the Internet, check in by cell phone, 

send a fax and anywhere you choose to live can become a 

work place. Rural areas that also have air service and 

proximity to interstates make commutes and business travel 

to cities possible.

In northern Wisconsin, rural areas beyond typical 

commuting distances are now destinations for both permanent 

and seasonal residences. Highway improvements may increase 

the number of migrants as commutes take less time (Gobster 

and Rickenbach 2004). 

Similarly, proximity to airports may facilitate rural growth. 

For example, skiers and other recreationists fly into western 

resort communities like Aspen, Vail, and Steamboat Springs 

in Colorado, and Sun Valley in Idaho. Burgeoning second and 

permanent homes surround such ski destinations.

Second Homes

A rise in personal incomes, particularly before the stock 

market decline of 2002, gave homeowners the means to 

purchase or build vacation homes in their favorite rural areas. 

In some of the Great Lakes counties, up to 80 percent of 

residences are second homes. Permanent migration to a rural 

area often follows a three-step process: 1. vacation; 2. second 

home ownership; and 3. migration (Stewart and Stynes 1994).

Backyard in rural Kentucky.

A study of middle-aged newcomers to Oregon who chose its natural

amenities as a reason for relocating showed they reduced their annual 

household incomes by an average of $10,000 (Judson et al. 1999).

USDA NRCS

Deborah Richie Oberbillig
22

Search for Nature

America is known as 

a melting pot, and a 

restless one. Research 

shows Americans have a 

strong need for contact 

with nature that in turn 

leads to development of 

natural habitats, loss of 

open space values, and an 

exodus to the next last best place (Kaplan and Austin 2004). 

In the West, migrants into Colorado are moving to Montana 

and other States to find the next unspoiled rural and affordable haven (Robb and Reibsame 1997). And as urban areas 

expand into rural lands, people move farther from the city to 

find a country experience. 

Appeal of Large Lots

The rural dream of owning a piece of paradise helps support a market for large lots. Realtors and developers market 

and respond to this demand. In fact, 80 percent of land converted for recent residential housing lies outside urban areas 

and 94 percent of the acreage is divided into lots of 1 acre or 

larger. More than half of those lots are sized at 10 acres or 

more (ERS 2005). 

Zoning, too, can lead to larger lots. When rural 

communities zone for minimum lot sizes, they discourage 

development of clustered, denser communities with large adjacent open spaces. In Colorado, landowners have an incentive to subdivide into 35-acre parcels, the minimum size for 

dividing lands without going to a zoning board for approval. 

D R I V E R S O F C H A N G E

Housing Affordability

When rural areas first grow, the appealing large home sites 

tend to be affordable. Some of the attraction for new migrants 

lies in the combination of cheaper land than they can find 

within commuting distance of a city, combined with proximity 

to wildlife and solitude.

Housing affordability becomes a strong driver in areas like 

Los Angeles where housing prices have climbed steeply. Many 

urban workers commute 60 miles or more from inland 

communities like Riverside (US Census 2005). As more jobs 

move out to suburbs, rural areas are also increasingly within 

commuting distance.

However, rural growth eventually drives up land prices 

and taxes. The real estate market for country living provides 

landowners with an incentive to subdivide and sell. The 

returns are often far greater than traditional forestry and 

agricultural incomes. In the Southeast, the weighted average 

value of land in forest use for 473 counties is $415 per acre 

compared to an urban use value of $36,216 per acre – 90 times 

higher (Alig and Plantinga 2004). 

A study of 500 property owners close to 12 lakes in Walworth County, 

Wisconsin, revealed that 62 percent were second-home owners, with 

primary residences in Chicago, a 2-hour drive away. Almost 40 percent 

intend to become permanent residents. (Gobster and Haight 2004)

© Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
23

Collier County, Florida 

Concentrating New Development 

Away from Environmentally 

Valuable Land

Retirees and immigrants are flocking to 

sunny, coastal Collier County in southwest 

Florida. In 2000, a group of landowners 

created incentives and a new marketplace to 

conserve ecologically rich rural lands while 

welcoming more people on the land.

The Collier landowners hired a consulting 

firm, WilsonMiller, Inc., to assess their natural 

resources and develop a new model for land 

use planning. Using a geospatial analysis, 

WilsonMiller quantified and assigned values 

to environmentally sensitive features, such as 

wetlands and panther habitats, for a 195,000-

acre area. This analysis is used to add “value” 

to traditional market prices for land. 

Here is how it works. A Rural Land 

Stewardship plan identifies sending and 

receiving areas. The sending areas cover land 

with sensitive or rare natural resources like 

native pine forests. Landowners within the 

sending area can choose to sell Stewardship 

Credits to developers. The number of credits 

available for sale depends on the specific 

natural characteristics of the property. 

In addition, a landowner can gain “bonus 

credits” for choosing to restore some acres 

or place them under permanent conservation 

agreements.

The Ave Maria development project 

recently tested the new market. A new 

town and university are being built on 

5,000 acres within the designated 

receiving area. The developer purchased 

approximately 8 credits per developed acre 

to protect 17,000 acres of open natural 

land surrounding the community. The 

new town is being built as a compact, 

mixed-use community that concentrates 

growth in walkable neighborhoods close 

to stores and offices.

C A S E S T U D Y

The Collier Rural Lands Stewardship Area will 

accommodate the projected 2025 population in 

new rural towns and villages. These towns will occupy only one-tenth of the land formerly needed 

for 5-acre home sites. This win-win solution will 

protect 90 percent of all native wetlands and 

upland forests at no cost to the public, and will 

provide an income stream to all landowners in the 

area. Now, landowners have an incentive and economic return for the protection of environmentally 

sensitive lands. 

 In recognition of the potential and uniqueness of this approach, the State of Florida in 2004 

codified the use of Stewardship Credits in State 

law, and encouraged other counties to use Collier 

County as a model for rural lands planning. 

Stewardship Credits: a tradable value for land that 

accounts for variation in environmental characteristics and 

land uses. Stewardship credits are used in designated areas 

to guide development away from environmentally valuable 

land and to encourage compact growth that preserves open 

space.

Rural Land Stewardship Plan: a land use plan that designates sending and receiving areas. Landowners in sending 

areas can choose to sell stewardship credits to cash in the 

value of their open space. Developers must purchase stewardship credits to gain approval for new development projects, and have a monetary incentive to concentrate growth in 

compact developments. All new development occurs in the 

receiving areas.

Additional information: Rural Lands Stewardship 

Program – http://privatelands.org/rural/RLSP.htm

or www.WilsonMiller.com

Sources: Demers 2003. Jenkins 2005. 

WilsonMiller, Inc.
24

S I G N I F I C A N C E 

of open space

“The question is not whether we should develop, but rather how 

best to use the land to maintain or enhance the goods and services 

provided by ecosystems.” 

Wayne Zipperer, Forest Service research forester

(USDA FS 2002)

In the 2004 fall election, voters in 26 States approved $3.25 

billion in public funds for parks and open space. The approval rate 

of open space bond initiatives was 75 percent.

(TPL 2005)

When open space is functioning well, the seamless 

natural fabric of the land is often unappreciated. Open space 

plays significant roles in our every day life. Forests regulate 

climate, clean water and air, maintain hydrologic cycles, and 

contribute to healthy, fertile soils. Periodic burns in 

fire-adapted forests and grasslands provide a service in 

rejuvenating soils, plants, fisheries, and in reducing fuels. The 

trick is to give these natural processes room to perform their 

jobs. Open space can be working land as well, 

important for harvesting timber, ranching, and farming.

When open space frays and the seams unravel, the 

losses become clear, one strand at a time. Water quality 

drops. Nonnative and invasive species increase. Wildlife diversity declines. Sometimes it takes a discerning eye to recognize 

those fraying pieces. 

Take this story of two fields in Missouri, subjects of a 

Forest Service research study (Thompson and Burhans 2003). 

At first glance, the fields appear remarkably similar, except that 

one is found in an urbanized setting—the city of Columbia, 

Missouri, and the other in nearby rural Boone County. Now, 

ask a birdwatcher to tell you the difference between the two. 

The rural field features much higher bird diversity and 

uncommon species like the blue-winged warbler and whiteeyed vireo. Fewer bird species living in the urban field is 

directly related to brown-headed cowbirds that thrive in nearby 

lawns and disturbed areas. Cowbirds lay their eggs in songbird 

nests. The songbirds then raise cowbird chicks at the expense 

of their own. The researchers compared a number of rural 

and urban fields and concluded that the nests of northern cardinals, yellow-breasted chats, and indigo buntings were parasitized by cowbirds 3 to 12 times more frequently in urban fields. 

Keeping open space intact is important not only to birds 

and birdwatchers, but to all of us, whether we live in urban or 

rural lands. Open space provides critical services and benefits 

that we all need and enjoy.

SIGNI F I C AN C E O F OPEN SPA C E

Brown-headed 

cowbirds lay their 

eggs in songbird 

nests.

USFWS

USFWS

Indigo bunting 

nests are parasitized by cowbirds 

3–12 times more 

frequently in urban 

fields (Thompson 

and burhans 2003).
25

W hat ’ s at S take ?

1 . F r e s h W a t e r D e l i v e r y a n d 

F l o o d C o n t r o l

Forests serve a vital function connected to clean water. 

Some 66 percent of the Nation’s fresh water originates in 

forests (USDA FS 2000). Here, trees help filter stormwater 

and convey it to groundwater aquifers. In western mountains, forested headwaters hold snow that in turn becomes a 

critical source of late season flows for ranchers irrigating hay 

meadows in valleys below. Trees also slow storm runoff and 

reduce flooding.

What’s at stake for water quality

When forests give way to residential and commercial 

development, we lose the services they provide. For example, the loss of trees between 1972 and 1996 in the Puget 

Sound watershed (near Seattle, Washington) has increased 

stormwater flow by 1.2 billion cubic feet in the region during 

peak storm events. Replacing the lost stormwater retention 

capacity with reservoirs and engineered systems would cost 

$2.4 billion (American Forests 1998). 

Open lands, whether forested or grassland, assure rains and 

snows are absorbed into the ground. Water cannot percolate 

through pavement. When water runs off roads into streams, 

clean water suffers as sediments and pollutants are swept into 

streams, rivers, and lakes. In Anchorage, Alaska, researchers 

found that the abundance and diversity of aquatic insects suffered when parking lots and other pavement converted just 5 

percent of the watershed (Ourso and Frenzel 2003). 

Forests are a key source 

of clean water.

USFWS

USFWS

USDA NRCS

A restored wetland in Yolo County, CA, filters sediments and pollutants.
26

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Protecting Forests to 

Restore Water Quality

The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation’s 

largest estuary and one of the most 

productive ecosystems in the world. The bay 

supports a wealth of wildlife, fish, and birds. It 

also supports a thriving fishing industry whose 

harvests of fish and shellfish are 

enjoyed by people throughout the country. 

Keys to the bay’s health are in the trees and 

forests in the watershed. Forests filter out pollutants before they enter streams, rivers, and 

the bay. Once, over 95 percent of the 41-million-acre watershed was forested, but that 

number has dropped to 58 percent as development and agriculture replaced trees. Current 

forest loss in the watershed is estimated to be 

100 acres per day.

Today, Forest Service and government 

agencies from Maryland, Virginia, 

Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, as 

well as nonprofit groups, are working together 

to conserve and restore watershed forests. In 

2000, the partners set a goal to permanently 

protect 20 percent of the watershed (6.5 million acres) by 2010, using donated and publicly 

purchased conservation easements, tax 

incentives, and parkland purchases to add 

to already existing protected lands. They are 

also working to conserve and restore forests 

C A S E S T U D Y

along 70 percent of streams and shorelines in 

the watershed. 

The Washington, D.C., region’s Smart 

Growth Alliance has contributed as well, encouraging developers in the watershed to build 

in ways that minimize water pollution and 

maintain tree cover. The Alliance, made up of 

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coalition for 

Smarter Growth, Greater Washington Board of 

Trade, Greater Washington Builders Alliance, 

and the Urban Land Institute, hosts a “jury” 

of environmentalists, developers, and planners 

who certify whether development projects 

meet smart growth criteria, including 

building in and around existing communities, 

reducing impervious surfaces, managing 

stormwater, and maintaining trees and wetlands. Developers pay to have their project 

proposal evaluated. If the project meets 

smart growth standards, jury members 

advocate for the project at local hearings.

Conservation Easement. A legal agreement 

between a landowner and an eligible organization 

(usually a land trust or government entity) that restricts future development activities on the land to 

protect its conservation value. Most conservation 

easements are perpetual and apply to both current 

and future landowners.

Smart Growth. Smart growth describes 

development patterns that create attractive, 

distinctive, and walkable communities that give 

people of varying age, wealth, and physical ability 

a range of safe, convenient choices in where they 

live and how they get around. Growing 

smart also ensures that we use our existing infrastructure 

efficiently by focusing most new growth near existing 

development, achieving more compact forms and patterns of growth, and preserving both the rural lands and 

historic buildings that shape our communities.

Additional information:

Chesapeake Bay Program –

visit www.chesapeakebay.net or call1-800-YOUR-BAY. 

Washington Smart Growth Alliance 

www.sgalliance.org. 

Smart Growth Network

visit www.smartgrowth.org

Sources: USDA FS 2004. Washington Smart Growth 

Alliance 2005. Claggett 2005. Epstein 2005.

Mike Land, Chesapeake Bay Gateways 
27

2 . R ura l W ays of Life

Keeping open space intact is an important factor in 

maintaining traditional rural livelihoods. The landscape 

challenge is to conserve the most appropriate places for 

pursuits like farming, ranching, and logging and to integrate 

new economies with the old. 

What’s at stake for timber harvest

What happens when more houses are built in timber 

harvesting areas? Researchers found that in some regions, as 

housing density increases, timber harvest decreases (Wear et 

al. 1999; Sabor et al. 2003). A study in Virginia concluded that 

when population densities reach between 20-70 people per 

square mile, the likelihood that remaining forestlands can be 

commercially managed declines. At 70 people per square mile, 

commercial forestry is only likely on 25 percent of remaining 

forest land (Wear et al. 1999). In the Great Lake States, less 

than 10 percent of harvesting takes place in areas where 

housing density exceeds 50 units per square mile. (Sabor et al. 

2003). 

The relationship between housing density and forest 

harvest levels involves many different factors, including such 

practical difficulties as gaining access to lands surrounded 

by houses. New owners whose scenic views are affected by 

management may also be opposed to extensive management 

activity and harvesting. The continued growth of housing in 

the forested areas of this region suggests growing impacts on 

timber harvests. 

In Oregon, findings show less connection between rural 

development and decreased timber harvest, because of a 

greater amount of timberland available relative to the amount 

of development that has occurred (Kline et al. 2004). 

What’s at stake for farming and ranching 

Rising property values, tax burdens, and changing global 

markets for agricultural products place economic pressure 

on farmers and ranchers to sell their land, despite desires to 

continue living off the land and passing that heritage to their 

children. Often, lands that are most easily paved over for roads 

and housing are the best lands for farming. Isolated farms 

within subdivided lands sometimes face resistance from 

new neighbors to traditional practices like field burning. 

Subdivided farms also become too small for viable 

farm operations.

In the West, a common pattern of development is dividing ranches into “ranchettes” that often fall along the foothills 

of fire-prone public forest lands and mountains. Homes are 

often built on high ground with panoramic views, which leads 

to greater fragmentation of open spaces to connect roads to 

these premium building spots. The subdivision of ranches near 

Gunnison, Colorado, increased road length by 60 percent on 

these properties and doubled the number of houses (Theobald 

et al. 1996). 

S I G N I F I C A N C E 

of open space USDA FS NRCS

Grazing near Tucson, Arizona
28 C A S E S T U D Y

The Northern Forest 

Maintaining Working Landscapes

The Northern Forest spans 80 million acres 

in northern New England and Canada and 26 

million of these acres are in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. Vast areas, especially in Maine, are uninhabited industrial forests 

whose spruce and hardwood have long provided 

wood for paper mills and sawmills.

In 1988, citizens in the four-State area 

became alarmed after British financier Sir James 

Goldsmith acquired Diamond International 

Corporation’s 976,000 acres of timberland. 

Goldsmith’s business strategy was to resell this 

land in smaller parcels for substantially more 

value than the original sale. Concerned about 

the future of working forests, Congress commissioned the Forest Service to develop a Northern 

Forest Lands Study to assess how land ownership and use changes would affect the region 

and timber towns.

In 1994, a multi-State Northern Forest Lands 

Council used the Northern Forest Lands Study 

to recommend increased public funding for the 

Forest Service’s Forest Legacy program, which 

conserves land primarily via conservation easements (see page 28), a form of voluntary land 

protection. Today, over 2.5 million acres are covered by conservation easements in the four-State 

region—of which 570,000 acres were protected 

by the Forest Legacy program. Participating landowners either donated the easement or were 

compensated for the development value of their 

lands, and can continue to harvest timber.

In the backyard of Millinocket, Maine—

a paper mill town that has long relied on the 

forest for woods and mill jobs—a landmark 

partnership has helped conserve 750,000 

acres of unbroken forests. In 2002, The Nature 

Conservancy helped Great Northern Paper Co. 

delay bankruptcy by purchasing $50 million of 

its loans, retiring $14 million of the debt and 

refinancing the remainder at competitive rates. 

In exchange, the company granted a 

conservation easement on 195,000 acres 

of Maine forests abutting Baxter State Park, 

and transferred 41,000 acres in fee to the 

Conservancy. With support from the Forest 

Legacy program and matching State funds, the 

Conservancy is making a bargain sale of the 

Katahdin Forest Project easement lands to the 

State of Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands. 

Now an expansive forest will continue to 

stretch beneath Mount Katahdin. The core 

land owned by the Conservancy serves as a 

biological preserve and critical breeding 

ground for birds and animals. Surrounding 

the preserve, the easement land remains 

permanently open for public recreation access while sustainable management of the 

forests provides timber for nearby mills.

Forest Legacy program. Part of the State and Private 

Forestry division of the Forest Service, the agency 

administers Forest Legacy in partnership with States and 

works with interested private landowners to acquire lands 

and conservation easements. To date, the program has 

protected over 1 million acres of environmentally important forests—this land has remained in private ownership 

or has become State land. 

Sustainable Management. Management to maintain 

the long-term health of ecosystems and sustain a full 

range of environmental, economic, and social benefits 

for current and future generations. A sustainably 

managed forest provides not just timber and other 

economic products, but also public benefits like water 

quality, recreation, and wildlife habitat. 

Additional information. 

Northern Forest Lands – 

www.northernforestlands.org 

The Nature Conservancy – 

www.nature.org/success/katahdin.html

USDA FS Forest Legacy Program – 202-205-1389

www.fs.fed.us/cooperativeforestry/programs/loa/flp.shtml

Sources: The Nature Conservancy 2004. 

Northern Forest Lands Council 1994.

NESFA 2004. Byers and Ponte 2005. Dempsey 2005.

Bill Silliker Jr.
29

3 . W i l d l ife D i v ersity

and C orridors

Species diversity is highest where open space is functioning well. For example, many species of songbirds require 

contiguous blocks of habitat to successfully breed and raise their 

young. Identifying the “hot spots” for birds and other wildlife 

allows local governments to steer development away from these 

important habitats. Biologists at the planning table can answer 

questions on where wildlife nest, den, raise young, or rest during 

migration. 

Despite an abundance of public lands in many western 

States, many wildlife “hot spots” are found on private lands. 

These include winter ranges for elk and deer, and streamside 

areas for a high diversity of birds. In Montana, 55 percent of 

breeding bird species (134 species) depend on riparian areas that 

make up only 4 percent of the State—

70 percent are found on private lands 

(Montana Partners in Flight 2000). 

In Colorado, 69 percent of bald eagle 

winter habitat is found on private lands 

(Romme 1997). 

The Southeast has 14 critically 

endangered forest communities, reduced in size by 98 percent since 

European settlement. Those 

communities fall within seven classes, 

yet only two—old growth and sprucefir—are found on the small amount 

(11 percent) of public land in this 

region. The remainder and their associated wildlife species 

are in private ownership. Public forests can serve to protect only 

some habitats and species. Large blocks of forests are 

important for conserving sensitive plant and wildlife 

species, yet only 16 percent of the remaining forests are in tracts 

greater than 500 acres (USDA FS 2002).

In addition to large blocks, many wildlife species—from 

river otters to grizzly bears—require natural corridors that 

connect the chunks of remaining open lands. Corridors allow 

wildlife populations to mix, keeping the gene pool healthy, and 

link wildlife feeding places and migration routes. 

People, too, can benefit from corridors, especially near 

urban areas where greenways are growing in popularity among 

recreationists seeking long trails and connected bike paths. To 

meet the needs of people and wildlife, those corridors need to 

be wide enough for both. For example, Dunham Lake in 

Hartland Michigan features a greenway buffer that ranges 

between 100 and 400 feet that preserves the pristine waters 

and waterfowl habitat while offering the many adjacent homes 

a lakeside trail (Arendt 1994). Guidelines for width differ 

depending on geography, habitat and species—another reason 

to make sure biologists are at the planning table. 

What’s at stake for biodiversity

Planning for corridors and 

open space with wildlife needs 

in mind can help maintain 

diversity and prevent species 

decline.

Habitat loss is the number one threat to biodiversity 

loss. The number two threat 

is the rising tide of invasive plants and animals—nonnatives 

that spread and can wipe out native species. Approximately 46 

percent of the plants and animals federally listed as endangered 

species have been negatively impacted by invasive species 

S I G N I F I C A N C E 

of open space USFWS

Wolf tracks at Nogabahara Sand Dunes, Alaska.

USDA FS

Bald Eagle

USFWS

Red-cockaded Woodpecker
30

(Wilcove et al. 1998). Many kinds of noxious weeds take 

hold and prosper when land is disturbed, an inevitable part of 

constructing new houses and roads in rural lands. Controlling 

weeds on small parcels of land is more difficult than on large 

intact parcels.

When houses and roads enter a forest, they provide 

access for nest predators and parasites like crows, jays, and 

cowbirds. A team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin and the Forest Service demonstrated that 37 of 137 bird 

species declined with increases in housing and agricultural use 

(Lepczyk, in review). Housing and fields disrupt native forest 

habitats, putting at risk birds such as the red-eyed vireo and 

ovenbird that depend on interior forests. 

Houses also bring in free-ranging domestic cats, which 

prey on numerous songbirds and small mammals in rural areas 

each year. Studies in Wisconsin estimate that cats kill 39 

million birds in that State each year (Coleman et al. 1997).

Wildlife habitat and rural housing preferences often 

intersect in the most sensitive and fragile places. For instance, 

research in the Yellowstone area found that home densities are 

nearly 70 percent higher within a mile of these hot spots 

(Hansen and Rotella 2002). Almost all of the identified hot 

spots fell on private lands in an area where biodiversity is 

highest at lower elevations, which are at the most risk 

of development. 

S I G N I F I C A N C E 

of open space

What’s at stake for wildlife on the move

As wild animals move to find the habitats they need, 

they often face a potential threat—roads. Highways and even 

smaller roads can block natural corridors for travel. Cars 

collide with wildlife—a danger to people and animals alike. 

Even small dirt roads connecting homes on large lots can 

cause problems for wildlife. Many amphibians, small mammals 

and invertebrates shy away from roads, and lose connectivity 

to important habitats. Slow-moving reptiles like turtles and 

USDA ARS

Invasive white knapweed prospers when land is disturbed.

snakes seeking the warmth of a road during the day are regular 

casualties. Roads also disturb ground and become a vector for 

weeds to spread into open spaces (Mitchell et al. 1997).

Today, the Federal Highway Administration has projects 

in most States to link habitats and cut down on highway 

mortality—from a salamander underpass in Massachusetts 

to a desert tortoise culvert under a highway in southern 

California. Underpasses on I-75 in Florida are saving 

endangered panthers from being struck and killed (Federal 

Highway Administration 2005).

Scott Jackson

Underpasses designed for wildlife can provide for safe passage and 

link habitats.
31

Greater Yellowstone Region

Coordinating Among Ownerships

To Conserve the Ecosystem

America’s first national park rests in the 

heart of a much larger ecosystem. Surrounding 

Yellowstone National Park are six national forests, two national wildlife refuges, the Grand 

Teton National Park, and the J.D. Rockefeller 

Memorial Parkway. This ecosystem is the last 

stronghold for a suite of species no longer 

found together anywhere in the world— 

grizzly bears, wolves, bison, wolverines, and 

trumpeter swans. 

The 20 counties within the ecosystem 

are among the fastest growing in the United 

States—a 62-percent population increase from 

1970 to 2000, with an accompanying 350-percent rise in developed lands. The large amount 

of land affected by each new house reveals a 

pattern of low-density growth as ranches and 

farms are subdivided. Today, about 370,000 

people live as permanent residents on these 

private lands in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Private lands fall in foothills, valleys, and 

along the Yellowstone, Madison, Clarks Fork, 

and Snake Rivers. Most public lands are at 

higher elevation. Wildlife moves between the 

two, and much of their essential habitat is on 

private lands. To conserve the Yellowstone 

ecosystem requires considerable coordination.

Fortunately, Federal agencies in the region 

had the foresight in 1964 to create the 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee (GYCC). National forest supervisors, park superintendents, and refuge managers communicate regularly to foster partnerships, and contribute resources to address 

priorities most effectively addressed across all 

land areas. 

Controlling the spread of invasive 

weeds offers one example of the benefits of 

cooperation. When treating weeds, all it takes 

is one untreated parcel of land to serve as a 

seed source for re-infecting nearby lands. 

The rising number of new landowners and 

smaller parcels of lands could be a deadly comC A S E S T U D Y

bination—allowing for the spread of invasive 

weeds that can choke-out native plants and in 

turn harm wildlife that depend on the native 

plants for food. 

To tackle the problem, the GYCC leverages 

funds to partners for monitoring, mapping, and 

treating weed infestations in certain areas. 

The committee also takes on projects that 

benefit the entire Greater Yellowstone Area, 

such as producing homeowner guides to weed 

control and establishing weed-free certification 

standards. By 2004, the GYCC completed a 

weed database and map to identify top-priority 

infestations. That same year marked the establishment of Cooperative Weed Management 

Areas covering 100 percent of the area. In addition, private citizens who want to contribute 

to managing and preventing the spread of invasive weeds can find help from the multi-partner 

GYCC subcommittee, The Greater Yellowstone 

Area Weed Working Group. 

The result? While invasive weeds continue 

to be a threat, the vigilant efforts of many individuals and groups are keeping the worst of the 

weeds at bay. The success record with weeds 

offers a model and inspiration for 

guiding residential growth and protecting 

valuable private lands from fragmentation—a 

challenge also being addressed by partners 

across the ecosystem. 

Additional information:

Greater Yellowstone Coordination Committee:

http://mpin.nbii.org/projects/gycc 

Sonoran Institute: www.sonoran.org

Sources: GYCC 2005. Maj 2005. Sonoran Institute 2005.

Deborah Richie Oberbillig
32

4 . W i l d l a n d F i r e

Wildland fires play a natural role in keeping forests 

healthy, reducing fuels, and adding nutrients to soils. However, a century of fire suppression has led to a build-up of fuels 

in many forests, which can lead to severe wildfires that are 

difficult to control. Today, the Forest Service and other land 

management agencies balance fire prevention, suppression, 

and prescribed fire. Where open space is extensive and 

connected, managers can successfully prescribe fires with the 

goal of restoring ecological processes and reducing fuels. When 

private and public landowners collaborate, there is a better 

chance of guiding development away from high-risk fire areas, 

and of protecting existing houses by reducing fuels around 

them.

Designated public open space can also become a 

showcase for communities to appreciate the ecological role of 

fire. For example, in Boulder, Colorado, resource managers for 

the Open Space and Mountain Parks combine prescribed fires, 

selective thinning, and some grazing to replicate natural processes and keep lands healthy. Education and public outreach 

is an important component, including on-the-ground illustrations of benefits. The city can show citizens where a 130-acre 

prescribed fire in 1998 became the turning point in slowing 

a wildfire’s advance in September 2000. When the flames 

reached the previously burned area, the lack of fuels slowed the 

fire long enough for firefighters to stop the fire from reaching 

houses (Boulder County 2005). 

What’s at Stake for the Wildland-Urban Interface

“We’ve got steep, dead-end roads that go up hillsides to homes. Firefighters are at risk trying to reach these people’s homes.” 

– Georgia (USDA FS 2002)

Today, more homes than ever are being built in a relatively narrow part of the landscape, termed the wildland-urban 

interface—the area where houses meet or intermingle with 

undeveloped forests and grasslands. More than one-third of 

all housing units (44.3 million) fall in this wildland-urban 

interface, which covers about one-tenth of the land area of the 

conterminous United States (Radeloff et al. 2005). 

Houses that fall in wildfire-prone parts of the wildlandurban interface—such as the California chaparral—can be 

difficult and sometimes impossible to defend from raging fires. 

More people living in these areas also correlates with more 

human-caused fires. For example, during the record-setting fire 

season of 2000, human-caused fires burned 1.6 million acres 

(NIFC 2005).

California has 5.1 million houses built in the interface, 

more than any other State. Almost all of the 4,200 houses destroyed by wildland fires in 2003 were in southern California, 

resulting in $2 billion in damages (Radeloff et al. 2005). Yet 

those California fires burned only a small part of this interface, 

leaving much of the area at risk for future large fires. 

S I G N I F I C A N C E 

of open space USFWS

USFWS

Forest fire in Colorado
33

When the wildland-urban interface is fragmented, it is tough 

to protect houses from wildfire and reduce fuels with tools like 

prescribed fire, because of the danger of fires burning too close 

to houses. 

USDA NRCS

House in forest in California 

5 . R e c r e a t i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s

Demand for more outdoor recreation opportunities is part 

of the picture of rural growth. Open space offers appealing, 

scenic places to hike, mountain bike, ride horses, picnic, and 

camp. Where private lands are few, the protected and accessible public open space becomes increasingly important. Where 

public lands are abundant, the challenge for managers lies in 

protecting fragile resources, while addressing strongly held 

and differing views of an increasing number of recreationists 

(Dwyer and Childs 2004). 

What’s at stake for recreational access

Subdividing parcels of land along the borders of national 

forests and other public land presents two dilemmas. First, 

new residents have their own private access points. Each year 

hundreds of miles of unplanned trails and roads are created by 

off-road vehicles—damaging fragile ecological and cultural 

areas. Second, subdividing can cut off traditional access points 

to public land, leading to more pressure on the remaining access points. Solutions include working across ownership lines, 

conserving key public access points, and educating the public 

about responsible recreation use. 

In the East, where private lands are critical as places to 

recreate, turning large tracts of lands into smaller parcels with 

new owners often results in new restrictions on public access 

for recreation like hunting, fishing, and bird watching. With 

fewer places available, the remaining public lands become used 

more heavily. In the South, public land managers are faced 

with the quandary of conserving critical refuges for threatened 

and endangered species, while providing recreation for more 

people with fewer places to go.

USDA NRCS

Ranch boys going fishing in Colorado

ATV Safety Institute

Off-road vehicle recreation
34

Washington State

Conserving Land 

in a Scenic Corridor

Picture a scenic greenway stretching 

from Seattle’s waterfront, across the Cascades, 

to the edge of the grasslands of Central 

Washington. In the 1990s, a group of citizens 

started with a dream and quickly went to 

work in a race against time as an estimated 

100 acres of forest land were cleared each day 

to make way for the expanding city.

These citizens rallied others to form a 

private/public alliance with municipalities, 

counties, government agencies, and citizen’s 

groups. A regional map has served as a 

blueprint for a 100-mile Mountains to 

Sound Greenway along Interstate 90. 

The goal is to retain a corridor of family farms, 

State parks, private timberland, national 

forests, and small towns. For motorists, the 

greenway will offer scenic views and picnic 

spots; for hikers and cyclists, a connected 

system of trails; and for wildlife, a lifeline of 

forest and stream habitats. 

C A S E S T U D Y

As of 2003, the greenway has protected 

over 125,000 acres with Federal, State, and 

county funds, as well as private donations. The 

Forest Service contributed funds for almost 60 

percent of these acres. Using land and water 

conservation funds, the Forest Service helped 

protect 125 acres of Snoqualmie Point – this 

popular spot provides sweeping views of the 

Cascade Range and Snoqualmie Pass. 

The Forest Service exchanged land with 

two timber companies to add over 55,000 

acres to national forests within the greenway. 

The Forest Service’s Forest Legacy program 

has purchased development rights from eight 

landowners to permanently protect over 5,000 

acres of private forests. Those acres protected 

by the Forest Legacy program remain in private 

ownership as working forests. 

Additional information:

http://www.mtsgreenway.org/

Source: 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust 2001 and 2003. 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
35

6 . Ec o n o m i c B e n e f i t s 

o f O p e n L a n d s

 “A local park ... adds more to the value of the remaining 

land in the residential area which it serves than the value 

of the land withdrawn to create it.”

– 1919, Frederick Law Olmsted, landscape architect

Rural prosperity is tied to the attraction of open space, 

particularly scenic and protected open space. Economic values 

also can be measured by assigning dollar amounts to ecosystem 

services like water delivery. For example, the value of water 

flowing from national forests is at least $3.7 billion per year 

(USDA FS 2000). 

Real estate values also demonstrate the value of open 

space lands. Property values are measurably higher when adjacent to open space lands, and are even higher when those lands 

are permanently protected (Goeghegan 2002).

How much people willingly pay for open space conservation also indicates its value. Where rural areas are growing 

swiftly and residents see dwindling open space, they no longer 

take it for granted. American voters pass three of every four 

funding measures for conserving open space and parks. Since 

1997, voters have approved $27 billion in funding in 44 States 

(TPL 2005). 

What’s at stake financially

Replacing working farms, ranches, and natural areas 

with residential homes might appear at first glance to be a tax 

benefit. However, numerous cost of community service studies 

suggest that costs to service these outlying houses and subdivisions exceed new revenues. Take the example of fast-growing 

Custer County, Colorado. A 160-acre hay meadow paid $540 

in taxes, while a subdivision close to the same size paid $21,000 

in taxes. However, the hay meadow demanded fewer than $290 

in government services, while the subdivision called for $23,000 

in services (Haggerty 2000). On average, residential use costs 

communities $1.16 for every dollar of tax revenue, while working and open lands only cost $0.36 per dollar (AFT 2002).

Conserving blocks of open space by clustering growth 

is cost-effective, according to a 2004 Brookings Institution 

review of the best empirical research literature that analyzes fiscal implications of alternative land development patterns (Muro 

and Puentes 2004). Research repeatedly suggests that States 

and localities can reduce their capital expenditures by 10 to 20 

percent or more by making sure growth is compact. Nationwide, 

predictions for government cost savings include $110 billion 

from 25-year road building costs and $12.6 billion from 25-year 

water and sewer costs (Muro and Puentes 2004). 

S I G N I F I C A N C E 

of open space

Sally Clagett, USDA FS

Matt Dalbey, EPA

Mountain laurel in bloom.
36

I ndex of O pen S pace

S I G N I F I C A N C E A N D T H R E AT S

Water and S oi l

• Largest single source of water in the United States: 

national forests

• Number of people that depend on public drinking 

water systems from watersheds containing national forests: 

60 million

• Cost of acquiring 8,500 acres of wetlands in the Charles River 

Basin, Massachusetts, to serve as a natural valley storage area 

for floodwaters: $10 million

• Alternative cost of building dams and levees: $100 million

• Erosion from inadequately controlled construction sites, 

compared to erosion from agricultural lands: 10 to 20 

times greater.

• Compared to forested lands: 1000 to 2000 times greater

I n vasi v e P l ants and A nima l s

• Number of invasive plant species in the United States.: 2000

• Acres of national forests infested with invasive weeds: 

3.5 million

• Cost to the public of invasive species per year: > $120 billion

• Percent of endangered species at further risk from invasive 

species: 46

R oads and W i l d l ife

• Miles of road in the United States.: 4 million

• Number of vertebrates run over by cars each day: 1 million

• Percent of total land area of contiguous United States within 

1 kilometer of a road: 83

• Percent of land paved or adjacent to a road of any size: 4.5

R ecreation

• Number of off-highway vehicle users in 1972: 5 million

• Number of off-highway vehicle users in 2000: 36 million

• Number of Americans who watch birds: 71 million

• Birdwatching increase in participation from 1982 to 2001: 

236 percent

E conomics

• Amount spent by birdwatchers to further their interest in 

2001: $32 billion 

• Amount approved by voters in November 2004 to fund parks 

and open space: $3.25 billion

• Approval rate of park and open space measures in November 

2004, in percent: 75 

• Number of States passing ballot measures in 

November 2004: 26

• Amount South Carolina would save in infrastructure costs 

over 20 years if the State implements higher density housing: 

$2.7 billion 

• Acres of open space saved for every brownfield acre that 

is redeveloped: 4.5 

Sources: USDA FS 2000. TPL 2002. Weiss 1995. Federal Highway 

Administration 2005. Riitters and Wickham 2003. USDA FS 2001. 

Pimentel et al. 2005. USFWS 2001. TPL 2004. TPL 1999. Deason et 

al. 2001.

USDA FS

USFWS

Birdwatching at Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, New 

Mexico.

USDA FS
37

“We believe the good life has its roots in clean air, 

sparkling water, rich soil, healthy economies and diverse 

living landscapes. Maintaining the 

good life for generations to come begins with 

everyday choices about natural resources.” 

 North Central Research Station, Forest Service

(USDA FS 2005)

Every day communities are making choices about the 

future of open space, whether it is deciding where to place new 

growth or allowing development to proceed largely unchecked. 

Wherever new houses are built in rural lands, the impacts are 

felt in adjacent ownerships and even further away. Taking a 

landscape perspective and working together are important 

strategies for balancing growth with open space conservation. 

W o r k i n g T o g e t h e r Ac r o s s 

t h e L a n d s c a p e

Partnerships and communication are vital to protecting 

open space. As the case studies demonstrate, communities and 

others across the United States are working together across 

jurisdictional boundaries to find a sustainable balance between 

open space and new growth. 

Ecological processes are not confined within individual 

ownerships or county and municipal boundaries, yet land use 

decisions are made in these local contexts. Strategic partnerships enable coordination and communication across these 

boundaries to ensure the end result across the landscape does 

not lead to unintended consequences. 

Communication across boundaries helps partners answer 

questions like, “What kind of growth can we expect? Where do 

people want to live and why? Where 

are the wildlife hot spots and migration routes? How can we protect our 

water? Where are the most appropriate places to build with the least 

impact on open space values?” 

 New geospatial technologies are 

proving very helpful in fostering 

these conversations by providing 

digital renderings of how the 

landscape will look with new growth 

and by generating data on the 

potential impacts of different 

decisions. More accurate and 

comprehensive maps enable partners 

to pinpoint areas most desirable for 

development and critical lands for 

open space conservation. 

P A R T N E R S H I P S

PARTNERSHIPS F OR

C OOPERATING A C ROSS B OUNDARIES

Tracy Bignell

Partners with the Blackfoot Challenge in Montana (shown here) have a secret to success: “Focus on the 

80 percent that folks can agree on and not the 20 percent that divide us.” (www.blackfootchallenge.org)
38

U s i n g t h e M a n y T o o l s 

i n t h e T o o l b o x

Citizens throughout the United States appear to be seeking a balance between growth and open space preservation. On 

one hand, voters regularly approve open space bonds to purchase space. On the other hand, as shown in the recent referendum in Oregon, voters are leery of land use planning that limits 

property owners’ options.

Coming up with innovative solutions takes bridging the 

divide between private property rights and public desire to keep 

our open space open. As shown in the case studies, partners can 

successfully use a variety of approaches to protect open space 

while preserving the rights of private landowners. 

K E Y TOOLS IN C LUDE :

1. Protect environmentally important land through land 

acquisition and conservation easements. 

In these cases, the purchaser of the land or the 

conservation easement (usually a government or nonprofit 

entity) compensates the landowner for the market value of the 

land or the development rights. Many landowners also choose 

to donate conservation easements on their land to receive 

tax benefits.

P A R T N E R S H I P S

USDA FS

This sign identifies Forest Legacy conservation easement land.

Chris Schnepf, University of Idaho

Buying local wood helps support local jobs and helps landowners keep 

their forests as forests.

2. Maintain working lands. 

Working lands—such as timberland, farms, and ranches 

—provide income to landowners, as well as an economic incentive for these individuals to keep their land instead of selling 

to developers. Encouraging people to buy local products such 

as food at a farmers market and wood from a local sawmill is 

one strategy for helping landowners afford to keep their land as 

open space. 
39

3. Cluster growth in existing or new towns. 

Many communities have begun to recognize the 

environmental and social benefits of concentrating growth 

within existing towns, adjacent to existing towns, or in new 

town-like developments. Towns can enable neighbors to 

socialize, walk to stores and restaurants, and enjoy nature in 

nearby rural lands. As discussed in the Collier County and 

Boulder County case studies (see pages 23 and 40), communities can encourage compact growth by establishing transfer of 

development rights programs that compensate rural 

landowners while still maintaining these lands as open space. 

4. Minimize environmental impacts of existing 

and new developments. 

Innovative design principles and strategies can help 

maintain ecosystem functions and reduce the impacts of 

fragmentation and land conversion from developments. 

For example, developers can incorporate stream buffers into 

community plans, minimize the use of fences that prevent 

wildlife movement, and maintain existing trees and 

native vegetation. 

New tools are also under development. A current hot 

topic is the potential of new markets for ecosystem services. 

The idea is to develop market-based ways of compensating 

landowners for the environmental and social benefits that they 

currently provide to society for free. Carbon markets are one 

example—under this system companies and others who produce carbon emissions would buy 

credits from landowners whose 

forests are helping remove carbon 

from the atmosphere. Similarly, 

some municipalities may be able 

to provide money to landowners 

who maintain forest land as an 

alternative to investing in costly 

water treatment systems. These 

types of markets would provide 

revenue streams for landowners 

and create an economic incentive 

to maintain forests as forests. 

USDA FS

A West Virginia town surrounded by intact forest.

Main streets in rural towns enable neighbors to socialize and attract 

tourists.

Lynn Richards, EPA
40 C A S E S T U D Y

Boulder County, Colorado 

Growing Existing Towns

to Conserve Rural Spaces

Known for its vibrant university town, 

Boulder County is mostly rural with a mix of 

prairie farms and mountain forests—including some 137,000 acres of national forest. 

Agriculture has been a mainstay in this area 

since the early 1800s. As nearby metropolitan 

Denver expanded westward toward Boulder, 

agricultural land gave way to housing developments. More than 80,000 acres of farmland 

were lost between 1982 and 1997.

To save their rural lands, 10 incorporated 

towns in Boulder County teamed up to assure 

that new developments fall within or adjacent 

to existing towns. Together, they identified 

lands best suited for development and those 

best saved as rural lands. This shared vision 

was formalized through intergovernmental 

agreements that specify urban growth 

boundaries for each city and town. Within 

those boundaries, communities encourage 

compact growth. 

One method of saving land is 

an innovative program that transfers 

development rights from unincorporated, 

rural lands. Developers purchase these 

development rights from rural landowners 

and then use the rights to build within or 

near town. Most residents accept 

compact growth that is simultaneously 

protecting rural lands.

Open space bonds, routinely passed 

since 1993, fund land purchases, adding to the livability of communities. The 

Boulder County Parks and Open Space 

Department owns or has conservation 

easements on almost 75,000 acres of 

open space—of which 27,000 acres are 

leased to farmers and ranchers.

Additional information:

www.co.boulder.co.us/openspace/

Source: Stewart, R. 2005.

Cathy Bryarly, Boulder County

Cathy Bryarly, Boulder County
41

P A R T N E R S H I P S

T h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e 

a s a P a r t n e r

The Forest Service is willing and able to engage in 

partnerships for open space conservation. The agency has 

resources and expertise to share, and is actively seeking ways to 

help by: 

1. Facilitating communication, partnerships, and 

collaboration to find local solutions;

2. Bringing information and technical resources to 

help inform the local planning and management 

process; and

3. Offering creative and flexible programs to help address open space conservation.

The Forest Service recognizes the rights of private 

property owners and the lead role of State and local units of 

government in land use planning. Our intention is to provide 

useful research and programs, and be an active partner at the 

table especially in places where we manage public land and 

have a stake in what is happening outside our borders. 

The agency currently has a number of programs and 

projects to help landowners, communities, and others conserve open space (see page 44). In addition, the Forest Service 

is engaged in a variety of open space partnerships across the 

country. Some of these were described earlier in this 

publication (see The Northern Forest, Chesapeake Bay, Greater Yellowstone, and Washington State case studies). Additional 

examples are provided below as short vignettes of how the 

Forest Service can be involved as a partner, stakeholder, 

or resource.

MISSOULA PU B LI C LAND

MANAGERS

In Missoula, Montana, the Forest Service has been 

actively involved in a partnership of Federal, State, and local 

land managers. The group originated in the fall of 2004 when 

the Lolo National Forest Supervisor and Missoula District 

Ranger met with county commissioners and the city of 

Missoula’s Park Director to discuss the benefits of coming 

together to discuss common land management issues. Today 

the partnership includes key people at the Bureau of Land 

Management, Forest Service, Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, University of Montana, local land trusts, 

and county and city planners and open space staff. In 1 year, 

the group has produced a useful product—a map with layers depicting major land ownerships, conservation easements, 

elk winter range, riparian areas, and other significant features. 

Mapping helps meet the goal of fostering ongoing 

communication and coordination in this rapidly developing 

area of Montana. Balancing development with open space and 

wildlife needs is often the focus of these informal and 

constructive discussions that take place approximately every 6 

weeks (Corday 2005).

USDA FS

J. Corday, City of Missoula

State and nonprofit partners discuss a Forest 

Legacy conservation project in Washington 

that utilized Forest Service funds.

Missoula, Montana
42

NE W Y OR K – NE W J ERSE Y

HIGHLANDS

In 1992, the Northeastern Area of the Forest Service 

conducted a resource assessment of the New York-New Jersey 

Highlands region with a focus on potential impacts of 

development trends. This region is a nationally significant area 

that provides recreational opportunities for some 

14 million people per year, contains numerous cultural and 

natural resources, and is an important source of drinking 

water for the New York metropolitan area. A bi-State, 

interdisciplinary workgroup with 120 participants collaborated 

on the interpretation of findings and developed conservation strategies. The end product spurred local support for 

open space conservation. As of June 2002, all seven of the 

Highlands counties in New Jersey had established open space 

funding programs for land acquisition. In addition, some 

counties in the region used information from the study to 

inform comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances 

(USDA FS Dec 2002). The Highlands study was updated in 

2002 to stay current with continued population growth and 

land-use changes. 

MISSISSIPPI B ASIN – 

GREEN IN F RASTRU C TURE

The Forest Service has partnered with the National 

Association of Regional Councils to help communities 

throughout the Mississippi Basin adopt “green infrastructure” 

approaches to improve water quality and reduce flooding. 

This work is part of the interagency White Water to Blue Water Partnership Initiative focused on reducing point and nonpoint water pollution sources to improve the health of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Green Infrastructure 

is a strategic approach to conservation that helps identify and 

plan for multipurpose green space networks. This approach 

has proven especially useful in helping communities manage 

stormwater through natural solutions. 

One example is Topeka, Kansas—in 2000, Topeka with 

the help of the USDA Agroforestry Center (a joint-venture 

of the Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation 

Service) joined together numerous partners to develop a 

Stormwater Master Plan. This plan established a stream buffer 

ordinance to preserve key lands along the city’s waterways, 

a landscaping ordinance to promote the planting of trees in 

parking lots and on commercial sites, and a stormwater utility 

fee to encourage residents to reduce the amount of impervious 

surfaces on their land (City of Topeka, 2002). 

George Aronson

USDA FS

Volunteers plant trees in Topeka, Kansas.
43

P A R T N E R S H I P S

W HITE RIVER NATIONAL F OREST – 

B UILDING B RIDGES PRO J E C T

In the Blue River Watershed in Colorado, local elected 

officials, community leaders, and Bureau of Land Management 

and Forest Service land managers were all feeling the effects of 

demands on the land from dramatically increasing populations 

of residents, second-home owners, and visitors. In recognition 

of their mutual interests in the watershed, local governments 

and citizens joined with Federal land management agencies to 

start the Building Bridges Project, with the goal of collaborative land use planning and management. The project involves 

two counties, six towns, multiple nonprofit organizations, three 

Forest Service Ranger Districts on the White River National 

Forest, the Bureau of Land Management, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, and Colorado State University. 

Together, these groups strive to improve communication, 

establish partnerships, identify shared goals, and encourage 

local leadership to work with the national forest. To date, the 

Building Bridges Project has led to grassroots collaboration 

with the Forest Service in river restoration, wildfire mitigation 

and forest health planning, and recreation trail development 

fundraising in the Blue River watershed (NWC 2005).

USDA FS

Martha Ketelle (center), the White River Forest Supervisor, “built 

bridges” with local community partners.

USDA FS

CONCLUSION

FIVE KEY MESSAGES

The Forest Service and the many partners who 

made this publication possible hope the highlighted 

research on open space trends and benefits will 

generate new discussions and partnerships. The 

case studies offer practical solutions and inspiration 

for meeting the challenges of open space conservation in the face of accelerating rural growth. 

Throughout the document certain themes are 

reiterated, which can be summed up as five simple 

points:

1. Open space provides clean water, habitat

for wildlife, places to recreate, a rural way 

of life, and can buffer homes from wildfire.

2. Both public and private lands provide open 

space benefits.

3. Rural areas with scenic forests, lakes, and 

public lands are attracting new residents 

and businesses at record rates.

4. Low-density patterns of rural growth can 

negatively impact the environment and local economies.

5. Cooperating across boundaries can lead 

to informed decisions, and can help keep 

forests and grasslands healthy across the 

landscape.

Antioch Dunes Evening Primrose
44 T O O L S

The Forest Service has tools to share in 

addition to a wealth of staff expertise. The 

agency can supply useful data and information 

to local governments, identify areas of special 

risk or need, and offer programs to help 

conserve open space and to develop with the 

least impact on wildlife, water, clean air, and 

other open space benefits. To stem the tide 

of open space loss takes working at multiple 

scales —nationally, regionally, and locally—and 

tailoring approaches to fit geographic regions. 

The following highlights give a sampling 

of what the Forest Service brings to the table 

through Research and Development, State 

and Private Forestry, and the National Forest 

System.

Research and Development—

Providing Useful Information

Forest Service scientists work throughout 

the country to assess the biological, physical, 

and social dimensions of managing our Nation’s 

forests and grasslands. Researchers work at 

six regional research stations and numerous 

partner universities, and offer a wide range 

of expertise in natural resource conservation 

and management. 

For general information about Forest Service 

research and to access the regional research 

stations, visit: www.fs.fed.us/research

Useful research products range from 

scientific publications to comprehensive 

resource assessments. Assessments give an 

in-depth picture of the consequences of land 

use changes nationwide, both nationally 

and regionally. 

Some recent assessments include:

2003 National Report on 

Sustainable Forests 

www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain

2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and 

Range Lands www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa

Forests on the Edge 

www.fs.fed.us/projects/fote

Southern Forest Resource Assessment 

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain

New York-New Jersey Highlands 

Regional Study: 2002 Update

www.fs.fed.us/na/highlands/highlands

The Changing Midwest Assessment 

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/IntegratedPrograms/lc/

Southern California Socioeconomic 

Assessment 

www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/

documents/psw_gtr187/gtr187index.html

The Forest Service research branch also 

conducts an ongoing forest census that provides 

data and maps about current forest conditions 

and trends. This information can be accessed at: 

www.fia.fs.fed.us

State and Private Forestry—Offering

Programs to Conserve Open Space

The Forest Service offers a number of 

programs to help landowners and communities 

conserve and manage forests. These programs 

are administered in partnership with States, 

with the local contact typically being staff 

from State Forest Service agencies. Relevant 

programs include:

The Forest Legacy Program

This program purchases land and 

establishes conservation easements to protect 

environmentally important forests. 

www.fs.fed.us/cooperativeforestry

Forest Service 

Tools for Open Space 

Conservation
45 45

The Forest Stewardship and Forest Land 

Enhancement Programs 

These programs provide technical and 

financial forestry assistance to landowners 

to help them develop and implement 

stewardship plans. The plans help 

landowners manage their forests sustainably 

so their open space continues to provide 

multiple benefits to the public. 

www.fs.fed.us/cooperativeforestry

Urban & Community Forestry 

This program provides assistance to 

communities to help them manage 

forest resources within cities and towns. 

www.fs.fed.us/ucf

State and Private Forestry also works in 

partnership with others to develop useful 

resources and initiatives. A sampling of these 

efforts include:

Green Infrastructure 

The Forest Service, in partnership with The 

Conservation Fund, provides training and 

information on green infrastructure. Green 

infrastructure is a strategic approach to 

conservation that helps communities design 

and protect networks of green spaces. 

www.greeninfrastructure.net

Forest Taxation

A network of Federal, State, and university 

experts provide training and outreach to 

landowners and professionals on the tax 

code and estate planning. This information 

helps landowners and their children keep 

their land as open space. 

www.timbertax.org

PrivateForest.org

This website is produced in partnership 

with the Nature Conservancy and provides 

information and ideas to help landowners 

manage their forests. 

www.privateforest.org

National Forest System—Being a Good

Neighbor

The Forest Service manages over 190 million 

acres of public land. In some counties, these 

lands comprise upwards of 80 percent of the 

land base. A strong relationship between local 

communities and national forest staff is vital. 

Development trends and local land use plans have 

a direct impact on the public land and the Forest 

Service’s ability to manage this land for recreation, 

wildlife, and wildfire protection. Similarly, Forest 

Service decisions about use of the national forests 

have direct impacts on the quality of life for local 

residents and economic opportunities. 

The Forest Service strives to be a good 

neighbor and to work in partnership with 

communities and landowners along national 

forest boundaries. If you are interested in working 

with a nearby national forest, contact the forest 

supervisor or local district ranger. Ideas 

for how communities and national forests can 

work together include:

• Communicate! Share information about 

current and potential land use decisions. 

Include each other in planning sessions, 

whether it is for forest plans or local comprehensive plans. 

• Make use of local Forest Service staff’s 

biological and resource management 

expertise to help identify conservation 

needs and priorities. 

• Jointly develop community protection 

plans to reduce potential loss of life and 

property from wildfires. 

• Seek funds through the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund to add critical open 

space to the national forests, and to buffer the public land from encroachment. 

• Consider the impacts of public land 

decisions on the local economy and 

subsequent spin-off impacts on private 

open space. 

For contacts and other information about your 

local national forest or national grassland, visit 

www.fs.fed.us and search under “Find a Forest 

or Grassland.” 
46

RE F EREN C ES

Alig R.J., J.D. Kline, and M. Lichtenstein. 2004. Urbanization on the 

U.S. landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscape & Urban 

Planning 69: 219-234.

Alig, R.J. and A. Plantinga. 2004. Future forestland area: impacts from 

population growth and other factors that affect land values. Journal of 

Forestry 102(8): 19-24.

Alig, R.J., A.J. Plantinga, S. Ahn, and J.D. Kline. 2003. Land use 

changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, 

with projections to 2050. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. GTR-PNW-587. 

American Farmland Trust (AFT). 2002. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community 

Services Studies. Farmland Information Center. www.farmlandinfo.

org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_11-02.pdf

American Forests. 1999. Regional Ecosystem Analysis Puget 

Sound Metropolitan Area: Calculating the value of nature. www.

americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_PugetSound.pdf

Arendt, R. 1994. Rural By Design. American Planning Association. 

APA Planners Press.

Boulder County. 2005. Fire on open space and mountain parks. www.

ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/preservation/prescr_fire.htm

Butler, B.J. and E.C. Leatherberry. 2004. America’s family forest owners. 

Journal of Forestry 102 (7): 4-9.

Byers, E. and K.M. Ponte, K.M. 2005. The Conservation Easement 

Handbook. The Land Trust Alliance and the Trust for Public Land.

City of Topeka. 2002. Sustainable Development: Moving Toward 

a Green Community. City of Topeka, Water Pollution Control 

Division. 

Claggett, S. 2005. Personal communication. Program Manager at the 

USDA FS Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.

Coleman, J.S., S. A. Temple, and S.R. Craven. 1997. Cats and Wildlife, 

a Conservation Dilemma. University of Wisconsin Extension. www.

wisc.edu/wildlife/e-pubs.html.

Corday, J. 2005 Personal Communication. Open Space Coordinator. 

City of Missoula Parks and Recreation. Missoula, Montana. 

Cordell, K. and C. Overdevest. 2001. Footprints on the Land: An 

assessment of Demographic Trends and the Future of Natural Lands 

in the United States. Sagamore Publishing. www.sagamorepub.com

Costanza, R., et al.R. D’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, 

B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. 

Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. Van Den Belt. 1997. The value of the 

world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253 – 260.

Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. 

Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and 

G.M. Woodwell. et al. 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied 

to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, No. 2. 

Ecological Society of America.

Deason, J., et al.G.W. Sherk, and G.A. Carroll. September 2001. 

“Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment 

of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights 

and Area Differentials.” Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response.Washington DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and The George Washington University.

Demers, C. Fall 2003. The Rural Land Stewardship Act: Testing a new 

method of protecting rural lands. The Florida Forest Steward 10 (2): 

University of Florida.

Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. 2003. Running Pure, the importance of forest 

protected areas to drinking water. World Wide Fund for Nature 

(WWF) Global Network / World Wildlife Fund. www.worldwildlife.

org

Dwyer, J.F. and G.M Childs. 2004. Movement of people across the 

landscape: a blurring of distinctions between areas, interests, and 

issues affecting natural resource management. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 69: 153-164. 

Envision Utah. 2004. The history of Envision Utah. www.

envisionutah.org 

Epstein, L. 2005. Personal communication. Director of the Lands 

Program, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Annapolis, Maryland.

Garber-Yonts, B. 2004. The economics of amenities and migration in the 

Pacific Northwest: review of selected literature with implications for 

national forest management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. GTR-PNW- 617. 

Gobster, P. and R.G. Haight. 2004. From Landscape to Lots: 

understanding and managing Midwestern landscape change. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc245.pdf

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

parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods; 

perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 69:165-182.

Goeghegan, J. 2002. The values of open spaces in residential land use. 

Land Use Policy 19 (220): 91-98.

Greater Yellowstone Coordination Committee. 2005. http://mpin.nbii.

org/projects/gycc

Haggerty, M. 2000. The Cost of Rapid Growth: A fiscal analyses 

of growth in Custer County, Colorado. Planning for Results 

Guidebook. Sonoran Institute. www.sonoran.org/resources/

guidebookresources.html

Hansen, A.J. and J.J. Rotella. 2002. Biophysical factors, land use, and 

species viability in and around nature reserves. Conservation Biology 

16 (4): 1112. 

Heimlich, R. E. and W.D. Anderson, W. D. 20015. 2005. Development 

at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural 

R E F E R E N C E S 
47

Land. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Agriculture Economic Report Number 803. 

Jenkins, A. 2005. Personal communication. Community and regional 

planning manager at WilsonMiller, Inc. Naples, Florida.

Johnson, K.M and S.I. Stewart. 2001. Recreation and amenity migration 

in urban proximate areas: report of survey results. Working Papers 

of Recreation and Amenity Migration Project. No.1. Chicago, IL: 

Loyola University.

Johnson, K.M. and C.L. Beale. 1998. The Rural Rebound. Wilson 

Quarterly 12 (Spring): 16-27. 

Johnson, K.M. and S.I. Stewart. In press. Demographic Trends in 

National Forest, Recreational, Retirement, and Amenity Areas. 

In: Linda Kruger, (ed.). Proceedings, Recreation Research and 

Management Workshop. USDA Forest Service Research, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. GTR-PNW-xxx. 

Judson, D.H., S. Reynolds-Scanlon, and C.L. Popoff. 1999. Migrants to 

Oregon in the 1990’s: Working age, near-retirees, and retirees make 

different destination choices. Rural Development Perspectives 14: 24-

31.

Kaplan, R. and M.E. Austin. 2004. Out in the country: sprawl and the 

quest for nature nearby. Landscape and& Urban Planning 60: 235-

243.

Kline, J.D. 2005. Forest and Farmland Conservation Effects of Oregon’s 

Land Use Planning Program. Environmental Management 35(4): 

368-380.

Kline, J.D. June 2005. Predicted future forest- and farmland 

development in western Oregon with and without land use zoning in 

effect. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RN-548. 

Kline, J.D., D.L. Azuma, and R.J. Alig. 2004. Population Growth, Urban 

Expansion, and Private Forestry in Western Oregon. Forest Science 50 

(1): 33-43.

Lepczyk, C.A., C.H. Flather, V.C. Radeloff, A.M. Pidgeon, R.B. 

Hammer, and J. Liu. In review. Human impacts on regional avian 

diversity and abundance. Ecology Letters 00:000-000.

Maj., M. 2005. Personal Communication. Executive Coordinator 

for the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Bozeman, 

Montana.

Mitchell, J.E., R.L. Knight and R.J. Camp. 1997. Landscape Attributes 

of Subdivided Ranches. Rangelands 24(1): 3-9. 

Montana Partners in Flight. January 2000. Montana Bird Conservation 

Plan. http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtpif.html

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust. 2001. The Mountains to Sound 

Greenway: The first ten years. Report to donors. www.mtsgreenway.

org

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust. 2003. Building the Mountains to 

Sound Greenway: Building blocks as of 2003. www.mtsgreenway.org

Muro, M. and R. Puentes. 2004. Investing in a Better Future: A Review 

of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth 

Development Patterns. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban 

and Metropolitan Policy. 

National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America. October 

2004. 2004 American Community Survey. National Survey 

on Communities, Belden Russonello & Stewart Research and 

Communications.

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). 2005. www.nifc.gov

National Woodland Survey. 2004. Preliminary results. 2004 draft 

tables. www.fs.fed.us/woodlandowners/publications/index.shtml

North East State Foresters Association (NESFA). August 2004. The 

Northern Forest of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York: 

A look at the land, economies and communities 1994-2004. Draft 

version. www.nefainfo.org/nflc10conference.htm

Northern Forest Lands Council. September 1994. Finding Common 

Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. www.northernforestlands.

org/publications.htm

Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWC). 2005. Building 

Bridges Project. www.nwc.cog.co.us

Ourso, R.T. and S.A. Frenzel. 2003. Identification of linear and 

threshold responses in streams along a gradient of urbanization in 

Anchorage, Alaska. Hydrobiologia 501( July): 117-131.

Pidgeon, A., V. Radeloff, C. Lepczyk, C. Flather, and R. Hammer. 

2004. Changes in bird species richness due to housing growth and 

landcover change from 1970-2000: a nation-wide study. Ecological 

Society of America. 89th Annual Meeting. Portland, OR. 

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the 

environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive 

species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52(3): 273-288.

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

and J. F. McKeefry. et al. 2005. The Wildland Urban Interface in the 

United States. Ecological Applications 15: 799-805.

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

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

relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology 19: 793-805.

Rasker, R., B. Alexander , J. van den Noort, and R. Carter. 2004. 

Prosperity in the 21st Century West: The Role of Protected Public 

Lands. Sonoran Institute. www.sonoran.org

Reibsame, W.E., H. Gosnell, and D.M. Theobold (eds). 1997. Atlas 

of the New West: Portrait of a Changing Region. New York: Norton 

Press.

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

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

Robb, J. and W. Reibsame, 1997. Atlas of the New West. Center of the 

American West. University of Colorado.

R E F E R E N C E S
48

Turner, M.G., S.M. Pearson, P. Bolstad, and D.N. Wear. 2003. Effects of 

Land-Cover Change on Spatial Pattern of Forest Communities in the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains. Landscape Ecology 18: 449-464. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Annual Projections of the Total Resident 

Population as of July 1. Population Estimates Program. www.census.

gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Journey to Work. www.census.gov/population/

www/socdemo/journey.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Monthly Estimates of the United States 

Population: April 1, 1980 to July 1, 1999. Population Estimates Program. 

www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php

U.S. Census Bureau. November 2005. U.S. and World Population Clocks. 

www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2005. The 

Nature of Tomorrow...Policy Relevant Research at the North Central 

Research Station. www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/tnot/tnot_pg01.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). September 

2005. Land Areas Report as of September 30, 2005. www.fs.fed.us/land/

staff/lar

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). April 2004. 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry 2003. Northeastern Area, State and 

Private Forestry. NA-IN-01-04. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). February 

2001. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. FS-687. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2002. Human 

Influences on Forest Ecosystems. The Southern Wildland-Urban 

Interface Assessment. Southern Research Station. GTR-SRS-55.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2003. Southern 

California Socioeconomic Assessment: Sociodemographic Conditions, 

Projections, and Quality of Life Indices. Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. GTR-PSW-187.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). December 

2002. New York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update. 

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-02-03.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). January 2000. 

Water and the Forest Service. FS-660.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(USDA NRCS). 2003. Urbanization and Development of Rural Land. 

2001 Annual National Resource Inventory. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/

land/nri01/nri01dev.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(USDA NRCS). 2001. 2001 Annual National Resource Inventory data. 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri

Romme, W.H. 1997. Creating Pseudo-rural Landscapes in the 

Mountain West. In Placing Nature, Culture and Landscape Ecology. 

J.I. Nassauer, ed. Island Press.

Sabor, A.A., V.C. Radeloff, R.B. Hammer, and S.I. Stewart. 2003. 

Relationships between housing density and timber harvest in the 

upper lake states. White paper. Department of Forest Ecology and 

Management, University of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin. www.

silvis.forest.wisc.edu/publications/PDFs/Sabor_etal_2003.pdf

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

resources of the United States, 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. GTR-NC-241.

Sonoran Institute. 2005. Yellowstone 2020: Creating Our Legacy. 

Sonoran Institute in partnership with The Landscape Biodiversity 

Lab at Montana State University. www.sonoran.org

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

Theobold, M. Eley, M. Dechter, and M. Carr. 2005. Forests on 

the Edge: Housing Development on America’s Private Forests. 

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

Research Station. GTR-PNW- 636.

Stewart, R. 2005. Personal communication. Director of Boulder 

County Parks and Open Space. Boulder, Colorado.

Stewart, S.I. and D.J. Stynes. 1994. Toward a dynamic model of 

complex tourism choices: The seasonal home location decision. 

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 3(3): 69-88.

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

resources of the United States, 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. GTRNC-241.

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

USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. 

Theobald, D.M. 2003. Defining and Mapping Rural Sprawl: Examples 

from the Northwest US. Growth. Management Leadership Alliance 

white paper. www.gmla.org/Theobald_rural_sprawl-v%5B1%5D.pdf

Theobald, D.M., H. Gosnell, and W.E. Riebsame. 1996. Land use and 

landscape change in the Colorado mountains, II: A case study of the 

East River Valley, Mountain Research and Development 16: 407-418.

Thompson, F.R. and D.E. Burhans. 2003. Predation of songbird nests 

differs by predator and between field and forest habitats. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 67(2): 408-416.

Trust for Public Land (TPL). 1999. Economic Benefits of Parks and 

Open Space. www.tpl.org

Trust for Public Land (TPL). 2002. Source Protection Handbook. Using 

Land Conservation to Protect Drinking Supplies. www.tpl.org

Trust for Public Land (TPL). 2005. Land Vote 2004. www.landvote.org

R E F E R E N C E S 
49

U.S. Federal Highway Administration. 2005. Wildlife Crossings. www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifecrossings/main.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). October 2001. Birding in the 

United States: a Demographic and Economic Analysis. Addendum 

to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. FHW/01-NAT.

Washington Smart Growth Alliance. 2005. Smart Growth Recognition 

Program brochure.

Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis. 2002. The Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment: Summary of Findings. Journal of Forestry. 100(7): 6-14.

Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis. October 2002. Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment: summary report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. GTR-SRS-54.

Wear, D.N., R. Liu, J.M. Foreman, and R. Sheffield. 1999. The Effects 

of Population Growth on Timber Management and Inventories in 

Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management 118: 107-115.

Weiss, K. 1995. Stormwater and the clean water act: municipal separate 

storm sewers in the moratorium. In Enhancing urban watershed 

management at the local, county and State levels; national conference 

on urban runoff management; 1995; Cincinnati, OH. Chicago: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, Center for Environmental Research Information: 47-

62.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. 

Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the US. Bioscience 48 

(8): 607-615.

Woodward, C. 2004. Protecting the heartwood: by saving the core 

of the forest, scientists hope to safeguard the whole. The Nature 

Conservancy magazine.Nature.org: 54(Spring 2004)54 (1).

R E F E R E N C E S