Fremont County is mostly forest and shrubland in the 2025 land-cover summary, but those two classes do not cover the county in the same way. Forest is strongest across much of the west and south, while open shrub and grass cover becomes more prominent toward the north and east. Developed land is only 3.14%, yet several concentrated central-eastern clusters stand out clearly against the natural background.
This page compares current land cover, forest and farmland, impervious surface, and mapped class differences from 1985 to 2025. Four original JPG maps are available together in one ZIP near the end of the article for printing, close inspection, classroom use, or side-by-side reference.
Table of Contents
Forest and shrubland dominate the county, but they occupy different zones
The 2025 summary reports 47.80% forest and 33.01% shrubland. Grassland contributes another 13.98%, while developed cover is 3.14%, wetlands 1.17%, agriculture 0.45%, and water 0.05%. The totals establish Fremont County as a natural-cover-dominant landscape, but the map shows that the major classes are arranged in distinct bands, patches, and openings rather than mixed evenly.
Dark green forest covers broad areas across the western half and much of the south. Tan shrubland threads through the forest and expands across several northern and central areas, while pale grassland becomes more visible toward the north and east. The result is not a simple forest-versus-open-land split; broad forest masses are repeatedly interrupted by shrub and grass corridors.
The main developed concentration lies east of the county center. Red land-cover pixels form a large irregular cluster with smaller extensions around it, and another notable developed group sits farther east. Thin developed traces connect or extend beyond those clusters, but the western forested areas contain comparatively little red cover.
Land cover is not the same as zoning, ownership, or permitted land use. Annual NLCD classifies the surface detected within raster cells. A developed pixel does not identify a specific residential or commercial use, and a forest pixel does not indicate who owns or manages the land. These maps are best used for county-scale surface comparison.
Low countywide imperviousness reveals a highly localized built footprint
Mean imperviousness is only 0.81% across Fremont County, and cells that are at least 50% impervious make up 0.27%. Most of the map is therefore nearly white. Those low countywide values make the central-eastern concentrations of orange and red especially easy to identify.
The largest hard-surface cluster sits in the same general part of the county where the land-cover map shows its biggest developed group. A second concentration farther east is also visible. Between and beyond them, thin linear features branch across otherwise pale land, showing that roads or other hard surfaces can appear as narrow traces even where surrounding cells are not strongly developed.
Developed cover and imperviousness are related but not interchangeable. The land-cover product assigns a categorical class to each cell, while the impervious product estimates the fraction covered by hard material. A developed cell can still contain soil, grass, trees, or other permeable surfaces, which helps explain why 3.14% developed cover is much larger than 0.81% mean imperviousness.
The western half provides the opposite example. Broad forest and shrub areas are nearly blank on the impervious map, with only isolated lines and small points. The contrast demonstrates why a single county average can be misleading if location is ignored: built surfaces are scarce across most of Fremont County but locally concentrated in a small number of places.
The full 2025 map shows where forest gives way to shrubland and grassland
Forest is the largest class at 47.80%, and its dark green color forms broad connected areas through the west, southwest, and much of the southern interior. The pattern is interrupted by long tan shrubland bands and paler openings, so the forest edge often looks irregular rather than forming a straight dividing line.
Shrubland is the second-largest class at 33.01%. It is especially important in the north and in the open zones between forest masses. Grassland at 13.98% adds another layer of lighter open cover and is more noticeable toward the northern and eastern parts of the county. Keeping shrubland and grassland separate makes the map more informative than treating all nonforest land as one category.
Developed land is concentrated rather than widespread. The main red cluster occupies the central-east, with another sizable group farther east and smaller fragments around both. That pattern is useful when comparing the general map with the impervious layer because the categorical developed area is broader than the zones of high hard-surface percentage.
Agriculture accounts for only 0.45%, appearing in small yellow patches near the developed and open areas rather than forming a major farm belt. Wetlands at 1.17% and water at 0.05% are also limited. Many of those features are narrow or small enough to disappear at reduced web size, so the original JPG is more useful when the small classes matter.
A simplified legend makes the forest–open-land boundary easier to follow
The forest-and-farmland version reduces the number of colors and makes Fremont County’s broad vegetation contrast easier to see. Forest remains dark green across much of the west and south. Shrub and grass are combined into a tan open-cover group that expands through the north, central openings, and eastern portions.
Agriculture remains a very minor feature. The 0.45% agricultural share is represented by small yellow patches rather than continuous fields. Open tan areas should therefore not be assumed to be farmland; most of them represent shrub or grass cover. That distinction is especially important in the northern and eastern open areas.
The developed-or-other category appears as a light color and is most obvious in the central-east and farther east. Because the simplified map removes the detailed developed classes, it is better for comparing built areas with forest and open vegetation than for judging development intensity. The impervious map should be used for the latter question.
This layer also should not be treated as a farm-parcel or forest-ownership map. A 30-meter raster cell summarizes surface cover rather than legal boundaries. Use the map to identify broad concentrations and edges, then consult more detailed data if a question depends on a specific property or management unit.
The 1985–2025 comparison separates forest loss from development transitions
The change summary reports a different mapped class across 10.93% of Fremont County between 1985 and 2025. Conversion to developed accounts for 1.20%, forest loss for 2.76%, agricultural loss for 0.41%, and other class difference for 6.45%. Most of the county remains in the no-class-difference background, while colored patches identify areas worth comparing with the current map.
Red conversion-to-developed pixels are concentrated primarily around the central-eastern developed area and in parts of the eastern cluster. Some are compact blocks and others appear as smaller fragments. They overlap the general location of present developed cover, but the two maps answer different questions: one shows current cover, while the other marks a two-date class transition.
Orange forest-loss areas have a different geography. Several of the largest patches occur in the southwest and along the western side, with additional orange areas scattered through the interior. The 2.76% figure does not explain why those cells changed. Fire, vegetation disturbance, development, or classification variability cannot be separated using this map alone.
The largest reported category is “other difference” at 6.45%. Purple pixels are scattered widely and often appear as small irregular patches. The map notes that class differences can include classification variation, so isolated pixels should be interpreted cautiously. Broad clusters and repeated patterns are more useful starting points for additional investigation.
Agricultural loss is only 0.41%, which is close in magnitude to the current 0.45% agricultural share but should not be subtracted from it. The values measure different things. One is current cover in 2025, and the other is a specific class-transition category from a comparison between 1985 and 2025.
Three reference areas help keep the four map meanings separate
Begin with the central-eastern developed cluster. On the general map, it is a broad red concentration. On the impervious map, only parts of that area reach the stronger orange and red hard-surface classes. On the change map, some of the same vicinity is marked as conversion to developed. Reading those three layers together prevents a current developed class from being mistaken for either high imperviousness or a recent transition.
The southwest offers a very different comparison. Current land cover is dominated by forest and shrubland, while imperviousness is almost entirely low. The change map includes several large forest-loss patches in this part of the county. That combination makes the southwest useful for separating current forest extent from a historical class-change category.
A third reference area is the north and north-central portion, where open shrub and grass cover becomes more extensive. Development and high imperviousness are sparse there, and the simplified forest-and-farmland map makes the forest-to-open-cover transition especially easy to follow. This is a better area for studying vegetation contrast than the central developed zones.
These examples show why one map cannot replace the others. Current land cover describes the dominant 2025 surface class, the simplified version groups those classes for easier thematic comparison, imperviousness measures hard-surface fraction, and the change map compares classifications across two dates. They work best together when those definitions remain separate.
Why 30-meter cells and small percentages require careful reading
Annual NLCD is raster data built from 30-meter cells. A single cell can contain trees, grass, exposed soil, pavement, buildings, or water, yet the land-cover product assigns a representative class. The fractional impervious product handles one part of that mixture differently by estimating how much of the cell is hard surface.
This matters for small classes in Fremont County. Water is only 0.05%, agriculture 0.45%, and cells with at least 50% imperviousness cover 0.27%. A thin feature can disappear when the map is reduced or look more important when enlarged. Percentages and mapped location should be considered together.
Raster edges also are not surveyed parcel, wetland, or ownership boundaries. A forest-to-shrub transition on this map is a classification boundary, not a legal line on the ground. Site-specific decisions need a more detailed source designed for that purpose.
The change layer adds another limitation. A different class in 1985 and 2025 can reflect real surface change, but classification variation can contribute as well. The map is useful for locating where differences are concentrated. It is not enough by itself to identify the cause of forest loss, development, or any other transition.
Choosing the right Fremont County map for the question
Use the general land-cover map first when the goal is a countywide overview. It puts forest, shrubland, grassland, developed land, agriculture, wetlands, and water into one frame. This is the easiest starting point for understanding why the county can be forest-dominant overall while still containing extensive open cover and localized development.
The forest-and-farmland version is better when the main question is the boundary between forest and open vegetation. Its simplified colors make the western and southern forest masses easier to compare with northern and eastern shrub-and-grass areas. For built surfaces, the impervious map is more useful because it shows intensity rather than only a developed category.
Choose the change map when time is part of the question, especially for the central-eastern development transitions or western and southwestern forest-loss patches. Keep the 2025 map beside it so that “to developed” is not mistaken for every current developed pixel and “forest loss” is not mistaken for current forest cover.
For classroom use or presentations, pairing two maps is often clearer than placing all four on one crowded slide. A current-cover and change pair works well for long-term comparison, while the forest-and-farmland and impervious pair can illustrate the difference between natural vegetation and built surfaces.
Download the four Fremont County JPG maps
The downloadable ZIP contains four original JPG files: the general land-cover map, forest-and-farmland map, impervious/developed-land map, and 1985–2025 land-cover change map. The WebP images in the article are optimized for quick web viewing, while the JPG files can be opened separately for closer inspection.
Keep each map’s title, year, and legend when reusing the images. Developed cover and imperviousness do not measure the same thing, and current forest or agriculture should not be confused with forest-loss or agricultural-loss change categories. Clear labels make side-by-side comparisons much easier to understand.
The set is useful for printing, classroom material, presentations, county-scale environmental reference, and locating broad areas of mapped change. It is not a substitute for property records, zoning maps, surveyed wetland boundaries, engineering plans, or other site-specific legal information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where is the 47.80% forest cover most visible in Fremont County?
Forest is most extensive across the western and southern portions of the county, where large dark green areas form connected masses. Shrubland and grassland become more prominent toward the north and east and also break up the forest in several interior zones.
Why is mean imperviousness only 0.81% if developed cover is 3.14%?
Developed cover is a categorical land-cover classification, while imperviousness measures the fraction of hard surface inside each cell. Developed areas can still contain soil, grass, and trees, so the countywide percentages are expected to be different.
Does the 2.76% forest-loss category identify why the forest changed?
No. It identifies cells classified as forest in the earlier comparison and another class in 2025, but it does not separate causes such as fire, development, disturbance, or classification variation. Additional imagery or local records are needed to determine a cause.
Map File Information
The download ZIP contains four original Fremont County land-cover JPG maps.
- Included Files: Use only the versions confirmed in the article and supplied images
- File Type: Use the confirmed download contents
- Intended Use: Printing, education, presentations, and map-based projects
Related Maps
- Adams County Colorado Land Cover Map
- Alamosa County Colorado Land Cover Map
- Arapahoe County Colorado Land Cover Map
Sources and References
- MRLC Annual NLCD Data – official access point for Annual NLCD products and data.
- USGS Annual NLCD Land Cover Classification – official documentation for Annual NLCD classes and 30-meter raster interpretation.
- U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line Shapefiles – official geographic boundary reference.
Green Map creates custom-edited map images using open geographic data sources such as geoBoundaries, Natural Earth, OpenStreetMap, and government open data.
These maps are edited visual materials, not raw data files, and are provided for education, documents, presentations, and graphic reference.
