United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Changes in Development Near 

Public Forest Lands in Oregon 

and Washington, 1974–2005: 

Implications for Management

David Azuma, Joel Thompson, and Dale Weyermann

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-596

September 2013
Authors

David Azuma is a research forester, Joel Thompson is a forestry technician, 

and Dale Weyermann is the geographic information system specialist, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97208.

Cover photo by National Agriculture Imagery Program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its 

customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where 

applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, 

or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, 

or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted 

or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.) 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO 

Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or 

in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://

www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the 

USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.

ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-

9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information 

requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to 

file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal 

Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information 

above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative 

means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, 

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

For any other information dealing with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) issues, persons should either contact the USDA SNAP Hotline Number at 

(800) 221-5689, which is also in Spanish or call the State Information/Hotline Numbers. 

For any other information not pertaining to civil rights, please refer to the listing of the 

USDA Agencies and Offices for specific agency information.
Abstract

Azuma, David; Thompson, Joel; Weyermann, Dale. 2013. Changes in development near public forest lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: implications for management. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-596. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p.

Development owing to population increases over the last 30 years has greatly 

affected forested lands in the United States. To assess and compare increases in 

development, we counted changes in the number of structures on a systematic 

grid of photointerpreted points around public forest land in Washington and 

Oregon. Areas bordering public forest land are showing substantial increases in 

development, with the number of structures on private lands near almost all types 

of public forest more than doubling between the 1970s and 2000s. Lands bordering Washington’s Department of Natural Resources lands have more than twice 

as many new structures along their edges compared to other public owners. In 

Oregon, the greatest amount of development occurred along the edges of Bureau 

of Land Management forests. The greatest increases in structure density along 

the borders of public forests occurred in Pierce, King, Snohomish, and Clark 

Counties in Washington, and Deschutes County in Oregon. The continuing 

development pressure along the edges of public forests in Washington and Oregon 

has numerous consequences, including increased road density with more humancaused ignition of wildfire, higher probability for invasive species, greater demand 

for local recreation, higher fire suppression costs, and increased complexity for 

managers trying to reduce wildfire hazard through fuel treatments.

 Keywords: Development, public lands, Oregon and Washington, forest 

management.
ii

Summary

Expanding development in forested lands of the United States over the last 50 

years has raised concerns among resource managers. As low-density development 

occurs, management objectives can be altered owing to the challenges of the 

interactions between human and natural communities. People move into forested 

landscapes for many reasons: the draw of living in a natural setting, lower cost of 

land, fewer restrictions on property, fewer people around, and greater access to 

outdoor recreation.

Various effects result from houses being built in the forest. First, the house 

and access road supplant the forest. As more houses are built, the forest is slowly 

converted into a rural residential community. The road network that accompanies a 

housing development further fragments the surrounding forest. Management of the 

forest lands around these houses becomes complex in that not everyone living in 

developed areas necessarily views the forest as something that should be managed. 

Fire prevention and suppression take on new responsibilities of protecting property.

Although not necessarily subject to conversion to development, public forest 

lands such as those managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR), Oregon Department of Forestry, and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) still face 

management issues at their edges. This paper examines the increase in development 

around these public ownerships in Oregon and Washington using a photointerpreted 

grid of points from the 1970s to the mid-2000s. This time period covers both before 

and after enactment of land use laws in Oregon and Washington.

The WA DNR has the highest number of structures around its lands with an 

average of more than two times the amount of the other owners considered in 

this study. The DNR also had the greatest amount of urbanized edge of the other 

owners. When considering land that stayed in a forest classification, all owners 

showed an increase of more than double between the 1970s and the mid 2000s. On 

an annualized basis, only the BLM in western Oregon and the WA DNR showed 

significant rises in the number of structures between 1970–1990 and 1990–2000. 

When considering all land, including land that had been converted from forest, 

only the WA DNR showed a significant increase between the two time periods. 

Although land use conversion has slowed in both states, the number of houses 

continues to increase around public lands.
1

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

Introduction

Population growth has had major impacts on forested ecosystems across the United 

States, including land use conversion, increases in invasive species, forest fragmentation, wildlife habitat loss, and increases in human-caused fire ignitions (Radeloff 

et al. 2005). Population growth and development have also been correlated with 

reduced forest management and investment on private forest land (Kline et al. 2004, 

Munn et al. 2002). In the Eastern United States, private owners hold the most forest 

land; however, in the West, public owners manage the most forest land. Private 

lands generally sustain the most land use conversion, forest fragmentation, and 

habitat loss from increasing development, but there are also questions about the 

impacts of development on adjacent public lands and their management (Stein et al. 

2007).

In Oregon and Washington, public ownership accounts for roughly 50 percent 

of forest land. This study analyzes the area around the majority holders, the U.S. 

Forest Service (National Forest System [NFS]), the Bureau of Land management 

(BLM), the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR). In Oregon and Washington, the U.S. Forest 

Service manages 9.1 million ha of forest land, the BLM about 1.5 million (with 

their productive forest mostly in southwest Oregon), ODF about 0.40 million, and the 

WA DNR about 1 million ha (Campbell et al. 2010, Donnegan et al. 2008). Some of 

the impacts that generally occur on private land, such as forest fragmentation and 

conversion, may not be as meaningful in reference to public forest land. However, 

problems occur at the interface between public and private lands where management differences between the owners are most evident.

In Oregon and Washington, a continuum of community types can be found 

at the edge of public land, including urban/residential, undeveloped commercial 

forests, and agricultural lands. The expansion of development at the edges of public 

land exacerbates management issues through various disturbances:

• Introduction of invasive plants

• Increases in unmanaged recreation

• Impacts on native fish and wildlife habitats

• Increased access by road, which can lead to a rise in human-caused 

ignitions (Nowak et al. 2005).

Also, public pressure and national policy may force priorities for fuel treatments and fire suppression into edge areas at the expense of surrounding natural 

resources. Federal wildland fire policy lists protection of human life as its first 

priority, followed by property and resource values (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Private lands generally 

sustain the most 

land use conversion, 

forest fragmentation, 

and habitat loss 

from increasing 

development, but there 

are also questions 

about the impacts 

of development on 

adjacent public lands 

and their management.
2

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

As the number of structures increases near federal and state lands, this policy will 

drive increases in protection efforts for these structures. In the Western United 

States, development encroachment at the forest edge has also been linked to fire 

suppression costs (Gebert et al. 2007). In 1994, the U.S. Forest Service obligated 

$752 million to fire suppression, and in 2008 that number was $3.2 billion—a 325 

percent increase in 14 years (Gorte 2008). Some of this increase may be due to the 

increased development near federal lands, and some to the doubling in average 

acreage burned between the 1990s and 2000s.

Fire exclusion policies of the past 100 years on certain forested lands have 

added to fire management issues for these forests by slowing the recycling of 

nutrients and not regulating the density and composition of young trees (Donovan 

and Brown 2007, Noss et al. 2006, Reinhardt et al. 2008, Stephens and Ruth 2005). 

A major tool forest managers can use to address these issues is prescribed fire. 

However, at the edges of public land, this method of fuel reduction can be highly 

controversial: for example, in 2000, an escaped prescribed burn near Los Alamos, 

New Mexico, resulted in nearly $1 billion in property damage. Although public 

forest lands may not be under pressure for development, development at the edge 

becomes a problem for managers considering the liabilities associated with fire 

prevention, protection, suppression, fuel treatment, and harvesting. 

In the late 1990s and into the next decade, the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) unit of the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station 

and the ODF conducted a series of land use change studies (Lettman et al. 2011). 

Changes in land use were documented on nonfederal land for all of Oregon using 

a grid of photointerpreted points. These studies found a general slowing of land 

use conversion from more forested and rural types to more urbanized types after 

the implementation of Oregon’s land use laws in the form of county comprehensive 

land use plans implemented in the 1980s (Lettman et al. 2009). They also showed 

that land use changes were focused in areas zoned for development, and that the 

number of structures in forested and rural settings continued to increase on the 

2005 imagery. These studies focused on location and rate of land use change on 

private lands across the state, such as the areas where forest and agricultural lands 

were being converted to low-density residential or urban land use. In contrast, 

the objectives for this study were to investigate the increase in development on 

lands adjacent to Washington and Oregon’s public forest lands and compare these 

increases among the different management agencies. Quantifying the increases in 

structures in areas that have not been converted in land use can serve as a surrogate 

for the broader risks associated with development near public lands. 
3

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

Study Area

The study was conducted in Oregon and Washington, which jointly has 43.3 million 

ha of land, of which 21.4 million ha were forested (fig. 1). Public lands account for 

roughly 60 percent of the forested area. The photointerpreted grid includes all lands 

outside of federal (NFS, BLM, and National Park Service) ownership for Oregon 

and Washington. Because we intended to look at development around forest land, 

we limited the coverage on BLM land to western Oregon where the vast majority of 

BLM’s productive forest lands exist; BLM does also manage large areas of juniper 

woodland and range land in eastern Oregon. The west-side forests are dominated 

by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and western hemlock (Tsuga 

heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) forest types, while east-side forests are dominated by 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Lawson & C. Lawson) with Douglas-fir being 

the second most abundant forest type.

Figure 1—Ownership on forest land in Oregon and Washington. USFS = U.S. 

Forest Service, BLM = Bureau of Land Management, NPS = National Park Service. 
4

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Methods

A photointerpreted grid of points was established by the U.S. Forest Service PNW 

Research Station’s FIA program for purposes of stratification for inventory estimates. These points and the attributes represent a systematic sample of roughly 

37,000 points in Oregon and 44,000 in Washington on the land outside of federal 

ownership. This 1.4-km grid across Oregon and Washington was used to evaluate 

land use change for western and eastern Oregon (Lettman et al. 2011). Each point 

outside of federal land was assessed for land use in 1974, 1984, 1994, 2000, and 

2005 for Oregon, and in 1976, 1994, and 2006 for Washington. The earlier dates 

were evaluated off 1:40,000 aerial photography. Lands were classified into the 

following types: wildland forest, mixed forest and agriculture, intensive agriculture, 

low-density residential, urban, wildland range, mixed range and agriculture, and 

other (Lettman et al. 2006). Along with delineating land use polygons for each 

point, interpreters also recorded the number of structures within a 32.3-ha circle 

(321-m radius) around all points (fig. 2), with the exception of those that were 

Figure 2—Change in development from 1976 to 2006. 
5

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

classified as urban. A structure denotes the presence of an improvement (most often 

a house and its associated outbuildings, a farmstead or isolated barn or agricultural 

building, or isolated commercial establishments). Structures were also counted 

for points that were classified as nonurban but had portions of the 32.3-ha circle 

that were designated as urban. Using the structure count information from each of 

these points, we estimated the average change in number of structures at various 

distances from public land over the period of time our aerial photos covered.

In 2005, the land use change study was conducted using 0.5-m resolution 

National Agriculture Imagery 20 Program imagery, and National Digital Ortho 

Program imagery that was scanned and geo-registered in geographic information 

system (GIS) for the 1990s and 2000 dates (Lettman et al. 2006). The old points 

were transferred to the new imagery, and polygons of land use classes were delineated in GIS over displayed imagery for the 1990s and later dates. Each old point 

was classified again and structure counts were performed on the new imagery, 

capturing the location of each of the structures. In the 2005 data set, the actual locations of the structures were recorded as they were counted, and for eastern Oregon, 

the 1994 location was also noted. The distance to the four public land ownerships 

(ODF, BLM, NFS, DNR) was computed from each point to each ownership, and 

we evaluated sample points within three distance zones (<1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 5 km) 

around public land. Sample sizes were large for each ownership/distance-zone 

pairing, with the smallest being over 350 points. Using an ownership layer provided by ODF for Oregon state lands, Washington DNR’s parcel layer (WA DNR 

2012) and one that was developed by the U.S. Geological Surveys Gap Analysis 

Program, BLM, and U.S. Forest Service for federal lands, we were able to compute 

the amount of edge between various public owners and private ownership for each 

county in Oregon and Washington. The edge-to-area ratio (EAR) of public forest 

land to edge with private ownership was computed on a county basis.

Adjustments for Urban Counts

When a point was classified in the urban category (center fell on urban land use), 

structures in the surrounding 32-ha circle (321-m radius) were not counted. To 

estimate the change in density for points that changed from other uses to urban, we 

set the density for the urban class at 160 structures per 32-ha circle, roughly four 

times the average number of structures in our low-density residential zone and in 

line with the 6.1 houses per hectare for what Loy (2001) described as low-density 

urban in the Atlas of Oregon. Without adjustment, eliminating the urban classified 

points can result in a decrease in the average number of structures per point. For 

example, if in 1974, three points had 2, 3, and 45 structures, and by 1984 the third 

was called urban and eliminated, the average count goes from 16.7 to 2.5. To avoid 

Using the structure 

count information 

from each of these 

points, we estimated 

the average change in 

number of structures 

at various distances 

from public land over 

the period of time our 

aerial photos covered.
6

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Table 1—Average number of developments per square kilometer on nonpublic land by distance from public owner for Oregon and Washington

NFS BLMa State (ODF/DNR)b All publicc

 Distance from public owner

Year <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km

Average number of developments per square kilometer

Oregon: 1974 2.5(0.8) 3.9(1.8) 6.7(1.7) 2.1(0.3) 7.3(1.1) 13.4(1.3) 1.3(0.3) 4.3(1.0) 3.8(0.5) 1.6(0.3) 4.1(1.1) 9.0(1.5) 1984 3.4(0.9) 5.5(2.1) 8.4(1.9) 3.0(0.4) 9.7(1.2) 16.0(1.4) 1.6(0.3) 4.9(1.0) 4.6(0.6) 2.2(0.4) 5.4(1.3) 10.9(1.6) 1994 4.3(1.0) 6.1(2.2) 9.2(2.0) 3.7(0.4) 11.4(1.3) 17.6(1.4) 1.8(0.3) 5.4(1.0) 5.2(0.6) 2.7(0.4) 6.3(1.4) 11.8(1.6) 2000 4.7(1.0) 6.7(2.3) 10.4(2.1) 4.0(0.5) 12.0(1.4) 18.6(1.5) 1.9(0.3) 5.8(1.0) 5.6(0.6) 3.0(0.4) 7.0(1.4) 12.8(1.7) 2005 5.2(1.1) 7.3(2.4) 10.9(2.2) 4.4(0.5) 12.7(1.4) 19.5(1.5) 2.0(0.3) 6.1(1.0) 5.9(0.6) 3.3(0.4) 7.3(1.5) 13.4(1.7)Washington: 1976 1.1(0.2) 2.0(0.4) 3.1(0.4) – – – 5.7(0.6) 14.1(1.4) 18.6(1.6) 5.4(0.5) 14.4(1.5) 19.5(1.8) 1994 1.7(0.2) 3.2(0.5) 4.5(0.5) – – – 8.4(0.7) 18.9(1.7) 23.5(1.9) 7.9(0.6) 19.2(1.7) 24.5(2.0) 2006 2.2(0.2) 4.0(0.5) 5.8(0.6) – – – 11.2(0.8) 24.0(1.9) 28.0(2.1) 10.6(0.8) 24.5(2.0) 29.2(2.3)— = no estimate, owing to lack of photopoint around ownership.a The numbers for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are western Oregon.b ODF/DNR = Oregon Department of Forestry and Washington Department of Natural Resources.c All public includes ODF and DNR, National Forest System, and BLM where applicable.
7

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

this problem, we adjusted the count by multiplying 160 times the proportion of the 

32.3-ha circle that was urban for points that had a center classification of urban.

Quality Assurance

In the original study, polygons were drawn by multiple observers and compared 

for multiple areas as a training tool. Because each increment in time involved the 

classification of every point, we checked each point on the imagery that changed in 

land use to ensure that the change was real. All structure counts that had decreased 

or increased by more than two were rechecked by another observer (Lettman 2006).

Statistical comparisons between ownerships or distance classes are based upon 

a t-test for the differences in means with unequal variances.

Results 

Current Density 

The greatest structure density in the closest distance class (within 1 km) in the 

mid-2000s occurred around WA DNR lands (11.2 structures per square kilometer, 

statistically different from all other owners). The next highest estimates were 

around U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands in Oregon, with 5.2 and 4.4 structures 

per square kilometer, respectively (table 1). These numbers correlate with the 

amount of edge each owner has with urban and low-density residential land uses 

(fig. 3). The NFS lands in Washington and the state lands in Oregon have roughly 

the same average number of structures per square kilometer within 1 km of their 

Figure 3—Amount of edge with urbanized land use by public ownership for two time periods 

in Oregon and western Washington. O-NFS = Oregon National Forest System, BLM = Bureau 

of Land Management, ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry, W-NFS = Washington National 

Forest System, DNR = Department of National Resources.
8

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Table 2—Population increase (1974–2005), area of forest, edge-to-area ratio (EAR)a of forest land, and increase 

in development denisity for public owners in selected counties in Oregon and Washington 

 NFS BLM ODF/DNR 

 Population Area EAR DEVb Area EAR DEV Area EAR DEV 

County Thousands % increase (1000 ha) (m/ha) (No./km2)

Oregon:

 Eastern—

Baker 16 11 247 4.7 1.1 24 112.9 1.7 2 9.1 –

Cook 21 146 146 3.9 0.4 120 23.0 1.4 2 45.5 2.4

Deschutes 158 400 356 2.4 44.9 72 20.5 24.5 – –

Grant 2 10 612 3.7 0.2 20 112.5 0.5 7 5.4 0.2

Harney 7 6 187 2.5 0.2 131 56.0 0.2 15 42.1 0.1

Jefferson 22 151 71 12.9 3.1 2 263.8 1.9 – – –

Klamath 66 31 683 5.4 1.4 77 23.8 3.0 17 6.9 1.3

Lake 8 19 370 5.8 0.5 78 49.5 0.7 – – –

Malheur 31 37 – – – 32 183.4 0.3 4 122.1 0.4

Morrow 11 169 40 5.0 0.6 – – – – – –

Umatilla 76 60 139 5.9 0.4 3 93.7 2.9 3 5.9 –

Union 26 30 206 3.6 0.8 – – – 3 21.6 0.9

Wallowa 7 14 275 5.2 0.4 2 202.0 0.2 2 14.5 0.1

Wasco 25 20 67 4.3 4.7 6 192.2 1.0 7 9.4 0.9

Wheeler 1 -15 56 3.3 0.4 25 50.3 0.5 – – –

 Total 487 90 3,485 4.6 2.9 592 55.1 1.7 62 34.9 1.7

 Western—

Benton 86 56 12 5.5 1.6 27 19.2 2.0 9 21.1 1.4 

Clackamas 376 120 213 1.0 4.9 9 71.5 8.6 2 2.0 4.7

Clatsop 37 30 – – – – – – 39 22.7 1.0

Columbia 49 63 – – – 2 73.4 6.1 3 36.0 0.5

Coos 63 11 26 11.2 1.7 68 22.3 1.3 29 6.5 1.0

Curry 22 64 233 2.3 0.8 17 29.8 2.3 7 12.8 0.4

Douglas 108 45 374 2.6 0.5 261 24.5 2.7 21 9.8 1.1

Hood River 22 61 81 2.6 6.4 – – – 3 17.6 –

Jackson 203 110 221 3.8 7.1 141 30.9 6.5 6 7.8 5.2

Josephine 83 127 149 1.7 11.9 126 17.2 9.8 5 11.6 4.6

Lane 352 58 530 3.3 3.6 104 31.9 5.3 16 2.4 1.9

Lincoln 46 73 83 8.8 3.8 5 48.9 3.0 13 17.4 1.4

Linn 117 51 176 4.2 0.1 36 22.0 1.5 6 1.7 1.0

Marion 315 103 77 1.8 0.3 3 93.4 4.1 12 7.5 1.1

Multnomah 735 27 27 3.4 58.9 2 34.9 5.3 – – –

Polk 75 89 – – – 19 23.6 2.3 5 14.0 0.8

Tillamook 25 41 37 12.3 2.2 9 16.2 2.9 128 4.4 0.8

Washington 530 217 – – – 3 61.4 3.0 35 8.4 1.5

Yamhill 99 128 9 6.8 0.2 20 22.5 2.6 2 14.5 1.3

 Total 3,343 78 2,248 3.3 4.7 852 26.0 5.1 341 9.4 9.4

All Oregon 3,843 79 5,733 4.2 3.4 1,444 45.4 2.6 403 10.0 1.4
9

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

Table 2—Population increase (1974–2005), area of forest, edge-to-area ratio (EAR)a of forest land, and increase 

in development denisity for public owners in selected counties in Oregon and Washington (cont.) 

 NFS BLM ODF/DNR

 Population Area EAR DEVb Area EAR DEV Area EAR DEV 

County Thousands % increase (1000 ha) (m/ha) (No./km2)

Washington:

 Western—

Island 81 199 – – 2 55.75 32.06

King 1,826 58 123 7.26 .32 33 17.74 44.77

Kitsap 241 135 – – – 11 20.48 34.78

Pierce 767 85 200 2.31 1.01 12 22.07 49.78

San Juan 15 293 – – – 6 18.36 7.21

Skagit 116 119 132 2.25 .86 42 28.00 9.73

Snohomish 670 151 198 2.15 1.47 64 12.10 34.40

Whatcom 186 130 144 .80 .51 46 18.32 15.32

Clallam 70 100 78 3.39 2.23 68 20.37 6.86

Grays Harbor 72 19 51 4.01 .13 46 12.31 4.41

Jefferson 29 172 69 1.39 1.05 88 9.48 6.00

Mason 56 162 48 1.93 1.39 28 14.22 6.46

Thurston 235 203 – – – 20 20.56 31.02

Clark 413 219 2 .83 9.44 22 17.02 40.29

Cowlitz 100 44 14 3.68 0.01 48 9.80 4.38

Lewis 74 60 186 2.16 1.39 39 20.56 4.27

Pacific 22 36 – – – 43 11.00 2.50

Skamania 11 80 132 2.24 3.98 34 12.13 4.21

 Total 4,987 67 1,419 2.39 1.60 659 15.73 18.04 

 Eastern—

Chelan 71 70 471 3.56 7.34 13 31.01 10.08

Kittitas 37 52 168 8.46 2.11 48 24.66 2.12

Klickitat 20 63 – – – 35 34.58 1.13

Okanogan 40 52 571 1.42 1.67 106 17.55 1.70

Yakima 233 59 – – – 37 31.11 5.02

Asotin 21 52 17 3.44 0.17 2 108.22 9.73

Columbia 4 -11 59 1.42 0.22 2 68.35 .18

Ferry 8 105 177 2.54 1.96 12 29.35 1.97

Garfield 2 -27 42 .91 0.75 – – –

Lincoln 10 7 – – – 3 198.83 0

Pend Oreille 13 110 200 6.35 1.59 9 33.23 2.19

Spokane 447 56 – – – 15 35.49 7.63

Stevens 43 137 82 7.74 2.04 77 19.99 2.47

 Total 1,408 93 1,973 3.45 2.28 361 26.86 5.52

All Washington 6,395 90 3,393 3.00 2.01 1,020 19.67 9.74

— = no estimate, due to lack of photo point around ownership.

NFS = National Forest System, ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry, BLM = Bureau of Land Management.

a Edge-to-area ratio, calculated as the linear distance of edge between public and private ownership in the county divided by area of public 

forest land ownership, in m/ha.

b DEV = average development count increase per km2

 for all distance classes around public lands, 1974–2005.
10

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Figure 4—Increase in structure density by owner and distance for the study period in Oregon and 

Washington. O-NFS = Oregon National Forest System, ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry, 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management, W-NFS = Washington National Forest System, DNR = 

Department of National Resources. 

land at 2.18 and 1.98, respectively. The greatest structure 8 density within 5 km 

of public lands are in areas with high population, such as Pierce, King, and Clark 

Counties in western Washington and Clackamas, Multnomah, Lane, and Jackson 

Counties in Oregon (table 2). There are some curious exceptions such as Deschutes

County in Oregon, which has a high number of structures around NFS land, with 

intermediate population levels and the largest amount of population growth in the 

study period.

Changes in Density

Increases in structures between the 1970s and 2000s differed among owners in the 

shortest distance class, with the largest difference in structure density occurring 

on lands in proximity to the WA DNR, followed by the NFS and BLM in Oregon, 

and NFS in Washington and ODF land in Oregon (fig. 4). The mean increase in 

structure density was greater for the farthest distance class compared to the closest 

for all owners except for NFS land in Oregon (fig. 4). In Washington, the largest 

increases occurred in counties with the largest populations, such as Pierce, King, 

Snohomish, and Clark. In Oregon, the greatest increase occurred in Deschutes 

County around NFS land; the next largest differences in Oregon were in counties 

that had large population centers. The BLM had some relatively large increases in 

Oregon’s southern counties of Jackson, Josephine, and Lane at 6.5, 9.98, and 5.3 

structure densities, respectively (table 2). The large increases seen around BLM and 

DNR land are related to the increases in urban/low-density edge (fig. 3). With the 

The large increases 

seen around BLM and 

DNR land are related 

to the increases in 

urban/low-density 

edge.
11

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

exception of land around ODF structure density tends to increase with the distance 

interval, the two farther distances are virtually the same. This may indicate the 

greater chance of hitting an urban or low-density residential area as you move away 

from blocks of public land.

An annualized look at all distance classes combined and for two time periods, 

1970s to 1990s and 1990s to 2000s, showed that the numbers of new structures 

around various public owners remained relatively constant with the exception of 

lands around the WA DNR, which had significantly more new structures in the 

second period (fig. 5).

Land Remaining in a Forested Land Use 

When limiting the analysis to points that have remained in some partially forested 

zone (excluding points that changed land use), such as a wildland forest zone or 

a mixed-forest/agricultural zone, the average number of structures in most cases 

more than doubled between the 1970s and the mid-2000s. Within 1 km of public 

forest, structure density more than doubled for each of the owner groups (table 3). 

The mean differences remain relatively constant across distances classes with only 

the WA DNR lands having a statistical difference between the closest (≤1 km) and 

farthest (2 to 5 km) distance class. When combining all distance classes, both BLM 

and WA DNR lands tend to have more development than other public owners with 

the WA DNR having significantly more development in the second time period, 

1994 to 2000s versus the 1970 to 1994 period (fig. 6).

Figure 5—Annualized increases in structure density by ownership for two time periods for 

all lands. ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry, BLM = Bureau of Land Management, O-NFS 

= Oregon National Forest System, DNR = Department of National Resources, W-NFS = Washington National Forest System,
12

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Table 3—Average number of developments per square kilometer on nonpublic forest land by distance classes from public owner for Oregon and Washington

 NFS BLMa State (ODF/DNR) All public

Distance from public owner

Year <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km <1 km 1–2 km 2–5 km

Average number of developments per square kilometer

Oregon: 1974 .32(.08) .32(.08) .48(.07) .65(.03) .82(.08) 1.00(.05) .38(.03) .73(.08) .76(.05) 0.50(.03) 0.81(.08) 1.13(.12) 1984 .51(.11) .57(.21) .68(.10) .94(.05) 1.21(.11) 1.51(.07) .51(.04) 1.00(.11) 1.08(.07) 0.74(.04) 1.21(.13) 1.63(.17) 1994 .67(.12) .73(.28) .89(.12) 1.18(.06) 1.63(.15) 1.78(.09) .66(.06) 1.25(.15) 1.41(.09) 0.93(.05) 1.56(.17) 1.99(.20) 2000 .74(.13) .81(.29) .98(.13) 1.31(.06) 1.87(.17) 2.02(.10) .70(.06) 1.39(.17) 1.55(.10) 1.03(.05) 1.80(.19) 2.26(.24) 2005 .88(.15) .91(.31) 1.14(.14) 1.57(.07) 2.12(.19) 2.25(.11) .80(.07) 1.63(.18) 1.83(.11) 1.23(.06) 2.02(.21) 2.51(.25)Washington: 1976 .34(.03) .43(.06) .37(.06) – – – .66(.03) 1.42(.10) 1.24(.09) 0.63(.03) 1.47(.11) 1.33(.10) 1994 .65(.05) .81(.09) .70(.07) – – – 2.03(.05) 2.20(.16) 2.01(.11) 1.15(.05) 2.67(.17) 2.12(.13) 2006 .85(.06) 1.14(.13) .91(.08) – – – 1.83(.08) 3.65(.12) 3.05(.17) 1.72(.38) 3.75(.44) 3.31(.44)— = no estimate, due to lack of photo point around ownership.NFS = National Forest System, ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry, DNR = Washington Department of Natural Resources.a The numbers for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are western Oregon.
13

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

County-Level Edge-to-Area Ratios and Development

As for counties that had large amounts of public forest land, Deschutes stands out 

with its large increase in structure density (from 1974 to 2005) near NFS land and 

low EAR; this was the result of 27 of the 290 points changing from a nonurban to 

urban land use. Lane, Jackson, and Josephine Counties also stand out with large 

increases near BLM land, and Snohomish and Whatcom Counties showed double 

digit increases around WA DNR lands (table 2). For Oregon counties with the four 

largest forest-land areas, the EAR is nearly eight times as great on BLM lands as on 

NFS lands. Although Lane County had a modest population increase of 59 percent, 

the EAR for 104 000 ha of productive BLM forest land is high at 31.9 m/ha, possibly contributing to the large structure count increase. Snohomish, Whatcom, Clalam, 

and Mason Counties in western Washington had over 100 percent population 

growth and relatively high EARs for DNR lands; however, the NFS lands in these 

Washington counties had relatively small increases in structures and low EARs.

Discussion

Edge-to-Area Ratio With Private Owners 

The EAR of a public to private ownership affects the public owner’s ability to manage fire and resources in proximity to structures. The greater the amount of edge 

with respect to area, the greater the possibility for development on the edge, 

Figure 6—Annualized increases in structure density by ownership for two time periods for forested 

lands. ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry, BLM = Bureau of Land Management, O-NFS = 

Oregon National Forest System, DNR = Department of National Resources, W-NFS = Washington 

National Forest System, .
14

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

assuming that very little development will occur on public lands. For counties with 

over 100 000 ha of forest land in a public ownership, the BLM in southwestern 

Oregon and the DNR in western Washington have a large amount of edge with 

private owners. The EAR for the BLM is largely due to the Oregon/California 

railroad lands that were returned into federal management in the early 1900s 

(Horning 1940). The railroads had been granted every other section of land in a 

swath in the southern Oregon counties (Douglas, Lane, Jackson, Josephine), creating a checkerboard of ownership (fig. 1). Most of BLM’s productive forest ownership in Oregon falls into these counties. Not all of the edge is with private owners, 

however; there is a substantial amount of edge with the NFS. The WA DNR lands 

tend to be lower in elevation and closer to developed areas where the EAR can 

produce high structure counts, whereas the ODF lands tend to be in the coast range 

farther away from developed areas (fig. 1). The greater amount of edge between 

BLM/DNR and private land has an effect on the number of structures closer to 

these ownership groups. If development continues to occur in these counties on 

nonpublic forest land, fire and fuel management will continue as a problem for the 

BLM and WA DNR. 

Implications With Fire Suppression and Fuel Treatments 

Considerable attention has been paid to the ecological alteration of fire-prone 

western forests by grazing, harvesting, and fire suppression during the 20th century 

(Donovan and Brown 2007, Noss et al. 2006), which may have led to the increases 

in annual burned area of the last decade (Stephens and Ruth 2005). The combination of these changes and development at or near the edges of these forests is 

becoming a prime consideration for forest managers. The rising cost of fire suppression has been linked to both altered fire regimes and development (Liang et al. 

2008). Forest Service research indicates that the characteristics of houses and their 

immediate surroundings are the primary determinants of whether a house burns 

(Cohen 1999). Nonetheless, fuel treatments on public land will continue to be used 

to attempt to change fire behavior from crown to surface fire so that suppression 

efforts will be more effective around homes (Murphy et al. 2007). 

The changing of fuel structures in forests to reduce fire hazard is well documented (Agee and Skinner 2005) and has been shown to change fire behavior in 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas, although under extreme conditions, treated 

areas may not be enough to protect homes (Safford et al. 2009). In areas on the edge 

or where mixed public/private ownership exists, the objectives for fuel treatment 

can be quite different than in areas further away. When treating boundary areas, the 

primary focus of a public forest manager may be fire risk as opposed to more broad 
15

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

ecological objectives for a more remote setting. Treatment options are more limited 

on lands at the edge; public land managers place a greater emphasis on mechanical 

treatments here, whereas they can use prescribed fire and wildland fire in other 

areas (Reinhardt et al. 2008). Public land managers must also gain acceptance for 

their treatments among a mixed audience on the edge, and some private owners 

may not want any treatment near their homes (Winter and Fried 2000). 

Although Lettman et al. (2011) reported less conversion of land from forest to 

nonforest use from 2000 through 2005 compared to the 1970s and 1980s in Oregon, 

the number of structures continues to increase next to public forest lands in both 

states. This study shows that areas closest to DNR in Washington, and BLM lands 

in western Oregon (less than 1 km), had the greatest percentage of increase in the 

average number of structures. If rates of development continue as in the recent past, 

we might expect a double digit percentage increase in the number of structures per 

square kilometer in the next 10 years near public forest lands in Oregon and Washington. The relatively low number of structures around NFS lands in Washington 

is due to a buffering effect of both DNR lands and commercial forest lands, as is 

evidenced by the low amount of edge with low-density residential and the lack of 

urban edge (fig. 1). 

Road Network Implications

Increases in structures within 1 km of public lands, will result in increased road 

density near the public/private boundary. Increases in road networks can have 

a positive impact on forest management activities through reduced access costs 

to managed forests. Negative ecological impacts of roads on both terrestrial and 

aquatic systems range from declines in stream health, to habitat fragmentation, to 

habitat degradation (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Increased road access can have 

both benefits and costs for protecting resources and people from wildfire. Increased 

human access generally increases the frequency of wildfire ignitions: 74 percent 

of the fires from 2001 through 2008 were caused by humans, with only 26 percent 

caused by lightning (NIFC 2010) in the Pacific Northwest. Although human-caused 

fires close to development can be catastrophic, they are typically in accessible 

areas, and thus can often be controlled more quickly; for example, in the Pacific 

Northwest, only 27 percent of the hectares burned in 2001 through 2008 were in 

human-caused fires (NIFC 2010). If the roads are mapped and marked (so that 

fire crews can find their way) and are sufficiently wide for firefighting equipment, 

increased access can allow for faster control efforts, and probably reduces the risk 

of a structure being burned. Research is also needed to better understand the effects 

of the increase in road network where the number of structures has increased. 

Although less 

conversion of 

land from forest to 

nonforest was reported 

from 2000 through 

2005 compared to the 

1970s and 1980s in 

Oregon, the number of 

structures continues to 

increase next to public 

forest lands in both 

states.
16

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Comparing Two Time Periods 

When comparing the annual increases in density for the 1970s to 1990s with the 

1990s to 2005, public lands have roughly the same new development (structures per 

square kilometer) in both time periods (fig. 6), with the exception of the WA DNR. 

Lands near the WA DNR had more development growth in both periods than other 

public owners. It was hypothesized that Oregon’s land use laws, which were in play 

during the second period, may have resulted in differences (Lettman et al. 2011), 

and Washington’s Growth Management Act, which was just starting to take effect, 

would not show differences. These legislative acts focus development into areas 

designated for growth and may be effective in land use conversion, but isolated 

structures occurring in forested landscapes may not be affected.

Development in Forested Landscapes

It is important to estimate low-density development, as opposed to land use conversion (the upper left point in fig. 2). Future studies may be able to use these estimates 

of changing low-density development to model where land use change will occur. 

Although structure density remained low, the points remaining in forested land use 

classes from 1974 to 2006 show large percentage increases, more than doubling in 

structure density for all distance classes and ownerships. Thus, despite Oregon’s 

land use planning laws or Washington’s Growth Management Act, development 

adjacent to public forest continues. This is an indication that public land has an 

allure for people who want to live in a forested setting. The natural amenities of 

public lands continue to be a draw for population growth (Kaplan and Austin 2004, 

Stein et al. 2007), which could help explain the case of Deschutes County, which 

had a 400 percent increase in population. Much of the increase may be due to the 

mild climate that boasts 300 days of sunshine per year and the recreational opportunities that are generally associated with federal lands, such as skiing, fishing, 

hunting, and hiking. Also, land is cheaper in more remote areas in comparison to 

areas closer to metropolitan areas.

Implications for Other Areas in the United States

This study only addresses the circumstances around public lands in Oregon and 

Washington. However, similar conditions exist around the 54.6 million ha (Smith et 

al. 2009) of public lands in the Western United States. Other studies (Radeloff et al. 

2005) speak to the relevance of the WUI across the Nation and the Western United 

States (Hammer et al. 2007) in general. The liability associated with forest management operations on surrounding structures has to be considered in areas where 

actively managed forest lands adjoin developed lands. Losses of houses owing to 

Although structure 

density remained low, 

the points remaining 

in forested land use 

classes from 1974 

to 2006 show large 

percentage increases, 

more than doubling in 

structure density for all 

distance classes and 

ownerships. 
17

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

wildland fire within the last decade in Arizona, California, Colorado, and New 

Mexico have brought a magnified focus to the management of forest lands around 

the WUI (Cohen 2008). Although public forest lands dominate in the Western 

United States, in the Northern and Southern United States, private forest land 

owners can face similar challenges with development. 

Limitations and Advantages

This study differs from others in that it provides statistical estimates of increases 

in structures around public land, but it does not supply a spatially explicit product. 

There are several model-based products that provide spatially explicit maps of WUI 

based on modeled census block information (Hammer et al. 2007, Radeloff et al. 

2005, Theobald and Romme 2007). The accuracy of these products is based on 

assumptions of how population is distributed across a census block. In areas where 

population is sparse and census blocks are large, the difficulty in accurately modeling the population across the landscape becomes problematic. In sparsely populated 

areas, it will be difficult to distinguish between land use and land cover with 

coarse-resolution remotely sensed products. Consequently, clearcuts can appear as 

development, and heavy tree cover on low-density residential can appear as forest 

(Kline et al. 2009). Verification of what occurs on a specific piece of ground is difficult with either type of study. By using statistical estimates, we do not attempt to 

map what is specifically on the ground, but instead obtain average structure counts 

with an associated error for an area of interest. In areas where development is 

sparse, this method may be the best way to track change. The strength of this study 

is the ability to track small changes in the number of structures in areas that have 

remained forested. The major drawback of this method is the initial mapping of the 

land use polygons onto the imagery and the counting of structures, both of which 

can be fairly labor intensive.

Conclusion

Managers of public forest land must deal with development near the edges of their 

land. The WA DNR has by far the greatest numbers of structures at 11.2 per km2

within 1 km of their boundaries, followed by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM 

lands in Oregon, with 5.2 and 4.4 structures, respectively. The ODF and U.S. Forest 

Service in Washington lands seem to have the most insulation, having the lowest 

structure counts near their lands at 2.0 and 2.2, respectively. Although land use 

laws had been put into effect in both states, development at the edges of public land 

continues. These laws may be more effective in controlling land use conversion 

than containing development in the forested landscape. On an annualized basis, 

The strength of this 

study is the ability to 

track small changes 

in the number of 

structures in areas 

that have remained 

forested. 
18

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

all public owners except the WA DNR have roughly equivalent development for 

the time periods of the 1970s to 1990s vs the 1990s to the mid 2000s, with the 

WA DNR having a significant increase in the second time period. The greatest 

development increases tend to be correlated to areas with a high edge-to-arearatio between public and private ownerships and with large population centers 

in proximity.

Acknowledgments 

We thank Rachel White, Andrew Gray, Tara Barrett, Karen Ripley, and Gary 

Lettman for their helpful reviews.

English Equivalents 

When you know: Multiply by: To Find:

Meters (m) 1.094 Feet

Kilometers (km) .621 Miles

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres 

Square kilometers (km2) .386 Square miles

Literature Cited 

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 83–96.

Campbell, S.K.; Waddell, K.; Gray, A., tech. eds. 2010. Washington’s forest 

resources, 2002–2006: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-800. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Station. 189 p.

Cohen, J.D. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to homes: Where and how 

much? In: Gonzales-Caban, A.; Omi, P.N., tech. coords. Proceedings of the 

symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-173. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 189–195.

Cohen, J.D. 2008. The wildland-urban interface fire problem. Forest History 

Today. Fall 2008.

Donnegan, J.; Campbell, S.; Azuma, D., tech. eds. 2008. Oregon’s forest 

resources, 2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-765. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 186 p.
19

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T. 2007. Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of 

Smokey Bear. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 5(2): 73–79.

Gebert, K.M.; Calkin, D.E.; Yoder, J. 2007. Estimating suppression expenditures 

for individual large wildland fires. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

22(3): 188–196.

Gorte, R.W. 2008. Wildfire funding. CRS Report RL33990. Washington, DC: 

National Council for Science and the Environment.

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, S.I. 2007. Wildland 

urban interface housing growth during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16: 255–265.

Horning, W.H. 1940. The O and C lands: their role in forest conservation. Journal 

of Forestry. 38(5): 379–383. 

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

nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 235–243.

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

and private forestry in western Oregon. Forest Science. 50(1): 33–43.

Kline, J.D.; Moses, A.; Azuma, D.L.; Gray, A.N. 2009. Evaluating satellilte 

imagery-based land use data for describing forest land development in western 

Washington. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 24: 214–222.

Lettman, G.J.; Azuma, D.L.; Herstrom, A.A.; McKay, N.; Robinson, T.J. 

2009. Forest, farms, and people: land use change on non-federal land in Oregon, 

1974–2005. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 74 p.

Lettman, G.J.; Herstrom, A.A.; Hiebenthal, D.R.; McKay, N.; Robinson, T.J. 

2011. Forests, farms, and people: land use change on non-federal land in Oregon, 

1974–2009. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 74 p.

Lettman, G.J.; Stoelb, D.; Robinson, T.; Hanson, E. 2006. Determining land use 

change in Oregon: 1973–2005 Methodology, protocols, and procedures. Salem, 

OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 77 p.

Liang, J.L.; Calkin, D.E.; Gebert, K.M.; Venn, T.J.; Silverstein, R.P. 2008.

Factors influencing large wildfire suppression expenditures. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 17: 650–659.

Loy, W.G., ed. 2001. Atlas of Oregon. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon 

Press. 37 and 104.
20

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596

Munn, I.A.; Barlow, S.A.; Evans, D.L.; Cleaves, D. 2002. Urbanization’s impact 

on timber harvesting in the south central United States. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 64: 65–76.

Murphy, K.; Rich, T.; Sexton, T. 2007. An assessment of fuel treatment effects 

on fire behavior, suppression effectiveness, and structure ignition on the Angora 

fire. R5-TP-025. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 32 p.

National Interagency Fire Center. 2009. Fire information-wildland fire statistics. 

http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/lightning_human_fires.htm. (February 2010).

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T.; Dwyer, J.F.; Kaya, L.G.; Myeong, S. 2005. The 

increasing influence of urban environments on US forest management. Journal 

of Forestry. 103(8): 377–382.

Noss, R.F.; Franklin, J.F.; Baker, W.L.; Schoennagel, T.; Moyle, P.B. 2006. 

Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in. Ecology 

and the Environment. 4(9): 481–487.

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

McKeefry, J.F. 2005. The wildland-urban interface in the United States. 

Ecological Applications. 15(3): 799–805.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Calkin, D.E.; Cohen, J.D. 2008. Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 1997–2006. 

Safford, H.D.; Schmidt, D.A.; Carlson, C.H. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on 

fire severity in an area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe 

Basin, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 773–787.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest resources of the 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office.

Stein, S.M.; Alig, R.J.; White, E.M.; Comas, S.J.; Carr, M.; Eley, M.; 

Elverum, K.; O’Donnell, M.; Theobald, D.M.; Cordell, K.; Haber, J.; 

Beauvais, T.W. 2007. National forests on the edge: development pressures on 

America’s national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-728.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 26 p.

Stephens, S.L.; Ruth, L.W. 2005. Federal forest-fire policy in the United States. 

Ecological Applications. 15(2): 532–542.
21

Changes in Development Near Public Forest Lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974–2005: Implications for Management

Theobald, D.M.; Romme, W.H. 2007. Expansion of the US wildland-urban 

interface. Landscape and Urban Planning. 83: 340–354.

Trombulak, S.C.; Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on 

terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 14(1): 18–30.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Wildland fire policy. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/policy.html. (February 2010). 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Washington DNR. 

http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/dataweb/dmmatrix.html. (February 2012).

Winter, G.J.; Fried, J.S. 2000. Homeowner perspectives on strategies for reducing 

fire damage at the wildland urban interface. Society and Natural Resources. 

13: 33–49. 
22

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-596
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 1400

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300