United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-531

March 2002

Land Ownership Dynamics in

the Big Elk Valley in Oregon

During the 20th Century

Brett J. Butler and Brooks J. Stanfield
Brett J. Butler was a forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. He is currently a doctoral candidate, Department of Forest

Science, Oregon State University and a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200,

Newtown Square, PA 19073; and Brooks J. Stanfield was a graduate research

assistant, Forest Resources Department, Oregon State University, 280 Peavy Hall,

Corvallis, OR 97331. He is now a forestry extension volunteer in the Peace Corps,

Ecuador.

Cover photograph of Big Elk Valley circa 1990 courtesy of Oregon Coast History Center,

Newport, OR.

Authors
Abstract Butler, Brett J.; Stanfield, Brooks J. 2002. Land ownership dynamics in the Big

Elk Valley in Oregon during the 20th century. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-531.

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

Research Station. 25 p.

Land ownership is a key link between society and natural resources. The dynamics of

landowner patterns are demonstrated by the examination of five land ownership maps in

the Big Elk Valley of the central Oregon Coast Range. These patterns are further illustrated

with the presentation of a land patents map of the Big Elk Valley. We selected this watershed because of its high diversity of ownership classes and the ability of the resulting

dynamics to capture many aspects of ownership dynamics. Maps of land ownership are

presented for 1907, 1930, 1956, 1979, and 1998. We also provide brief, illustrative

descriptions of processes underlying the changing ownership patterns.

Keywords: Land ownership, Big Elk Valley, Oregon.
Land ownership is a primary social institution by which society is linked to the land. To

understand relations between humans and ecosystems, it is necessary to understand

the role of land ownership in these interactions. Land ownership patterns are linked to

the well-being of resource-dependent communities (Bliss and others 1998, Geisler 1993,

Heasley and Guries 1995, Sisock 1998) and to landscape structures (Crow and others

1999, Medley and others 1995, Spies and others 1994, Turner and others 1996). Still

lacking from these studies, however, is a detailed analysis of land ownership changes

over time.

Changes in land ownership are occurring throughout the United States, most notably in

rural areas (Bliss and others 1998), areas along the urban-wildland interface (Azuma

and others 1999), and areas with a high proportion of privately owned lands (Alig and

others 1986). The nonindustrial private forest area in western Oregon declined by roughly

750,000 ac between 1961 and 1986; one-third of it was converted to nonforest land uses,

and two-thirds were acquired by the forest industry (MacLean 1990). Often accompanying

changes in land ownership are shifts in land use or management objectives affecting

forest lands. The parcelization of tracts along the urban-wildland interface and the concentration of ownership in more rural areas continue to affect the character of ecological

and human communities. The more researchers learn about how, where, and why land

ownership changes, the more we will be able to help planners and policy-makers

anticipate and respond to the social and ecological effects of these changes.

Landscape models are increasingly used to understand the relations between humans

and the land. Baker (1989) categorizes landscape models based on spatial resolution

with most models categorized as either distributional or spatial models. Distributional

landscape models examine how a given set of resources, such as land, are distributed

among categories, such as agriculture, forest, and urban. Distributional models have

been around for at least the last quarter century (Beuter and others 1976). They have

been increasingly refined so that land use (Alig and Wear 1992), land cover, and ownership (Alig and others 2000; Butler and Alig, n.d.) are all dealt with to varying degrees.

Although distributional models are useful for broad analyses, more explicit spatial detail

is required to incorporate spatial interactions and to provide information at finer spatial

scales.

Spatial landscape models incorporate not only the distributions of resources but also

the allocation of these resources across a landscape, such as the locations of forests.

Owing to the parallel development of the earliest spatial landscape models and remote

sensing, land cover is continuously the most frequent landscape attribute studied (Cohen

and others 1995, Spies and others 1994). Although methods for estimating, categorizing,

and modeling land cover are constantly refined, the next major innovation in spatial

landscape models was the inclusion of land use data (Iverson 1988, Turner 1988). As

spatial landscape models became further refined, land ownership was another attribute

included (Turner and others 1996, Wear and Bolstad 1998). Spatial landscape models

that include ownership variables consider ownership as static and unchangeable over

time, whereas spatial landscape models that include land cover routinely treat land

cover as both spatially and temporally dynamic.

Introduction

1
To illustrate the dynamics of ownership over time and present a method for obtaining

this type of information, we used current and historical data sources and a geographic

information system (GIS) to investigate land ownership change in the Big Elk Valley

during the 20th century. Although we do not present a holistic model encompassing land

cover, land use, and ownership, we try to highlight the utility of ownership data and point

out some of the potential contributions that this refinement can make to landscape models

in general. The Big Elk Valley was selected because of its high diversity of ownership

classes and the ability of the resulting dynamics to capture many aspects of ownership

dynamics. Although our data are limited to a single watershed in the central Oregon

Coast Range, these data allow investigators to explore relations between potential

causes and consequences of land ownership change—sociocultural, economic, or

environmental—which can later be tested over larger areas.

The Big Elk Valley is on the western slope of the central Oregon Coast Range (fig. 1).

It encompasses all land that drains into Big Elk Creek and its tributaries (fig. 2). The

highest point in the watershed is the summit of Mary’s Peak, from which water drains

northwest to the town of Harlan and then to Elk City where it joins the Yaquina River.

Forest land dominates land cover in the Big Elk Valley. Land covers associated with

agricultural and residential land uses are prevalent in the valley bottoms. The potential

vegetation or the pristine land cover is the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.)

Sarg.) potential vegetation zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). This zone is named after

western hemlock because it is one of the most shade-tolerant regional trees and, in

theory, will eventually dominate undisturbed stands. Nonetheless, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) dominates most of the forests of this region. Western

hemlock and western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn) also are important conifers, and red

alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum Pursh) are the most

common hardwoods. Understories in the Big Elk Valley, as in many other parts of the

region, are often dominated by salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) and swordfern

(Polystichum munitum (Kaulf.) Presl).

Ownership of this 56,981-ac watershed is highly diversified. Land-owners include the

USDA Forest Service, the state of Oregon, and many private incorp-orated and nonincorporated owners. The Big Elk Valley was selected for this study primarily because

of its highly mixed ownership pattern; it allowed us to study all the major ownership

classes within a single landscape.

Study Area

2
Figure 1—Location of the Big Elk Valley in Lincoln and Benton Counties and the state of Oregon.

3
Figure 2—Streams, topography, and major places in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon.

4
By using various data sources, ownership GIS coverages or layers were created for 1907

(Anon. 1907), 1930 (Metsker 1930), 1956 (Metsker 1956), 1979 (Erdman 1979), and

1998 (Benton County Tax Assessor’s Office 1998, Lincoln County Tax Assessor’s Office

1998). These dates were selected based on data availability and our goal of obtaining

approximately equal time intervals among data sources.

To minimize map registration errors, we used a common digital base map to enter all

ownership data. We selected the 1998 ownership coverage for this base map because

the data sources for this layer were mostly digital with a high degree of precision (Lincoln

and Benton County Tax Assessors’ Offices 1998). This high degree of precision was

obtained by entering the coordinate geometry of land deeds into spatial databases. We

digitized, using 1:24,000 county tax assessor maps, the area that was not available in

digital format from the county tax assessors.

To develop a consistent nomenclature for the names of landowners and to categorize

landowners, we created a master list of all the landowners from the five ownership maps.

When possible, we gave a single consistent name to individual owners or companies

whose names were listed differently within or across maps (e.g., George Franklin on the

1956 map and George O. Franklin on the 1979 map were listed as George O. Franklin

on the master list). The acres owned by each of the ownership categories are summarized

in table 1. To protect the identity of individual and family ownerships, names of specific

ownerships are only provided for public and private incorporated ownerships.

Among the five ownership maps, we categorized landowners into one of six ownership

classes: federal, state, county, private incorporated, private nonincorporated, and other.

Two other categories were added: “public domain” for the 1907 map and “no data” for any

land that lacked ownership information. The “federal” category represented USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management land. The “state” category represented

land owned or managed by the state of Oregon. The “county” category represented land

owned by Lincoln or Benton Counties. We assigned owners that were listed as companies

or other business entities to the “private incorporated” category. Because some companies

owned and managed land listed under the name of the company’s president, mediumand large-sized tracts (i.e., greater than 10 ac) listed under the name of a known company

president, founder, or timber purchaser also were categorized as “private incorporated.”

We categorized all other private owners as “private nonincorporated.” The “other” category

represented miscellaneous tracts owned by such entities as churches and cemeteries

that consistently represented a small proportion of the watershed. Before 1907, all lands

that were not yet patented were considered part of the “public domain.”

Inconsistencies in the ownership patterns were observed in eight instances where

ownerships on tracts of land went from federal in 1956 to state in 1979 and back to

federal in 1998. In the maps published in this report, recategorizing the inconsistent

tracts in the 1979 map as federal lands resolved these inconsistencies.

In addition to these temporally explicit ownership coverages, we created a coverage of

all land patents made in the Big Elk Valley before 1907 (U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management 1999). This information was from the “Historical Indices” of

the General Land Office (now the Bureau of Land Management), which lists all entries

and patents on public lands. The cut-off year for this map was 1907 because that was

Methods

Land Ownership

Coverages

Land Patent Coverage

5
Table 1—Summary of land ownership (acres) in the Big Elk Valley of Oregon for 1907, 1930, 1956, 1979, and

1998 by ownership category

Category Codea Owner name 1907 1930 1956 1979 1998

Public domain 0 19,151 — — — —

Federal 1 U.S. government — 14,966 19,300 19,607 20,251

State 2 State of Oregon — 1,340 8,220 8,239 7,897

County 3 Lincoln County 77 7,706 95 1 208

Private incorporated 10 3G Lumber Co. — — 42 58 —

11 Benton Lumber Co. — — 479 — —

12 Bittler Brothers — — — 40 40

13 Cascadia Lumber Co. — — 515 — —

14 Chicago City Bank & Trust — 157 — — —

15 CL&L Co. 684 — — — —

16 Clemens, Rex — — 960 — —

17 Coast L & L Co. 3,321 — — — —

18 Courect — — — — 2

19 Fed. Land Bank of Spokane — 392 — — —

20 First National Bank of Albany 160 — — — —

21 Freres Lumber Co. Inc. — — — 406 409

22 Gates, H. — — 39 — —

23 Gates, R.G. — — 205 — —

24 Georgia-Pacific — — — 6,247 6,242

25 Great Western Lumber 838 — — — —

26 Guy Roberts Lumber Co. — 131 880 — —

27 Harlan Logging Co. — — 215 57 —

28 Higgins, Ross & Co. — 80 — — —

29 Johnson Lumber Co. — — 2,030 — —

30 J.R. Gates Timber Co. — — 244 901 —

31 Lane Coose Land Co. 333 — — — —

32 Larson Lumber Co. — — 78 — —

33 Larson, G.T. — — — 78 —

34 Leigh, C.E. 4,201 — — — —

35 Lexington Realty Co. — 76 — — —

36 Luoto — — — — 320

37 Moser Lumber Co. — — 622 — —

38 Northside Lumber Co. — — — 427 —

39 O&C RR Co. 7,200 — — — —

40 Oregon and Indiana Land Co. 55 — — — —

42 Oregon Lumber & Export Co. — — — 419 —

43 Philomath College Corp. — 209 — — —

44 Philomath State Bank — 84 — — —

45 Pioneer Telephone — — — — 0

46 Poulsen Lumber Co. — — 1,678 — —

47 Poulson, Ellen — 166 — — —

48 Publishers Paper Co. — — — 8,783 —

49 R.D. Gates Timber Co. — — 1,887 2,568 2,169

50 Simpson Timber Co. — — — — 6,688

51 Starker Forests Inc. — — 384 629 629

52 Taylor Collins Land Co. — 1,954 — — —

53 Thompson Tree Farms Inc. — — — — 1,966

54 Three Bs — — — — 154

6
Category Codea Owner name 1907 1930 1956 1979 1998

55 Title and Trust Co. — 955 — — —

56 Vaneck, F. — — — — 1,541

57 Weyerhaeuser — — — — 159

58 Willamette Industries — — 12 227 793

59 W.O.W. Lumber Co. 160 — 2,719 — —

 Total 16,951 4,204 12,987 20,839 21,109

Private

 nonincorporated 100-553 20,143 28,297 16,247 7,602 7,351

Unknown -999 660 469 132 694 165

Table 1—Summary of land ownership (acres) in the Big Elk Valley of Oregon for 1907, 1930, 1956, 1979, and

1998 by ownership category (continued)

when all public domain became federally owned and because 1907 also coincides with

the earliest available ownership map for the area. This coverage only includes homestead

entries that were successfully patented and does not include entries where individuals

were unable to obtain title (i.e., patent) to the land because of failure to meet specific

requirements.

To create this coverage, the legal descriptions of the patents were used to join the

information from the Historic Indices with an existing GIS coverage. The patents were

categorized as cash entry, homestead entry, military grant, military wagon road or railroad

grant, school grant, indemnity list, miscellaneous federal, and unappropriated public

domain. The cash entry class represents claims that were patented by private individuals

or companies by using cash payment. The homestead entry class represents lands that

were patented by private individuals who acquired title to a property after proving that they

made the required improvements (Prior 1998). The military grant class was primarily

used as part of the government’s agreement to reward soldiers for service. The military

wagon road or railroad grant class represents land grants in which private companies

were given alternating sections of land by the federal government in exchange for the

construction of transportation routes (Richardson 1980). The school grant class represents

land granted by the federal government to the state to provide revenue for schools. The

indemnity list class represents “in lieu” lands where the federal government granted the

recipients lands other than those specified in a given law because the lands specified in

the law were already occupied. The unappropriated public domain class represents land

not patented by 1907.

Most of the land patents in the Big Elk Valley were awarded to recipients of wagon road

and railroad grants and homesteaders (figs. 3 and 4). Euro-American settlement of the

central Oregon Coast Range region began around 1865. Part of the land opened for homesteading in 1866 was land withdrawn from the Siletz Indian Reservation. Ferns and charred

snags dominated the Big Elk Valley land the first Euro-American settlers occupied because

the “Yaquina Fire” of 1850 consumed a significant portion of the forests in the region

Historical Context

Land Patent Era

(Before 1907)

a Codes correspond to parcels in figures.

7
Figure 3—Distribution of land patents in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon, as a percentage of the total land area in the valley.

8
Figure 4—Land patents in the Big Elk Valley before 1907.

9
(Impara 1998, Prior 1998, Zybach 1988). This large-scale disturbance played an important

role in shaping early ownership and land use patterns in the Big Elk Valley that are still

evident today. Homesteaders, in search of land for grazing livestock and for growing

subsistence crops, typically preferred land that had been cleared of trees, was relatively

flat, and was close to water (Prior 1998). Individuals that tried to homestead on the steeper

terrain were less likely to succeed (Prior 1998).

Since 1862, the year the Homestead Act officially opened the Coast Range for settlement, several major social, political, and economic developments have influenced

patterns of land ownership and use. In the late 1800s, federal wagon road and railroad

land grants awarded alternating 640-ac sections of land to companies that built

transportation routes into the region (Richardson 1980). Although the Big Elk Valley

reportedly had little old-growth timber after the Yaquina Fire, roughly a fourth of the

watershed’s total area was granted to private corporations by 1907 (U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1999). This is significant because it contradicts

one of two generally held beliefs: either timber companies were solely interested in oldgrowth timber or few merchantable old-growth trees survived the Yaquina Fire.

The pattern of land ownership in the Big Elk Valley in 1907 (fig. 5) was largely a product

of the land patents granted during the previous 45 years. Over 90 percent of the private

incorporated lands were originally granted to groups building wagon roads and railroads

in the region (fig. 6). The most common ownership category in 1907 was “private

nonincorporated.” This group controlled land originally granted to homesteaders or

individuals purchasing land for cash and land that was part of the public domain.

Between 1907 and 1930 (fig. 7), the greatest changes in land ownership in the Big Elk

Valley were the large increases of federal and county lands and the shifts in ownership

from private incorporated to federal, private nonincorporated, and county ownerships

(fig. 8). Although both federal and county agencies were acquiring lands during this time,

they acquired their lands through different processes with different objectives. The federal

government became a significant landowner in the Big Elk Valley starting in 1907 when

the Umpqua Forest Reserve was established. This executive order put most of the “public

domain” acres in this area into the Forest Reserve, which later became the Siuslaw

National Forest.

By the 1930s, private nonincorporated owners were the most widely established ownership

class in the Big Elk Valley as they cleared lowlands and burned hillsides for grazing. Their

dominance was short lived, however, as economic effects of the depression and county

property taxes caused many in the Big Elk Valley to forfeit their land to Lincoln County.

Tax delinquency was a statewide phenomenon during the Great Depression as millions

of acres of private land were forfeited to counties throughout Oregon (Dreesen 1940).

The large increase in county ownership shown in the 1930 ownership map was primarily

associated with land seizures that resulted from tax delinquency. Early on, these seized

lands came largely from struggling homesteaders and other individuals and families. In

later years, these lands would come from forest industry companies practicing “cut-andrun” logging. “Cut-and-run” logging involved sawmill owners purchasing blocks of land and

over the course of 2 to 3 years harvesting trees, relinquishing the land, and then

relocating to new timbered properties.

The Forest Service and

the Great Depression

(1907-30)

10
Figure 5—Land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, 1907. Each ownership code corresponds to a unique owner. Codes are consistent

with other ownership maps in this report.

11
Figure 6—Distribution of land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon, 1907, including sources of land by previous land patent categories.

12
Figure 7—Land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, 1930. Each ownership code corresponds to a unique owner. Codes are consistent

with other ownership maps in this report.

13
Figure 8—Distribution of land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon, 1930, including sources of land by ownership categories in 1907.

14
The Forest Industry

(1956-79)

Between 1930 and 1956 (fig. 9), the largest land ownership changes were a transfer of

over 10,000 ac from private nonincorporated ownerships to private incorporated ownerships and a transfer of over 5,000 ac of land from county to state ownership (fig. 10).

Much of the influx of lumber and timber companies probably followed the increased prosperity that followed World War II. Companies such as the W.O.W. Lumber Co. and the

Johnson Lumber Co. began buying up large tracts of land in the Big Elk Valley that were

probably well occupied with second-growth timber useful for supplying the country’s

increasing demand for building materials.

Despite many attempts made by Lincoln County to sell its tax delinquent land that it

gained from “cut-and-run” loggers and the economic devastation that followed the Great

Depression, thousands of acres in the Big Elk Valley remained unclaimed with little

interest from private parties. By 1956, Lincoln County had opted to deed its holdings to

the state in an agreement that would provide the county a stable source of revenue from

subsequent timber harvests.

Another trend during this time was the USDA Forest Service’s attempt to consolidate its

land holdings. Some of this consolidation was accomplished through land acquisitions,

such as those authorized by President Roosevelt’s Submarginal Lands Program (Prior

1998), and other consolidations were accomplished through land swaps.

The first land purchases were also made in the Big Elk Valley with the purpose of future

timber yields. Countering the trend of “cut-and-run” logging, speculators, such as T.J.

Starker, began buying tax-delinquent land from Lincoln County exclusively for growing

trees (Fisher 1991).

By the early 1960s, prices for second-growth timber had climbed to $50 per thousand

board feet (Adams and Haynes 1996). During the 1960s and 1970s, prices continued

to rise, causing land ownership in the Big Elk Valley to undergo a rapid transformation

(figs. 11 and 12). Large corporations, such as Willamette Industries and Georgia-Pacific,

began buying out other timber companies for their timberland. For the first time, large

investor-driven corporations began purchasing open pasture and cut-over land in order to

plant trees for future timber supplies. By 1979, Publisher’s Paper, a subsidiary of the Los

Angeles Times corporation, owned more land in the Big Elk Valley than any other private

landowner.

With unprecedented land values, some smaller owners gladly sold their land. Many

others had no viable alternative but to sell. Of the nonincorporated landowners that did

remain, most shifted their management emphasis to growing conifers, whereas others,

despite the increasing economic benefits associated with timberland ownership, continued

to use their lowland portions for ranching.

The State of Oregon

and the Forest Service

(1930-56)

15
Figure 9—Land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, 1956. Each ownership code corresponds to a unique owner. Codes are consistent

with other ownership maps in this report.

16
Figure 10—Distribution of land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon, 1956, including sources of land by ownership categories in 1930.

17
Figure 11—Land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, 1979. Each ownership code corresponds to a unique owner. Codes are consistent

with other ownership maps in this report.

18
Figure 12—Distribution of land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon, 1979, including sources of land by ownership categories in 1956.

19
The 1980s and 1990s saw two divergent trends in the land ownership patterns of the

Big Elk Valley, parcelization and consolidation, but relatively small transfers of land

among ownership groups. Relatively high turnover rates occurred on the private nonincorporated lands between 1979 and 1998 (figs. 13 and 14). These turnovers resulted in an

increased number of landowners and a decreased average parcel size within this ownership class. Owners in the private incorporated class have likewise experienced turnover,

yet the average tract size in this class increased. The results of economic factors on

these ownership trends is difficult to examine in this data set because there was a

dramatic price drop in the early 1980s and then a dramatic price increase in the early

1990s (Sohngen and Haynes 1994). To compound these issues, an increase in the

regulation of forestry activities and a reduction of harvests from national forests also

occurred during this period. Dramatic price fluctuations and increasing regulations cause

a greater uncertainty in the profitability of owning timberland. This uncertainty is probably

one of the reasons why there were few transfers of land between ownership categories

during this period.

Land ownership is a dynamic process that affects how natural resources are used and

the beneficiaries of these resources. Although landowner objectives and knowledge of the

current state of the resources are important, the historical context of these patterns is

necessary for a full understanding of the underlying processes. For example, the current

ownership patterns in the Big Elk Valley are strongly related to the distribution of the

earliest land patents in the valley. Although the pattern of original patents reflected the

condition of this valley in the mid-1800s, this pattern of ownership still strongly influences

the condition of the landscape today.

Viewing ownership as a dynamic social variable enables researchers to improve their

understanding of the flow of goods and services from forests and the distribution of these

resources within our society. Ultimately, studying the temporal patterns of land ownership is a first step in understanding the social, ecological, and physical processes that

underlie these patterns. These processes and the subsequent patterns they create will

have the greatest hand in guiding the future of our forest resource.

We gratefully acknowledge the support and guidance provided by our advisors Phil

Sollins, John Bliss, and Ralph Alig. Funding and support for this project were provided by

the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (Cooperative Agreement

No. 99-7067-2-CA) and the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. The

personnel of the Lincoln and Benton County Tax Assessors Offices were of great assistance, particularly Scott Branchfield of the Lincoln County Tax Assessor’s Office. Help

obtaining information for ownership maps also was provided by the Oregon Coast History

Center and William and Ted Erdman. Reviews by Bob Zyback, Jan Prior, and Steve

Wyant significantly improved this report.

1 acre (ac) = 0.4047 hectare

Parcelization and

Continued Consolidation

(1979-98)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

20

Metric Equivalents
Figure 13—Land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, 1998. Each ownership code corresponds to a unique owner. Codes are consistent

with other ownership maps in this report.

21
Figure 14—Distribution of land ownership in the Big Elk Valley, Oregon, 1998, including sources of land by ownership categories in 1976.

22
Anonymous. 1907. Taxlot data for Lincoln County, 1907. Newport, OR: Oregon Coast

History Center.

Adams, D.M.; Haynes, R.W. 1996. The 1993 timber assessment market model:

structure, projections and policy simulations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-368.

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

Research Station. 58 p.

Alig, R.J.; Knight, H.A.; Birdsey, R.A. 1986. Recent area changes in southern forest

ownerships and cover types. Res. Pap. SE-RP-260. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Experiment Station. 10 p.

Alig, R.J.; Wear, D.N. 1992. Changes in private timberland: statistics and projections

for 1952 to 2040. Journal of Forestry. May: 31-36.

Alig, R.J.; Zheng, D.; Spies, T.A. [and others]. 2000. Forest cover dynamics in the

Pacific Northwest west side: regional trends and projections. Res. Pap. PNW-RP522. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 22 p.

Azuma, D.L.; DelZotto, P.; Lettman, G.J. [and others]. 1999. Forests, farms, and

people: land use change on non-federal land in western Oregon, 1973-1994. Salem,

OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 55 p.

Baker, W.L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology. 2(2):

111-133.

Benton County Tax Assessor’s Office. 1998. Taxlot data for Benton County, 1998.

Corvallis, OR.

Beuter, J.H.; Johnson, K.N.; Scheurman, H.L. 1976. Timber for Oregon’s tomorrow:

an analysis of reasonably possible occurrences. Corvallis, OR: Forest Research

Laboratory, School of Forestry, Oregon State University. 111 p.

Bliss, J.C.; Sisock, M.L.; Birch, T.W. 1998. Ownership matters: forestland

concentration in rural Alabama. Society and Natural Resources. 11(4): 401-410.

Butler, B.J.; Alig, R.J. [N.d.] Forest type dynamics of private timberlands in the United

States with projections through 2050. Manuscript in preparation. On file with: B.J.

Butler, Northeastern Research Station, 11 Campus Blvd., Suite 200, Newtown Square,

PA 19073.

Cohen, W.B.; Spies, T.A.; Fiorella, M. 1995. Estimating the age and structure of

forests in a multi-ownership landscape of western Oregon, U.S.A. International Journal

of Remote Sensing. 16(4): 721-746.

Crow, T.R.; Host, G.E.; Mladenoff, D.J. 1999. Ownership and ecosystem as sources of

spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecology.

14: 449-463.

Dreesen, W.H. 1940. Rural tax delinquency study of the State of Oregon. Station

Bulletin 371. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State System of Higher Education, Agricultural

Experiment Station, Oregon State College. 21 p.

Erdman, W.F. 1979. William F. Erdman ownership map of Lincoln County. Toledo, OR:

Oregon Department of Forestry.

References

23
Fisher, J. 1991. Starker forests: the legacy of T.J. Starker. Bend, OR: Oregon Color

Press. 96 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 452 p.

Geisler, C. 1993. Ownership: a review. Rural Sociology. 58(4): 532-547.

Heasley, L.; Guries, R.P. 1995. Forest tenure and cultural landscapes: environmental

histories in the Kickapoo Valley. In: Jacobs, H.M., ed. Who owns America? Social

conflict over property rights. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press: 182-207.

Impara, P.C. 1998. Spatial and temporal patterns of fire in the forests of the central

Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 345 p. Ph.D.

dissertation.

Iverson, L.R. 1988. Land-use changes in Illinois, USA: the influence of landscape

attributes on current and historic land use. Landscape Ecology. 2(1): 45-61.

Lincoln County Tax Assessor’s Office. 1998. Taxlot data for Lincoln County, 1998.

Newport, OR.

MacLean, C.D. 1990. Changes in area and ownership of timberland in western Oregon:

1961-86. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-170. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.

Medley, K.E.; Okey, B.W.; Barrett, G.W. [and others]. 1995. Landscape change with

agricultural intensification in a rural watershed, southwestern Ohio, U.S.A. Landscape

Ecology. 10(3): 161-176.

Metsker, C.F. 1930. Metsker’s atlas of Lincoln County, Oregon. Portland, OR: Metsker

Maps.

Metsker, C.F. 1956. Metsker’s atlas of Lincoln County, Oregon. Portland, OR: Metsker

Maps.

Prior, J.M. 1998. Kinship, environment and the Forest Service: homesteading in

Oregon’s Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 273 p. M.A.I.S. thesis.

Richardson, E. 1980. The BLM’s billion dollar checkerboard: managing the O and C

lands. Santa Cruz, CA: Forest History Society. 200 p.

Sohngen, B.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1994. The “great” price spike of ’93: an analysis of

lumber and stumpage prices in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-476.

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

Research Station. 20 p.

Sisock, M.L. 1998. Unequal shares: forest land concentration and well-being in rural

Alabama. Auburn, AL: Auburn University. 87 p. M.S. thesis.

Spies, T.A.; Ripple, W.J.; Bradshaw, G.A. 1994. Dynamics and pattern of managed

coniferous forest landscape in Oregon. Ecological Applications. 4(3): 555-568.

Turner, M.G. 1988. A spatial model of land use changes in a Piedmont county of

Georgia. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 27: 39-51.

Turner, M.G.; Wear, D.N.; Flamm, R.O. 1996. Land ownership and land-cover change

in the southern Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological

Applications. 6(4): 1150-1172.

24
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Legal

description of land patents, Willamette Meridian, Oregon. [Microfiche]. On file with:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office,

Portland, OR 97208.

Wear, D.N.; Bolstad, P. 1998. Land-use changes in southern Appalachian landscapes:

spatial analysis and forecast evaluation. Ecosystems. 1: 575-594.

Zybach, B. 1988. The great fires of the Oregon Coast Range (1770-1933) and their

effects on current landownership patterns. Unpublished manuscript. On file with:

Oregon State University, Department of Forest Science, Corvallis, OR 97331.

25
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

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

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W. Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

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 desmith@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

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private use, $300