To help celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Weeks Act in 2011, Peeling Back the Bark has asked Dr. Bob Healy of Duke University’s Nicholas School for the Environment to write a series of blog posts in which he’ll reflect on his classic book, The Lands Nobody Wanted, and the future of the eastern national forests. We invite you to join the conversation and post comments for Bob to respond to.
In 1977 (thirty-three years ago!) the late forest policy analyst Bill Shands and I did a book for The Conservation Foundation, the Washington, DC–based “think tank” where we both worked. Entitled The Lands Nobody Wanted: Policy for National Forests in the Eastern U.S., it provided nearly 300 pages of history, identification of issues, and a policy framework 
that our non-partisan conservation organization set out for the 50 national forests, then totaling 24 million acres, in the Northeast, South, and Lake States. Nearly all of these forests got their start with Weeks Act purchases. We called the book “The Lands Nobody Wanted” because so much of this land, particularly before 1950, was considered of little or no economic value. Much of it was abandoned farmland—hilly, infertile, and heavily eroded. We noted that “land abandoned by owners who could not pay the taxes was acquired by the government very cheaply. Local people were desperate for any activity that would pump money into a community, so they welcomed establishment of forests which provided for federal investment in otherwise unused land and generated badly needed jobs. And national forests provided a work place for President Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps.” (p. 16)
By the time we published our book, these forests were very much in demand—for timber supply, for local and national recreation, for wildlife and wilderness. Bill Shands and I analyzed these forces, how they arose over time and where they seemed to be taking the forests. As part of our learning process, we convened meetings of 50 or so diverse stakeholders at four places: Warrenton, VA (national level organization); Uniontown, PA; Atlanta; and Waterville Valley, NH. Participants included national and local timber organizations, environmental groups, local elected officials, and federal and state land managers.
Recently, Steve Anderson asked me to reflect on our work, as part of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Weeks Act. I welcomed the opportunity, in part because of curiosity about the changes that have occurred both in the demands on these forests and the management response. But I was also interested in how well the policy recommendations made toward the end of our book have fared over time. Which were adopted? What were the consequences? Were our recommendations able to accommodate changes in the economic and social context of these national forests?
Bill and I did not state this explicitly in the book, but our “policy planning horizon”—how far in the future we tried to look in making our recommendations—was about 30 years. So reviewing the topics covered in the book 33 years after publication will be a tough test of how well our work has fared. I’d also like to speculate as to the future role of these forests—again with an arbitrary 30-year time horizon—and perhaps comment on policies that might make that role as constructive as possible, both from a resource protection standpoint and from the perspective of human uses.
I will be adding to this blog over the course of the year to come, and I encourage comments, ideas, and reactions from anyone interested in the fascinating and important “Weeks Act” forests, as well as in the National Forests of the East, Midwest and South in general. The Lands Nobody Wanted will be my personal jumping off point, but it needn’t be yours. Any comment on the history, management, context, and (especially) the future of these forests would be most welcome.
But just to kick off this first blog entry in an organized way, let me pose some questions to readers: How has management and use of the forest(s) that you know best changed since 1977? Are there still nearby communities dependent on National Forest timber? Or, given the number of mill closures, are there timber-dependent communities at all? Has your forest been influenced by any new uses, such as snowmobiles, building of rural retirement communities, or the shale gas boom? You know the territory best, and I hope you will be this blog’s eyes and ears!
About the authors of The Lands Nobody Wanted:
William E. Shands continued to work on forest policy at The Conservation Foundation until his untimely death from cancer in 2004, at age 60. After working on The Lands Nobody Wanted, he produced books and reports on Federal lands and their neighbors, Lake States forests, below-cost timber sales, and the effect of climate change on U.S. forests. Bob Healy remained at the Foundation until 1986, writing books on the market for rural land, the California Coastal Commission, and “Competition for Land in the American South.” In 1986 he joined the faculty of Duke University, where he has taught courses on land use, environmental policy, tourism and protected areas, and international environmental management. He served as the Director of Duke’s Center for International Studies and its Center for North American Studies, and helped start the Program in International Development Policy. In 2007, he became Professor Emeritus of Environmental Policy in Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and the Terry Sanford School of Public Policy. He continues to write (most recently Knowledge and Environmental Policy, MIT Press, 2010) and to teach at the Nicholas School. He remains fascinated by forests, and has been a board member of the Forest History Society since 2004.
I joined the CCC in January 1942 when I was 15 years old. They were closing the camps so I could not reinlist in July I was discharged. I first went a camp in Halsey Nebriska, then Burnd Oregon, Sod House Springs then Port Angles Washington, Camp Elwa: This sure helped my family and me too. I attended a nanational CCC convencion in Branson Mo. This yeay and sure enjoye it. I would sure like to hear from some of the people that was in the camps. When I came home fron the reunion I opened a site for the CCC boys and invited all the me I could find in the CCC Legacy but only one person loged on th thr site so I canceled it. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU:
Yes, the CCC not only played an important role in improving American’s forests, but also helped build discipline and character among the 3,000,000 boys and men who participated 1933-42 (which was to prove a major asset when war suddenly came in 1942), expanded their horizons (mixing city and country people, and many ethnic backgrounds), and allowed people to support their families back home ($22 of the $30 monthly wage was sent home). It must have been an amazing experience!
With regard to the Weeks Act forests, it’s hard to separate out, at least in the USDAs final report on the CCC, work on them from work on other lands. However, the head of the North Central Section wrote in the 1942 annual report that: “The establishment of the Corps is so closely tied into the condition of the Upper Michigan National Forests that it is hard to visualize just what development would have taken place had there been no CCC…approximately 70,000 acres of denuded lands have been afforested by the tree planting crews working out of the camps.” (CCC archive p.59561)
It is notable that the very first CCC camp (Camp Roosevelt!) opened April 17, 1933 on the George Washington National Forest, in Virginia.
Perhaps even more important than the tree nursery and planting work done by the CCC on the Weeks Act forests was its work on fire suppression and the building of thousands of miles of fire roads.
Everett, have you ever heard John McCutcheon’s (sp?) song – “The Men in Green”?
Everyone I have ever met felt good about their time in the CCC. The Federal government has never been able to recreate the success of the 3Cs.
Gordon Small
Hi Bob–
It has been a while since our paths crossed. In 1997, I worked with Lester DeCoster to write a small book about the public programs affecting private forest lands. While the Weeks Act is best known for authorizing the purchase of the eastern national forests, it was also responsible for a major increase in Forest Service assistance to the States. Through these cooperative efforts grew the State and Private Forestry Program we see today. Another story, but one I’ve always found interesting. I look forward to seeing your backwards look at “The Lands Nobody Wanted.” Neil
It’s great to hear from Neil Sampson, one of the “silverbacks” of U.S. forest policy. [The term, referring of course to the aging but still authoritative member of the gorilla clan, was applied to me by a visiting lecturer a couple of years ago–it’s much more appealing than “old” or its various synonyms). Neil is of course quite correct. The control of fire, through state-federal cooperation, is one of the greatest forces molding the forests we have today.
In “Breaking New Ground” Gifford Pinchot wrote: “It is also worth recalling that a very partial survey showed twelve million acres burned over the United States in 1891, with scant attention paid to that vast loss, in Germany one fire of less than six thousand acres was still a timely topic of discussion when I went over the ground, ninety years after it happened.”
The control of fire and state-federal cooperation in doing so is a history well documented for the West, but often neglected, or at least forgotten, in the East and South, where the fires tended to be individually less dramatic, but extremely widespread. Neil also alludes to the fact that cooperation in fire control was only an early step in federal-state collaborations in a variety of areas, not least of course was the encouragement of tree planting.
“The Lands Nobody Wanted” concentrated on the land acquisition aspect of the Weeks Act and the subsequent management of the Eastern, Lakes States and southeastern National Forests. I won’t go beyond that in this blog, but deeply appreciate Neil’s reminder that the Weeks Act had the added dimension of state-federal cooperation, and that in itself started a very important chapter in American forest history.
How has management and use of the forest(s) that you know best changed since 1977?
I owe my love of the outdoors to the Monongahela National Forest which is the largest piece of public lands in West Virginia. After a half century of tromping this Forest my attitudes toward land management on it have completely changed. In the late 1970′s I believed that the Forest was being cut to an extreme, yet the wildlife was flourishing in each and every mountain and hollow that I frequented. I actively petitioned to include wilderness areas in the Forest in the 1980s and for Management Prescription 6.2 (semi-primitive areas) Howeve by the late 1990s I noticed extreme declines in Buck white tail deer kills and the Spring Gobbler harvest in every Ranger District. The ruff grouse habitat was even worse than habitat for the deer and turkeys though. The cyclical population of grouse may have been a reason I thought but the golden winged warblers had all but disappeared also. Further analysis showed one clear fact: there was very little early successional habitat to support the wildlife species that needed the habitat. There were no savannahs for turkey poults to migrate to in order to secure the high protein diet they needed. Prescribed burns allowed in southern forest were not being done on the Monongahela and the habitat was suffering. The heavy canopy cover of 100 plus year old trees prevented sunlight from reaching the forest floor and the fauna became mostly ferns with little or no shrubs that could support white-tail deer, snowshoe hare, or grouse. For this reason in 2006 I actively campaigned to restrict further wilderness designation. Such designation of Forest acreage prevented active wildlife management practices by our state’s Division of Natural Resources and the wildlife biologist that worked for the USFS.
Are there still nearby communities dependent on National Forest timber?
Very few now. The Forest managers have not been able to meet even their modest goals of timber harvest and the urban environmentalist sued the Forest Service at every turn to prevent timber management. It appears that the urban elitist knew what was best for rural West Virginians and decided that tourism dollars would exceed timber extraction dollars in any given community. Today our timber industry has decreased by nearly 60%.
Or, given the number of mill closures, are there timber-dependent communities at all?
Some timber mills have survived but the ones that have must access their own lands for a steady supply to keep crews working. Many of the larger firms (their names would be apparent to all if listed) have sold their lands to real estate developers who have not been as successful as was intially hoped due to mortgage defaults of the last few years. Oddly enough the environmental groups who called for the end to cutting are now worried that development will occur on the forested lands bordering the National Forest holdings.
Has your forest been influenced by any new uses, such as snowmobiles, building of rural retirement communities, or the shale gas boom?
Marcellus Shale gas will be of great economic interest and oddly enough again the environmental groups pushing for the end to coal mining and timbering are now against gas wells on the Forest and the building of wind mills. All the clear cuts I thought were too large in the early 70s have grown back to prove to me that timber is a renewable resource that could provide wealth to rural West Virginia communities. The Lands Nobody Wanted shows the power of nature to rehabilitate herself.
Thanks, Charlie, for a very comprehensive and informative report on one of the “signature” National Forests of the East. The development of non-conventional gas reserves and use of land for alternative energy projects will undoubtedly be one of great importance in several of the Weeks Act forests in years to come, a development totally unforeseen in “The Lands Nobody Wanted”. We did mention, though, the issue of oil production in Pennsylvania forests and the fact that the USFS was essentially powerless to stop it, as it was on private land or on land where the government did not own mineral rights. This scenario, once seemingly an exception, could affect dozens of the ENFs.
Charlie also makes a good point in his observation of changing species composition as the timber in ENFs, especially in wilderness areas, ages. I might add that research done after our book by Bill Cronon and others showed how native American use of fire meant that the “primeval forest” encountered by the first European explorers was much more manipulated than had previously been thought. However, there were large tracts that had been neither cut nor burned, and these supported a wildlife resource very different from the savanahs and “edges” made by humans, whether Native American forest burners, farmers abandoning land, or modern rural settlers with their mowed pasture. In “The Lands Nobody Wanted” we posit a policy direction for the ENF based on having them do things that cannot or are not done on private lands. In most places, we have no lack of “edge” habitat today–white-tailed deer are a nuisance species in many places and turkey is coming back in quantity. So perhaps there is a place in the overall ecosystem for the “big tree wilderness” even though it may seem barren as compared with the edge. And of course it is not barren, just different. I do think that these differences, well known to scientists, have not been well communicated to the public, even to experienced outdoor enthusiasts.
Many thanks, Charlie, for some excellent information and interpretation. I would encourage those who know the National Forests of the Deep South, New England or the Lakes States, to post their own observations on the above topics on this blog.
HOW CAN WE GET THE PAPER AND LUMBER MILLS BACK UP AND RUNNING FOR ALL THIS TIMBER BEING SET ASIDE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION….MILLS ARE CLOSING EVERY DAY—CANADA IS THE ONLY ONE PREPARING FOR OUR LUMBER NEEDS….GOOOD ARTICLE AND I HOPE WE DO NOT SEE THIS AGAIN…
You make a good point. I had mentioned that in “The Lands Nobody Wanted” we posit a policy direction for the ENFs based on having them do things that cannot or are not done on private lands. In some areas, where environmental and recreational constraints permit, it might be quite sensible to make parts of ENFs part of a dependable and sustainable long-term timber supply base for local mills. This might be particularly important in places where rural settlement and division of land into small (10-20 acre) parcels has taken them out of the local timber base. Interestingly, some of the local and regional “land conservancies” which have the specific objective of protecting environmental values, have begun managed timber programs on land they either own outright or where they hold a conservation easement. My guess (and it would certainly vary from place to place) is that the role of both the ENFs and the land conservancies would be particularly important in growing quality hardwoods for the furniture and veneer industries, and supporting the local mills and related industries that would use this material.
Hello Bob:
I would like to comment briefly about your statement, “the Forest Service was essentially powerless to stop it” statement about energy–most specifically oil drilling on the NF’s You were correct.
In the early 1970′s I recall about 92% of sub surface rights were outstanding on the Allegheny N.F. Our staff Petroleum Geologist told me that he could drill anywhere on that Forest and find oil. Primary and secondary recovery of the oil resource was winding down and they were beginning the tertiary recovery which was called, “Five Spotting”. The surplus water from that effort was beginning to have some serious effects upon stream water quality and fisheries.
The Forest Supervisor Ralph Freeman, and I visited with Dr. Maurice Goddard in Harrisburg to discuss the issue and develop a strategy to use State and Federal authorities to help improve the situation.
A confounding element, of course, was that each tract of land acquired for the NF contained different rights reserved for the owners of the sub-surface rights. This was in the early days of automated record keeping so you can only imagine the voluminous records involved.
When we approached specific oil industry officials their responses were mixed, but generally of a positive nature.
I would hope that executives involved with current energy recovery efforts have gained much insight and understand the need to amelerioate impacts from their activities.
There is a “back story” to the celebration of the Weeks Act Centennial which focuses on the 50th anniversary of the Weeks Act in 1961, and the production of the film “Heritage Restored”, the video of which can be found at http://www.esf.edu/centennial/heritage.asp.
As Paul Harvey would say “Here’s the rest of the story”, lifted from emails written by the narrator of the film, Ed Littlehales, an “Old Forester” in his own right, to the daughter of the photographer with whom he collaborated on the film, Daniel O. Todd.
—————————
Back in 1961, Dan and I worked together in the I&E Division of the USFS in Atlanta. One day the Regional Forester, Jim Vessey, called me in and asked me to develop a program to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Weeks Law. I didn’t have the foggiest idea what the Law was, and it sounded like kind of a dumb idea to celebrate a congressional law. Wrong!
Through research, I discovered it was the law which permitted the purchase of land for National Forests east of the Mississippi to protect the headwaters of the major rivers and streams of the eastern US. My first thought was to develop a slide program for the celebration. That was pretty standard tech in those days. So I sat down with Dan to plan it. After a bit, he snuck up on my blind side and suggested a motion picture instead. I was supposed to be Dan’s boss, but he taught me everything I knew about still photography. We never talked motion pictures. I did not know he had his own 16MM camera.
Dan said, “you do the research and make a shooting script and I’ll take the film “. Well, I didn’t know what a shooting script was, so I called a friend in an ad agency. “Easy, Ed. Just draw a line down the middle of a sheet of paper, write the audio on the right side, give it to you photographer and send him out to make the video.” Real simple — Sure!
Anyway, we did it. I wound up doing the voice over for the patched together 16mm while Dan ran the silent projector at the Battery Park hotel in Asheville,NC. Secy of Agriculture Orville Freeman and Chief Dick McArdle were there. They both directed that our job be professionally sounded and titled and made available for mass distribution in the eastern US. I did the voice over again.
Donna, that documentary has been resurrected, grown legs and gone national. as an introduction to the 100th anniversary celebration planned for this year. I never thought Dan received the credit he deserved for his major part in the production. Several of the sites where the film “Heritage Restored” is available lists me as the one who made the film. But no mention of your Father.
I wanted to let you know how much our country has benefited from his work. We were good friends. He helped me become acclimated to southern ways, having spend my earlier life in the NE. He and Chloe and Edna and I became good friends. But we lost touch when I was transferred to Denver in 1963.
Donna, if I do the math correctly, your father was born in 1902 – making him 18 years my senior! Never would have guessed that. Dan could out walk, out work , and often out think me. As you probably know, he was a very private person.
Here are a couple stories.
When I moved to Atlanta from the Washington Office, Bill Hine was our boss. One of my first assignments was to make sure that Dan did not waste film (costly, you know) and that Harry Rossoll, our illustrator, spend time at his desk drawing stuff. He used to send Dan out with very limited film to “take pictures of waterfalls for publication.”
Well, Dan quickly showed me the difference between taking a waterfall picture at different times of the day, month and/or season.
And Harry – he was supposed to create four “Smokey Says” cartoons a month for nationwide publication.
I soon learned from Dan that film was the cheapest expenditure. Time, travel, and salary were the costly parts. And from Harry I learned that inspiration does not occur dripping sweat on the drawing board. Four NEW cartoons a months for a total of over 1,100 he produced resulted from interaction with others. Harry often came to the end of the month without even one cartoon. But Monday morning, he was back with all four – maybe more, Creating is more than dripping sweat on a desk.
What is this all about? Just that your Dad and his friend Harry, taught me much. And helped me achieve whatever success I attained.
I thank them both. Too late to tell them, but I am happy to share with you. Ed.
————————–
And that folks, “is the rest of the story”.
William T. Littlehales
[...] this series on the “Peeling Back the Bark” blog of the Forest History [...]