A History of the Daniel Boone National Forest 1770 - 1970

With conditions in Kentucky at the turn of the century as described previously, developments at the national level were taking place that would eventually have their effect in Kentucky.

In 1897, the Sundry Civil Appropriations Act of June 4 of that year spelled out the purposes for which forest reserves might be established and provided for their protection and administration. This amounted to a statement of national policy of recognition of the value of forest reserves and of pinpointing the purposes for which they would be established. It indicated a growing interest in the Congress of the United States in acquiring in federal ownership additional areas of timberland.

In 1898, Gifford Pinchot, the first American-born professional forester in America, was appointed chief of the Division of Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture. At that time the forest reserves were under the administration of the Department of the Interior, while the few professional foresters in the employ of the Federal Government were assigned to the Division of Forestry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

By the Act of May 25, 1900, Congress appropriated $5,000 for investigating forest conditions in the Appalachians with a view of purchasing land for forest reserves. Here again this was a statement of forest policy of the Congress of the United States of their interest in the Appalachians as a location for the establishment of additional forest reserves.

In 1905, by the Act of February 1 of that year, Congress transferred the forest reserves from the administration of the Secretary of the Interior to the administration of the Secretary of Agriculture. Gifford Pinchot had long advocated that the forest reserves should be administered by the Department of Agriculture as a crop-of-the-land, and that the forest reserves should be in the same department as the foresters in the employ of the United States Government. The passage of this act is adequate proof of the success of Gifford Pinchot in convincing the Secretary of Agriculture, and influential members of Congress of the soundness of that position.

In the same year, by the Act of March 3, Congress changed the name of the Bureau of Forestry to Forest Service. This was another proposal put forth by Gifford Pinchot to provide status for the profession of forestry and for the practice of forestry by the Federal government.

By the Act of March 4, 1907, Congress changed the name of the forest reserves to national forests. Here again we see the hand by the key forester Gifford Pinchot organizing the forests of the country, and getting them ready for management by the Forest Service.

Also on March 4, 1907, Congress passed an act appropriating $25,000 for a survey of lands in the White Mountains and the Southern Appalachians in connection with their proposed purchase as national forests.

As Gifford Pinchot, Forester, U.S. Forest Service, was well acquainted with the forests of the southern Appalachians, he saw in them a great potential as national forests. Not only were they capably of producing high-quality timber, but their management for flood control and watershed protection, as well as influence on maintaining uniform stream flow, could be of great public benefit. With the passage of the above act, he immediately implemented his plans for preliminary examinations of forest lands in both areas covered by the act.

The forest officer selected to make these examinations was R. S. Bruce whose title at that time was export lumberman, Forest Service. Mr. Bruce had apparently spent most of his time the previous March in examination of lands in both areas and in making recommendations as to their suitability as national forests. In November of 1907, Mr. Bruce made his report on the southern Appalachians directly to the Forester in Washington, D.C. Some of the highlights of that report are most interesting in the light of conditions subsequently encountered in that area at a much later date. A review of the Bruce report discloses the following points:

"The sentiments of the local people of the southern Appalachians were almost universally in favor of the formation of a National Forest Reserve when they had finished cutting the timber.

"Logging in the mountains was expensive. Many large tracts of excellent timber could not be logged at a profit at prevailing timber prices and were being held until such time as prices reached the level where logging was economically feasible, or until a buyer for land and timber was found who would pay the owner's asking price.

"The inaccessibility of the timber was partly due to rough mountain terrain and partly to the unsuitability of most of the headwaters streams for driving the logs to mill.

"Most timberland owners were favorably inclined to sell their land to the government at a reasonable figure, if they would be allowed to cut and remove certain species of timber above a specified diameter limit, the most frequently quoted diameter limit being 12 to 14 inches. The average price quoted for such an arrangement ranged from three dollars to five dollars per acre.

"The southern Appalachian streams offer many opportunities of benefitting a great number of people living along them, provided that they are properly cared for and that the watershed is so managed that the springs which feed them maintain a steady flow.

"The streams of the area will eventually be used to generate electrical energy which will be used by industry and the railroads of the south, providing that the forests of the watersheds are properly protected and managed.

"The greatest difficulty of acquiring land in the southern Appalachians for the proposed national forest will undoubtedly be the securing of a valid title. In many cases pending legal action relative to title, some of it of long standing, has prevented the exploitation or the lumbering of much of the territory.

"In nearly every town visited, courts of justice were in session to determine the validity of titles to areas of desirable timberlands. A source of endless confusion has been brought about by the original method of allowing people to take up grants of land which overlap each other; and in many cases, there are several claimants to the same piece of land.

"The Squatter's Right laws, which allow a squatter to hold 100 acres of land if he can show that he has held peaceable possession of a portion of it for seven years, and giving such squatters a title which takes precedence over all others, even if another owner has a valid title in every other respect and has regularly paid the taxes on the land, while the squatter has never paid any, is also responsible for one of the many complications which will be found in this locality. Squatter's Rights exist in nearly all of the states through which the Appalachian mountain range extends, under varying forms, which are too lengthy to be incorporated in this report. They will be found very prominent and troublesome in the acquisition of titles to lands once the purchase of lands constitute a reserve is actually commenced.

"I want to make a special point of calling attention to this matter of the difficulty of securing a good title, since there is no question in my mind of what this is going to be the very hardest feature of the work of establishing the proposed reserve. There will, in my judgment, be no trouble in securing the lands in the southern Appalachian mountains that are desirable and necessary at a reasonable price per acre. The trouble is going to be to get a title that will hold and at the same time avoid being implicated in the long and expensive litigation in connection therewith.

"The probably cost of acquiring cutover land in the southern Appalachians will be somewhere between two dollars and four dollars per acre with the average about three dollars to three fifty; while virgin timberland, exclusive of the heavy stands of favorably located coniferous timber, and including this quality when located in the more inassceeible locations from six dollars to eight dollars per acre with an average of about seven dollars per acre for virgin timber.

"The right to take land under condemnation proceedings will undoubtedly be very necessary to have in order to secure or perfect, in some instances, a valid and satisfactory title. But, this condemnatory right will be one of the most delicate features of the proposed acquirement of lands to handle, and should not be used except with the greatest care and judgment and only in extremely necessary cases, if the respect and confidence of the people of the mountain regions of the south is to be gained and retained, which is a very necessary thing to be done in order to make the proposed reserve a success. A thoughtless or indescriminate use of the right of condemnation would unquestionably result disastrously to the very existence of the forest which the formation of this reserve is intended to maintain, and would also undoubtedly result in more or less loss of human life. The greater portion of the territory shown on the map can be secured without going to the extremity of resorting to condemnatory proceedings, if the transaction is properly managed.

"I believe the purchase of timberland to constitute a forest reserve in the southern Appalachians to be a wise move, and that the financial returns and beneficial results to be derived would eventually amply justify the necessary outlay for the acquirement of such land. Further, that the sooner the acquisition of desirable timberland by the government is commenced, the less such reserve will cost, since the prices of both land and timber will probably escalate."

It is interesting to note the shrewd observations made by Mr. Bruce in 1907, as compared to conditions actually encountered throughout the same area during the national forest acquisition period of the 1930's.

On January 7, 1910, Henry S. Graves replaced Gifford Pinchot as Forester, U.S. Forest Service. The press for the acquisition of additional national forests in the Appalachians declined at about this time.

The Act of March 1, 1911, more commonly known as the Weeks Act, was passed which gave new impetus to activity looking to the acquisition of additional national forests in the southern Appalachian region. One reason for this new impetus was the fact that the Weeks Act provided specifically for the condition and for the benefit which prevailed in the southern Appalachians. For example, one segment of the Weeks Act read as follows, "Appropriated one million dollars for the fiscal year 1910, and two million dollars for each succeeding fiscal year until June 30, 1915, for use in the examination, survey, and acquisition by the Government of land located on the headwaters of navigable streams." This section of the Weeks Act appeared to be designed specifically to take advantage of the conditions which prevailed in the Southern Appalachians where public ownership of key watershed could be of inestimable value to the people of the area.

It is apparent that the Forest Service planned to take advantage of the provisions of the Weeks Act, if possible, by purchasing land in the Southern Appalachians. In August of 1914, Forest Examiner E. Murray Bruner of the U.S. Forest Service prepared a report on the "Reconnaissance of the Headwaters of the Kentucky and Cumberland Rivers." Mr. Bruner points out that the region considered in his report includes the whole of Letcher County, except the extreme eastern end which lies in the watershed of the Big Sandy River, the southern portion of Knox County covering the Carr Fork Drainage, the southern end of Perry County, that part of Harlan County north of Pine Mountain, all of Leslie County and the eastern part of Clay County, all embracing the greater part of the headwaters of the North Fork, South Fork and the entire headwaters of the Middle Fork of the Kentucky River. On the Cumberland River watershed his report includes the south slope of Pine Mountain from its crest to the Cumberland River and Big Clear Creek from the Virginia line to the Bell-Whitley county line, and in addition all of Bell County north of Pine Mountain. The region considered covers approximately 900,000 acres and lies wholly within the State of Kentucky.

It will be noted that, in conformance with the provisions of the Weeks Act, these two areas considered comprise the headwater drainages of two major river systems.

Some of the highlights of the report include:

"Eighty percent of the entire region is forested. Leslie County, the part of Perry County included the Pine Mountain fault are over 90 percent forested.

"Part of Clay County included shows the highest percent of cleared land.

"The central portion of the area considered situated north of Pine Mountain, including portions of Harlan, Letcher, Clay and the whole of Leslie County, is entirely without railroad and independent on the streams for timber transportation.

"Land values in Letcher and Perry counties vary from $20 per acre to $100 per acre, the greater part attributable to coal which underlies practically the whole of both counties.

"Land values in Bell County are similar for the same reasons.

"The section considered as "The Pine Mountain Area", which includes the Pine Mountain Faults and country lying north of Pine Mountain between the North Fork — Middle Fork and the Middle Fork — Redbird Divide, about half of the region, land values are very low.

"Recommendations: Very high values seem to preclude the possibility of purchase by the government in all sections of the region except in that considered as the Pine Mountain area; it is, therefore, recommended that any attempt to acquire land in this region be confined to the section embraced within the Pine Mountain area."

Mr. Bruner's report on the Reconnaissance of the Pine Mountain Area reveals very similar values to those above. A few points conveyed in this report will be of interest however.

Mr. Bruner states: "There is no section of Kentucky so bountifully supplied with streams as is the part of this area north of Pine Mountain which embraces the entire headwaters of Middle Fork, the largest branch of South Fork and important tributaries of North Fork. The Kentucky River has been made navigable up to the confluence of these three forks, and for this reason it is especially important that this area be left forest covered for the protection it affords the navigation on the main river." Mr. Bruner would be amazed today if he could see the complete devastation of the watersheds of this area by extensive strip mining which is continuing throughout the area.

Another item regarding this area is the pointing out by Mr. Bruner of the fact that approximately 65% of the total area is owned in fee by the large coal companies.

Mr. Bruner's recommendation for this critical watershed area is as follows, "Because of the general rugged topography of this section and the very great influence it exerts upon navigation on the Kentucky River, it is very essential that its protection from extensive clearing be assured. For these reasons the section is eminently desirable as a purchase area, and therefore, in view of the fact that the prices of land now prevailing are very reasonable, there is a favorable prospect for making large purchases, it is recommended that this section be set aside as a purchase area to be known as the Pine Mountain Area." At the end of Mr. Bruner's recommendation, there is a notation in longhand, "Approved as a first class area by the Assistant Forester."

It is interesting to note that this area embracing the headwaters of the Kentucky River is probably one of the most critical watershed areas in Kentucky today. Extensive strip mining on private land throughout this area is threatening the quality and the stream flow of the entire Kentucky River which is the heartblood of the Bluegrass and on which depends water for the growing populations, water for the industries already present, and water for industries being induced to come in to the area. Had this area been purchased by the Forest Service at this time, it undoubtedly would have been one of the greatest public services that the Federal Government would have rendered the entire Kentucky River Valley, particularly the Bluegrass area of Kentucky.

A third report made by E. Murray Bruner, Forest Examiner, U.S. Forest Service, dated September, 1914, indicates it is a report on the Reconnaissance of the Quicksand and Troublesome tributaties of the Kentucky River and the headwaters of the Licking River. Mr. Bruner's recommendation at the end of his report is as follows: "In view of the fact that the Kentucky Union Company and the Kentucky River Coal and Timber Development Company together own some 80,000 acres covering the heads of the various Quicksand branches, the possibility of concluding satisfactory terms of purchase for their land is considered the determining factor in the attempt to establish a national forest in this region. Since the proposed area is desirable for watershed protection and from other standpoints, it is recommended that it be approved and an effort made to reach an agreement with these two companies." At the end of Mr. Bruner's recommendation is written in longhand, "Approved as a second-class area by the Assistant Forester."

From these reports it is apparent that the U.S. Forest Service was definitely interested in the forest lands of eastern Kentucky, particularly from the standpoint of the provisions of the Weeks Law of 1911, that of watershed protection of the headwaters of navigable streams.

These reports are of special interest today because of the extreme importance of the watersheds of the three forks of the headwaters of the Kentucky River. It is firmly believed that before too many years the people of the Kentucky River Valley will demand some sort of watershed management on the headwaters of the three forks of the Kentucky River, covered by these reports, in defense of the water values of the entire Bluegrass region.

A letter from the U.S. Forest Service, dated March 7, 1917, addressed to J. E. Barton, State Forester, Frankfort, Kentucky, reads:

"Dear Sir,

At its meeting held yesterday the National Forest Reservation Commission considered your letter of February 6th and the previous correspondence in regard to the establishment of a Purchase Area in the State of Kentucky. After carefully going over all the conditions the Commission decided that it was inadvisable to authorize purchases in Kentucky at the present time . . . . ."

From this correspondence, it is interesting to note that there was activity in Kentucky requesting the establishment of national forest purchase units as well as activity at the Washington level trying to determine feasible areas for such establishment.

In reviewing correspondence of the period of the 1920's, it is significant to note that the interests of the Chief of the Forest Service and his staff in Kentucky continued. For example under date of October 14, 1921, H. G. Garrett, President of the Broahead-Garrett Lumber Company at Clay City, Kentucky, wrote to Chief Forester Colonel W. L. Greeley at Washington, D.C. His letter states:

"My Dear Colonel Greeley:

Your Elmer D. Fletcher was here for several days looking over the land that we own in Menifee, Powell and Wolfe Counties for the purpose of a forest reservation. He stated that as soon as he reached Washington he would mail us topographic maps showing this particular territory. Also maps covering Lee and Jackson County, Kentucky and that we would mark off the boundaries of land that we and other parties own and would be willing to sell to the government along the lines that we have discussed with the Forestry Department since 1914, by letter and by calling at your office in person.

I wish you would send us a number of blanks to submit prices of this lands by ourselves and others joining us.

I wish you would mail two sets of topographic maps so we can retain copies for our files.

Yours Very truly,

Brodhead-Garrett Company
by W. G. Garrett, President"

Several letters later in this correspondence on October 22, 1921, F. W. Reed, District Forester, wrote a memorandum to Mr. Kneipp in which he said, "Attached is Mr. Fletchers' report on his recent visit to Kentucky from which you will see that of the areas which were laid off and recommended in 1914 by Bruner, there are two of them in which it would be practicable to make purchases at moderate prices in the near future, with favorable prospects of building up a practicable administrative unit.

"It is, of course, out of the question to consider making any purchases in Kentucky out of this year's appropriation. Since the prospect of any appropriation at all next year can be used to buy land is so slim, there will be nothing to do with to the extent you deem necessary."

Reviewing the correspondence further, we find that the situation in the Forest Service as to uncertainty of funds in 1921, was very similar to that which tends to exasperate and frustrate forest officers today — lack of firm budgets. Under date of November 5, 1921, F. W. Reed, District Forester wrote to Mr. Garrett the following, "When Mr. Fletcher was in Kentucky, there was a chance that we would be able to acquire lands within the state, but since then the Federal Budget Committee has decided not to recommend that an appropriation be made for the next fiscal year to carry on this work under the Weeks Law. Viewing this situation from the standpoint of the landowners of Kentucky it is little wonder that they were somewhat disgusted with the uncertainty of dealing with the Federal Government." However, Mr. Garrett was somewhat philosophical about this situation and not easily discouraged. Under date of November 11, 1921, he wrote to F. W. Reed, District Forester, in Washington, D.C. to the effect ". . . I wish you would advise if we should get the statistics up on this land to have it ready by the time we can get an appropriation to take over this territory. The spirit of the country is for Good Roads and Forest and Forest Reserves. I am sure when things get normal that there will be no trouble to put over an appropriation and your Department acquire new territory." From this it is quite apparent that at least the Garrett Lumber Company was most interested in seeing a national forest purchase unit started in Kentucky.

At the same time the Forest Service was also negotiating with the Turkey-Foot Lumber Company of Huntington, West Virginia. Apparently the landownership portion of that company was handled by a group known as the Warfork Land Company. Under date of October 11, 1921, the Warfork Land Company wrote E. D. Fletcher in care of the Forestry Department, Washington, D.C. the following, "In answer to your phone communication in regard to whether or not our Company would be interested in selling its cutover land for a National Forest: Beg to advise that this matter has never been considered by our Directors, but we feel safe in assuring you that a proposition of this kind at a fair evaluation would be considered favorably." And persuing the file further, we find that on October 13, 1931, F. W. Reed wrote the Warfork Land Company to the effect that ". . . As you know, the Federal Government has been purchasing lands for a National Forest since 1911, in the eastern states under the so-called Weeks Law. Certain areas in Kentucky were considered as purchase units, but as yet no land has been acquired in the State. It was understood that your Company will finish cutting this year, and since cutover areas are the class of land in which the Government is largely interested in acquiring, it was thought that you might desire to dispose of your holdings. Since your lands lie within a proposed purchase unit, we would like to consider them providing funds are made available, and areas of sufficient size can be acquired at a reasonable price warranting the establishment of an administrative unit."

Reviewing the early correspondence further, we find that little progress in actual determination to establish purchase unit in Kentucky had been made. Under date of August 6, 1923, the Forest Service wrote Dr. Thomas Cooper, Dean and Director, University of Kentucky, as follows, "Reference is made to the Conference acquiring for National Forest purposes, under the Act of March 1, 1911, lands surrounding or adjoining lands those controlled by the University of Kentucky, with a view of simplifying management and reducing the cost of protection.

"It is found upon further examination that the University lands located largely in Breathitt County, Kentucky, are not within or near the proposed Licking Purchase Unit, which was favorably recommended by the Forest Service examiner, but are along the southern edge of the proposed Quicksand Unit on which the examiner who reported made an unfavorable recommendation. That is, he regarded other portions of Kentucky as being so much more desirable for national forest purposes than the Quicksand Unit that if purchases are begun in that State the first ones would be made in these other units.

"W. W. Ashe of the Forest Service has recently reexamined some of the Kentucky units including the Quicksand for the purpose of determining whether any change could be made in the previous recommendation respecting the Quicksand area. His report, however, confirmed the position of the original examiner that the Quicksand Unit is not so desirable as others in Kentucky."

By 1930, it appears that matters had been progressing steadily if slowly. A memorandum dated March 1, 1930, from Joseph C. Kircher, District Forester, to the Forester of the Forest Service begins, "There is herewith transmitted a report by W. E. Hedges upon a proposed purchase unit in Kentucky designated as the Cumberland Purchase Unit, containing a gross area of 580,000 acres." The memorandum continued describing in detail the situation within this proposed purchase unit discussing topography, types of cutover land in relation of farmland, to topography and that sort of thing, county finances, and prices at which lands could probably be acquired, the normal things in such a memorandum. The Forest Service's top staff had apparently reviewed Mr. Hedges' report in some detail. Under date of March 18, 1930, the Chiefs Office writes to the staff as follows, "This is a very good report, which gives quite a complete picture of the proposed purchase area.

"If our fifty million dollar Bill were enacted I would unhesitatingly recommend early action to establish this as a purchase area.

"Since our appropriations for the next two or three years apparently will be rather restricted, the principal question is whether we should at this time consider the creation of new and additional commitments.

"We have under consideration an area in eastern Oklahoma, near the home of the Secretary of War and therefore one in which he personally is interested. Circumstances may dictate the early consideration of that area.

"This Cumberland Area impresses me as one of outstanding merit and importance. It is part of a large forest region in which leadership in forestry is badly needed but in which there is no such leadership at present. Public sentiment is favorable, even eager, prices apparently are reasonable, and purchase opportunities good.

"In addition, this area would afford us wide public relations contacts within an extensive and important part of the United States in which we now lack some contact.

"Personally I would like to see the area submitted to the Commission for early action, so that the initial steps could be taken. This however is a question of policy on which you will wish to pass. It is apparent that the Chief of the Forest Service and his top staff are becoming more and more interested in the establishment of a National Forest Purchase Unit in Kentucky."

Under date of February 5, 1930, G. G. Garrett of the Brodhead-Garrett Company at Clay City, Kentucky, writes to W. E. Hedges, Chief Land Examiner of the Forest Service stationed at Elkins, West Virginia, as follows:

"Dear Mr. Hedges:

We have yours of January 30th and do not know what to say about the maps. Hope they will show up.

Will you be back down here any more we would like to see you any time you are in this section. We don't believe anyone connected with the Federal Forest Department knows more about his business than you do.

If the Department, is going to do anything, we would be glad if they would indicate it soon as possible.

Mr. H. G. Garrett
President"

Here is our old friend from 1921, nine years later, still optimistically corresponding with the Forest Service in the hope of selling his company's land to the Forest Service for the establishment of a purchase unit in Kentucky.

Under date of February 10, 1930, Joseph C. Kircher, District Forester, replies to Mr. Garrett in which he says:

"Your statement relative to the plans of the Government to acquire lands in Kentucky is noted. The Forest Service is not in a position, however, to suggest any date as to when the purchases might actually begin. As a matter of fact our plans do not become concrete until the National Forest Reservation Commission authorizes purchases to be made, and this body has as yet taken no action in regard to land in Kentucky."

In view of these uncertainties and vague comments on the part of the Forest Service, in the case of Mr. Garrett, continued over a nine-year period, it is surprising that the landowners of Kentucky could maintain their interest in the establishment of a purchase unit or their confidence in the Forest Service. From this late date it is estimated that probably the interest of these landowners was maintained largely by their desire to sell (unload) their cut over lands at a reasonable price, and the absence of any other possible purchasers other than the Forest Service left them little choice as the Forest Service appeared to be their only hope.

In amplification of this is quoted from a letter written by Mr. Garrett to Major Robert Y. Stuart of the U.S. Forest Service which states, "I think what's the matter with the country now is too many important matters of Government being taken under advisement by Commissions of the different branches of Government. I do not apply this to your Commission as I was much impressed with its frank way of handling matters when I was before it, and I could say nothing except in praise of its members. It seems to me that someone in authority should indicate to us in some way so we could judge just what is going to be done in this forestry matter, as we have been working on it for a period of sixteen years. We will thank you very much if you will inform us just how we can get an indication as to what they expect to do about starting a forest in the section we have named." It would appear that Mr. Garrett was approaching the end of his patience.

It appears that Mr. Garrett's comments motivated Major Stuart. On March 20, 1930, Mr. Stuart, then Forester, U.S. Forest Service, wrote to Mr. Garrett as follows, "I have just completed a review of the report made by Mr. Hedges on the area he covered in Kentucky embracing parts of Bath, Menifee, Morgan, Rowan, Estill, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Owsley, Powell, Rockcastle, and Wolfe Counties.

"This area as described by the report seems to be a satisfactory one in which to carry out the purposes of the Act of March 1, 1911, known as the Weeks Law, and I hope to be able to recommend its establishment as a purchase area at the next meeting of the National Forest Reservation Commission, which will probably be held soon after the Agricultural Appropriation Bill is passed by Congress. As already explained by Mr. Stabler in his letter to you of February 10, the approval of this Commission is necessary before any direct negotiations may be undertaken with landowners.

"If favorable action is taken by the Commission, and if adequate funds for land purchase are provided by Congress, it is probably that this Summer or Fall it will be possible to start the examination and appraisal of such tracts within the unit as may be offered at reasonable prices."

It would appear that the chances of establishing a National Forest Purchase Unit in Kentucky are advancing satisfactorily if slowly in the spring of 1930.

It is apparent that the possibility of a National Forest Purchase Unit in Kentucky was being observed by a number of people. It appears that a Kentucky lawyer, Coleman S. Moffett, of Winchester, Kentucky, had written Senator Alben W. Barkley, from Kentucky, relative to securing employment with the Forest Service in the examination of land titles for such a purchase unit. In the file is a letter dated April 4, 1930, in which District Forester Joseph C. Kircher, writes to Senator Barkley and explains that in the event such a purchase unit is established, the work of examining the titles will be handled in the Office of the Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture and he states that he is referring Senator Barkley's letter to the Solicitor. Coleman Moffett, for many years, was one of the chief title examiners of the U.S. Forest Service for lands acquired in Kentucky. A long history of outstanding service by Mr. Moffett fully justified any comment that Senator Barkley may have made in behalf at this time.

Under date of April 18, 1930, the file contains a letter written by the Forest Service to Congressman M.F. Thatcher of the House of Representatives. This is in reply to a letter from Congressman Thatcher recommending a S.D. Reese for employment in the acquisition of land. One of the items in this letter indicates the progress towards establishing a purchase unit. It reads, "It is planned to present the Cumberland Unit, which is our name for the Licking River area, to the next meeting of the National Forest Reservation Commission, and if they approve it as a purchase unit, the Forest Service will start to examine land on that area sometime this year."

On June 20, 1930, the file contains a letter from Regional Forester John C. Kircher, to the Honorable Robert Blackburn who was a Congressman. This letter implies that progress was being made in establishing the Cumberland Purchase Unit. It reads, "Since you have had so much to do with the establishing of a purchase unit in your state, I know you will be interested in my impression secured during a recent trip to the area included within the unit.

"As you know, the unit extends for some 90 miles along the mountains just east of Winchester, Kentucky. I visited this area for the purpose of seeing the kind of country in which the Forest Service soon intends to purchase considerable cutover timberland for the establishment of a National Forest, and to make arrangements for the examination of any areas which are offered for sale to the Government during the coming summer.

"While much of this area is in a rather rundown condition because of past cutting and numerous fires which have burned in it, it should become a valuable asset to the country when once it is under Government ownership and has received a number of years protection. In fact, I have become quite enthusiastic about the prospects of building up a valuable National Forest in this region.

"Another thing which I want to mention to you is the attitude of the people whom I met. I received a very cordial reception and everyone seemed to be enthusiastic about the prospects of securing a National Forest and the benefits which it would bring to their communities.

"I am sure that in the future you will look back with a good deal of satisfaction to your interest in connection with the establishment of this National Forest." The letter is signed, "Very Sincerely Yours, Joseph C. Kircher, Regional Forester." I would like to call the attention to the fact that this is the first time that Joseph Kircher has signed under the title Regional Forester. Previously he has used the title District Forester, so apparently there was a change in title during this period.

Attached to this letter to Congressman Blackburn is a data sheet on the specific facts regarding the proposed Cumberland Purchase Unit. This data Sheet follows.

"Proposed Cumberland Purchase Unit

Gross Area: 580,000 acres.

Location: Bath, Estill, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Menifee, Morgan, Owsley, Powell, Rockcastle, Rowan and Wolfe counties, Kentucky.

Streams: Kentucky River, Licking River, flowing directly into the Ohio, Red River, flowing into the Ohio thru the Kentucky.

Proposed Under: Section 6, Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 961) for the protection of watersheds of navigable rivers. The Geological Survey has already reported favorably on this area except about 26,600 acres in Bath, Madison and Owsley counties.

Forest Composition: Majority of area supports hardwood mixtures in which hemlock is sparingly represented on the lower moist sites and pitch, yellow and scrub pine sparingly on the higher dry sites, white pine sparingly on Red River watershed.

Forest Condition: The greater part of the unit has been cutover or heavily culled. Approximately five percent of the total has been so recently cutover or burned that reproduction is not well established. On the remainder of the area the young and second growth ranges all the way from young growth stands to second growth up to tie size.

Local Sentiment: Very favorable.

State Law: Adequate, State officials favorable.

Soil and Surface: Considerable area rolling, but majority consists of irregular but broadly rounded ridges; sandstone, shale, limestone, clay and conglomerates.

Growth: About the same as that throughout the Appalachian Mountains; virgin stand averaged from four to seven M feet per acre; future crops of timber ought to be 50 percent higher.

Accessibility: Kentucky River is navigable thru the unit to Beattyville, traversed by C&O Railroad and Louisville and Nashville.

Ownership: Approximately 160,000 acres of nearly 30 percent of the gross area of the unit consists of known ownerships of over 1000 acres each. The owners of the greater portion of this land have already expressed their willingness to sell.

Price of Land: It is believed the Government can acquire this land at prices ranging from $3.00 to $10.00 an acre and that the average price will be around $4.50 per acre.

Industries: Lumbering, farming, recreation, approximately 12 percent of the gross area has been cleared for farming. Much of this land, however, is submarginal in character, and a large acreage has already been abandoned.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Commission authorize the establishment of this area as the Cumberland Purchase Unit"

The following report outlines the circumstances leading up to the actual establishment of the Cumberland Purchase Unit in Kentucky.

Establishment of the Cumberland National Forest
by
W. E. Hedges — U.S.F.S. — Retired

When Kentucky qualified for a national forest by passing an enabling act on March 17, 1914, Green Garrett of Lexington assumed the role of leader in securing action on the part of the federal government. Mr. Garrett, a native of Powell County, was a widely known, self-made, and successful businessman. He was a past master in the art of persuasion and when that failed he was equally proficient in applying pressure — political and otherwise. He was a power in Republican politics on both state and national levels yet he never ran for public office and never held but one (appointive) political position.

Kentucky, to him, was a sacred word and his loyalty to his beloved state was boundless. This paid dividends in later years when negotiations for land struck rough going. He would break the barrier by telling vendors that this was all for the good of Kentucky — and they couldn't afford to let Kentucky down.

He was possessed with a determination to see a national forest established in Kentucky as his crowning achievement. Although he disclaimed any thought of personal credit, some said he was motivated by the fact that he had several thousand acres of land to sell. Others thought it was remorse over the way he had butchered the forests incidential to acquiring his modest fortune. Others believed he aspired to have the forest named after him. But the masses thought he was completely unselfish in the matter. His actions throughout would indicate this latter appraisal to be the most accurate.

Not long after passage of the State enabling act, and in response to Mr. Garrett's request, the Forest Service sent an agent into Kentucky to study the situation. He reported on two potential national forest areas but neither seemed to quality since eastern Kentucky was still in the development stage and land values were speculative. The railroad up Powell Valley (which later served its purpose and has since been removed) had not yet been built.

Following World War I contacts with Washington were resumed and increased in frequency and intensity until 1928.

All along the Forest Service had been less than enthusiastic about going into Kentucky — and with very good reasons. While it was well known that any part of eastern Kentucky would qualify — and that the land was crying out for better use than it was receiving — the ownership pattern and attitude of owners seemed to preclude the consolidation envisioned by the Weeks Law.

The ownership was about equally divided between very large and very small tracts — with very little in between. The large land tracts were mostly in the hands of non-resident corporations and comprised a small part of their overall assets. It was next to impossible to break through the local management organization to contact those who had final authority and when such contracts were made there was a general lack of interest.

The small tracts were largely owner-occupied marginal or sub-marginal farms. These were subject to all sentimental loyalties the word home implies and, in addition, few of the people had the wherewith to go elsewhere.

All of the land had real or speculative mineral values and the owners were in easy memory of skyrocketing values resulting from mineral developments elsewhere — as well as in parts of eastern Kentucky.

In 1928, a showing was made that many of the barriers were being reduced or eliminated and the time was ripe to at least study the situation with a view to determining the feasibility of a national forest. But there was one fly remaining in the ointment: The State Forester was violently opposed to a national forest on the grounds that it was unnecessary since he was providing all the state's conservation and forestry needs on his annual budget of $12,000.00 — and it was Forest Service policy not to go into a state over the protest of the local forest officials.

When Mr. Garrett failed to shake the Forest Service he asked the Chief to go ahead with the study and he would pledge that if the State Forester's opposition continued there would be a new State Forester who would agree to the establishment of a national forest but with the face-saving stipulation that he would hope the land acquired would eventually come into state ownership.

With this last hurdle removed W. E. Hedges, Chief Land Examiner, was assigned to make an overall study of the area to determine the feasibility of establishing a national forest — and if so, where.

Hedges entered the Forest Service in 1914, and had come up through the ranks. He had served as Supervisor of the Monongahela National Forest and at the time he was on special assignments out of the Regional Office — although attached to the field.

Hedges' arrival at Winchester was accompanied by a great deal of publicity and an atmosphere soon developed that a national forest was definitely on the way.

It didn't take long to verify the former opinion of the Forest Service that throughout the heavily mineralized portions of the Cumberland Plateau the land was either unavailable or could only be bought subject to reservations that would defeat the purposes of the Weeks Law. Thus, the most promising area appeared to be along the Highland Rim and further investigations were centered there.

Nearly everybody wanted to help in any way they could and this help was of inestimable value in reaching final conclusions.

Hedges' detailed investigations covered 580,060 acres and included the northern portion of the forest substantially as it exists today. His report on that area was submitted to Washington and approved by the National Forest Reservation Commission. This latter action authorized purchase of land anywhere within the approved area.

While wild open forest land never had and perhaps doesn't yet have a standard or consistent going value the Forest Service endeavored to establish the minimum price below which owners would not sell and then adhere to that price in making purchases of comparable land throughout the Region.

Although this powerful buying leverage had been made clear to the people the news went the rounds that if everybody set a price of $10.00 per acre they may be able to make it stick — and proposals began to come in at that price.

The Forest Service refused to act on the basis of such offers in view of the false hopes it might create, but it did agree to proceed with the appraisal of land offered at $6.00 per acre — with the understanding that a value much less than that would likely be found. Whereupon, the asked prices were reduced to $6.00 per acre.

During the Summer and Fall of 1930, a large area centering in Red River Canyon was appraised. When the appraisals showed values averaging closer to $3.00, than the $6.00 asked — and offers were made accordingly — the people were disappointed but decided to wait and see what Mr. Garrett did about his land. If he went along they would too. After extensive negotiations Mr. Garrett gave an option on his land but not until he had extracted a pledge from the Associate Chief E. A. Sherman that the options would be recommended for approval by the N.F.R.C.

In the meantime, President Hoover, exercising his executive authority to forestall the impending depression, froze all unobligated funds.

Each optionor was notified of this action and was told that when and if other funds were made available the Forest Service would be back to pick up where it had left off.

Most people, both in and out of the Forest Service, thought the prices that had been agreed upon were at least morally binding even though the options had expired. But the policy making officials thought otherwise and acted accordingly. So, when President Roosevelt made funds available to continue land purchases the records were gone through and the former option prices discounted to reflect the recently depressed economy. This did much to shake the confidence and faith of many in their government but, here again, Mr. Garrett came to the rescue by giving an option on his land at the reduced price and urging others to do likewise. Although he made it perfectly clear that he thought they had been treated unfairly.

These options were approved by the Commission and the national forest was under way.