Chapter Nine

Money Growing on Trees: Forestry Surrounding the Wicomico

Aimee Parker

While taking a boat ride or canoeing along the Wicomico River, you can see forests lining the banks.  The tall Loblolly Pine tower above the smaller hardwood trees such as Red Maple and Sweet Gum. [1]   It is hard for me to imagine a time in which these forests were almost wiped out because of deforestation.  However, now on the Eastern Shore, forest growth exceeds harvests. [2]   

            The large increase in tree growth in recent years, while due in part to various conservation efforts, is largely a result of tree farming.  Tree farms have become very important to not only Wicomico County’s economy, but also the state’s economy.  While many people believe this farming may cause soil depletion and creates an unnatural order to forests, tree farming in the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries has become much more environment friendly.

Forestry Use Before the 20th Century

            Forests are very beneficial to surrounding bodies of water.  Deforestation of stream banks has resulted in lower water quality of our rivers. [3]   Forest buffers (forests on either side of a body of water) are vital in maintaining clean water in that they can help in controlling nonpoint source pollution. [4]   These buffers not only “shade streams to optimize light and temperature conditions for aquatic plants and animals,” but also they remove excess sediments and nutrients from shallow ground water and surface runoff. [5]   Tree roots provide protection by reducing shoreline erosion, thus adding stability to stream banks. [6]   The woody debris and organic matter that result from surrounding stream bank forests also improve living conditions for aquatic animals. [7]   While the importance of the forests to the waterways is easily recognizable, the importance of the forests to people living on or near the Wicomico River has dramatically changed over time.

            The first clearing of forest lands surrounding the Wicomico River was done by Indians who had been cutting firewood and burning the forests for farming. [8]   The Indians would have been faced with predominantly hardwood forests, with a mixture of pine. [9]   With the arrival of European settlers also came a larger need for cleared land.  In the 1600s, all who dared to venture beyond the shore found themselves engulfed with the surrounding wetlands and forests. [10]   The English settlers believed that in order to maximize economic development of the Chesapeake Bay area, complete extermination of forests was necessary. [11]   During the 17th century, a large amount of deforestation occurred as a result of slash and burn agriculture, which was primarily used to make way for tobacco fields. [12]   On March 26, 1667, men in Somerset County were ordered by direction of the county surveyor to clear their own land to help make way for roads. [13]   The forests that were cut down were also used to send timber to England, Ireland, and the Caribbean. [14]   The value of the timber exportation industry in the Chesapeake area around the eve of the American Revolution ranked third after tobacco and grain. [15]  

Although forests were widely acclaimed as sources of fuel, timber, and money, the American colonists saw them as obstacles to agriculture. [16]   The lavish use of wood by the American colonists can be seen in the use of worm fences. [17]   These fences, which were composed of six to ten rails at alternating angles, were used to protect farm fields from wild animals. [18]   One mile of fence required 6,500 rails of timber. [19]

During the 18th century, slash and burn agriculture continued, although it became difficult for landowners to acquire more land for tobacco farms. [20]   Because of this, many colonists migrated to forested areas to start a new life in the lumber industry.

Near the end of the 18th century, incorporation of sawmills increased lumber exportation.  Although the exact date of the first sawmill used on the Wicomico River is uncertain, the earliest mill may have been the Rockawalkin Mill, which began operation in October of 1720. [21]   The lumber industry quickly increased in importance due to the large demand for the native loblolly pine in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Wilmington and Philadelphia, and with the increase in demand came an increase in saw mills, too. [22]   This industry gave the area its first economic boost, and changed the way forestry on the river was viewed forever. [23]

Forestry in the 20th and 21st Centuries

            During the 1920’s and 30’s, people began to give up farming. [24]   Because of this, woodlands began to regrow.  However, during World War II, men were encouraged to cut their woodlands to help aid in the war effort. [25]   In 1943, it took 2,250,000 cords of pulpwood just to manufacture containers for shipping supplies, food, and munitions overseas. [26]

This is an aerial photograph of the Wicomico River taken on May 7, 1938.  On the right where the Sicomico Creek Tributary forks off of the river is approximately where Redden Ferry Estates is located today.

Photo courtesy of Maryland DNR.

            During the 50’s and 60’s, “high-grading” of forestland became a large problem, resulting in growth of inferior trees. [27]   High grading occurs during selective harvesting when tree farmers take only the largest trees. [28]   This was done to gain maximum profit with minimal work. [29]   For pine species, which are intolerant to shade, this encourages the growth and overpopulation of smaller, runt trees, which are unsuitable for lumbering purposes. [30]   Eventually, a decrease in high-grading occurred due to better market for hardwoods, new harvesting techniques, and improvements in reforestation. [31]

Here a man stands next to a recently planted loblolly tree farm.

Photo courtesy of the Nabb Research Center, from the Tilghman Fertilizer Collection.

This is an aerial photograph taken on May 8, 1964, of a similar place on the river as the 1938 aerial photograph.

Photo courtesy of Maryland DNR.

 

During the 70’s and 80’s there was again a decrease in forests in Wicomico County, which was due to the large increase in housing developments. [32]   But with the coming of the 90’s and the 21st century, again tree populations in Wicomico County increased.

This aerial photograph was taken around 1983.  Again, this is similar to the previous aerial photographs.

Photo courtesy of Maryland DNR.

 

Below are cropped portions of the three previously shown aerial photographs.  Although exact calculations cannot be made, I believe that by looking at the agricultural areas (generally white patches) on the photographs, you can tell that these areas have remained almost exactly the same.  Although this is only a small portion of the river, to me, this shows that forestry surrounding the Wicomico River has not declined substantially in the twentieth century.

   

            Aerial photograph, May 7, 1938.                                          Aerial photograph, May 8, 1964.

 

Aerial photograph, approximately 1983.

Photos courtesy of Maryland DNR.

 

Although there are no sawmills which operate on the Wicomico River today, several wood processing plants still operate in Wicomico County such as Cropper Brothers, J.V. Wells, and Glatfelter Industries.  These mills provide piling, poles, and timber. [33]   Pulp is also made at these plants. [34]   This pulp is used primarily for making paper and lumber. [35]   There is also a mulch plant in Pittsville that provides sawdust to chicken houses for flooring purposes, and two wood treatment plants, Atlantic Wood Industries and Hebron Long Life, all of which are located in Wicomico County.

Of the 113,000 acres of woodland in Wicomico County a few years ago, greater than 80% is privately owned. [36]   Loblolly pine, which cannot be grown in latitudes North of the Eastern Shore, is still highly sought after. [37]   Pine is raised to make shipping crates, veneer for furniture and shelving, building lumber, chips for fuel and particleboard, and pulp for paper. [38]   These trees are able to grow quickly and can be harvested in about 40 years or less. [39]   This yellow pine has been referred to as “Southern Gold” because of its yield of approximately $6,000 per acre, making the lumber industry the second largest industry on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. [40]

Tree Farming: A Closer Look

             Tree farming is an organized form of growth and harvest of timber.  There are several methods of harvesting, two of which are clear-cutting and selective harvesting.  In clear-cutting, all trees in an area are harvested at once, whereas in selective harvesting, only mature trees are selected for harvesting, which allows more room for younger trees. [41]   Clear-cutting, while aesthetically unpleasing, is the most efficient method for commercial logging. [42]   It requires little planning, few workers, and reaps the most trees for the greatest financial gain. [43]   “Selective logging, on the other hand, requires a bigger area from which to harvest…[which] means more roads, more workers, and more equipment in the forest.” [44]

            In Wicomico County, the softwood of the loblolly pine is most often harvested by clear-cutting. [45]   In general, the trees are hand planted in 8 ft. by 8 ft. or 8 ft. by 10 ft. spacing. [46]   During the first thinning, which generally occurs around twenty years, small trees are harvested for pulpwood. [47]   Ideally, another thinning will occur around thirty years in which small trees are again harvested, but this time they will be used for pulp and small timber. [48]   After about forty to forty-five years, the pine trees will then be clear-cut, and the wood will be used for saw timber. [49]  

While many believe tree farming is bad for the ecosystem, loggers and foresters have become much more conscientious of the impacts their business has on the environment.  The key to having an environmentally friendly tree farm is to know where your sensitive lands are located. [50]   This enables the farmer to minimize loose soil and lessen effects on water quality. [51]   After speaking with Steve Eccleston, the company forester of J.V. Wells, I learned that in his nine years of working for J. V. Wells, a large difference that has occurred has been better recovery of trees, resulting in less wasted lumber. [52]   Also, in recent years, more rules and regulations have been placed on the lumber industry. [53]   By following these guidelines set forth by various acts and programs, a healthier environment will emerge.

Protecting Our Assets

            In the latter years of the 20th Century, preservation has become a primary concern for the government and citizens alike.  Since protests against logging on national forests have begun, annual federal timber harvests have dropped in the last decade from around 13 billion boardfeet to around 4 billion. [54]   In Maryland alone, many steps have been taken and are still being taken in order to conserve and repair the environment.  The government has not only purchased land which is to be set aside, but it has also implemented various acts and programs whose main goals are to beautify and restore nature.  Loggers and foresters have also begun to make changes in their ways of farming and harvesting which will be more beneficial to the environment.

A Large Purchase

            The Hancock Timber Resource Group (HTRG) is a forest investment firm, which buys, sells and manages timberland. [55]   In 1999, HTRG purchased 278,000 acres of timberland from the Chesapeake Corporation, of which 76,000 acres are on the Delmarva Peninsula. [56]   Together with the Conservation Fund, a nationally acclaimed land preservation organization, and the Richard King Mellon Foundation, a conservation foundation which uses its assets, totaling over $1.9 billion, to aid in national land and wildlife conservation, the state of Maryland acquired 58,000 acres of land. [57]   The Richard King Mellon Foundation purchased 29,000 acres of land for $16.5 million, which it donated to the state who matched this purchase. [58]   Of these lands, approximately 15,722 acres are located in Wicomico County. [59]   While this land may be used to protect wildlife and plant habitats or to support the timber industry of the area, the public and all organizations who wish to be involved will be allowed to have input into the management of the land. [60]  

Strides Taken by the State

            In the past fifteen years, the state has enacted various acts and programs, which will help to conserve and manage the forests surrounding the Wicomico River and the Chesapeake Bay.  In 1984, the Critical Area Act was passed, marking the first joint venture against the negative impacts of development on wildlife and their habitats by the state and local governments. [61]   This law applied to all waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. [62]   Because all lands within 1,000 feet of the Mean High Water Line of tidal waters or the landward edge of tidal wetlands and all waters of and lands under the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, all forestland within this area would also be protected. [63]

The Forest Conservation Act was enacted in 1991. [64]   This act was intended to reduce the number of acres cleared when land is being developed. [65]   Guidelines for the amount of forestland that must be retained or planted after development are categorized based on land use. [66]   Categories of land use are “agricultural and resource, medium-density residential, institutional development, high-density residential, mixed use, planned-units development, and commercial and industrial use areas.” [67]   In areas where there are little or no forests, planting of forests was required. [68]   One of the first laws of its kind in the nation, the Forest Conservation Act has already reduced the degradation of forests. [69]

Maryland Stream ReLeaf is a program, which aims to conserve and restore forest buffers throughout the state. [70]   In 1996, Governor Glendening pledged to create 600 miles of riparian forests by the year 2010. [71]   Thus far the project has been successful in noting that 208 miles of stream buffer were planted between 1997 and 1999. [72]   This will help increase and protect new forest buffers.

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was designed to help establish forest buffers, restore wetlands, and retire highly erodible soils. [73]   Both Governor Glendening and Vice President Gore signed the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the program. [74]   The Governor hopes to enroll 100,000 acres of land in the program as of the year 2002, which would be rented from farms in the sensitive areas. [75]   The program has not been very successful thus far in noting that as of November 4, 2001, only 13,535 acres have been enrolled. [76]   However, if this program is continued, it is possible that more forest buffers will be planted and protected.

The Future of Forestry

            With European settlement came the destruction of the natural forests surrounding the Wicomico River.  However, in the latter part of the 20th century, and in the earlier part of the 21st century, steps have been taken in the right direction by the government and foresters alike.  With the rules and regulations regarding forestry being set forth by the government, and a broader knowledge of the effects of tree farming, forestry in Wicomico County has a future which is certain to be brighter than its past.



[1] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[2] Michael Allinder. “Maryland’s Eastern Shore: where yellow pine is king,” Daily Times. December 27, 1997

[3] Maryland DNR. “Riparian Forest Buffers,” on http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/publications/bufers.html page 1.

[4] Maryland DNR. “Riparian Forest Buffers,” p. 1.

[5] Maryland DNR. “Riparian Forest Buffers,” p. 1.

[6] Maryland DNR. “Forests, Waterways, and the Chesapeake Bay,” on http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/healthreport/waterways.html page 1.

[7] Maryland DNR. “Riparian Forest Buffers,” p. 1.

[8] John R. Wennersten. “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” Maryland Historical Magazine  91 no. 2 (Summer 1996): p. 167.

[9] Helen C. Rountree and Thomas E. Davidson. Eastern Shore Indians of Virginia and Maryland. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997): p. 10.

[10] Richard W. Cooper. “Transportation Limits.” Wicomico County History.  George H. Corrdry. (Salisbury, MD: Peninsula Press, 1981): p. 4.

[11] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 167.

[12] Henry M. Miller. “Transforming a ‘Splendid and Delightsome Land’: Colonist and Ecological change in the Chesapeake 1607-1820,” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76 no. 3 (September 1986): p. 174.

[13] Richard W Cooper. “Development of Transportation- Colonial Period.” Wicomico County History. (Salisbury, MD: Peninsula Press, 1981): p. 9.

[14] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 167.

[15] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 167.

[16] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 168.

[17] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 168.

[18] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 168.

[19] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 168.

[20] Wennersten, “Soil Miners Redux: The Chesapeake Environment, 1680-1810,” p. 168.

[21] Sharon Jones Revell Collection, Box 1, Ascension Number 84.10.01-.32, Nabb Research Center, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

[22] Richard W. Cooper. “Resources.” Wicomico County History. (Salisbury, MD: Peninsula Press, 1981): p. 18.

[23] Richard W. Cooper, “Resources,” p. 18.

[24] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[25] William B. Tilghman Company. “Farm Woodlots Ready To Serve War Needs,” The Tiller 1 no.10 (December, 1943).

[26]   William B. Tilghman Company, “Farm Woodlots Ready To Serve War Needs”.

[27] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[28] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[29] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[30] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[31] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[32] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[33] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[34] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[35] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[36] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[37] Richard W. Cooper, “Resources,” p. 18.

[38] Maryland DNR. “Wood Products,” on http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/healthreport/wood.html page 1.

[39] Michael Allinder “Maryland’s Eastern Shore: where yellow pine is king”.

[40] Michael Allinder “Maryland’s Eastern Shore: where yellow pine is king”.

[41] Jane Braxton Little. “Family Forests: Loving Care, Heavy Burdens,” American Forests 105 no. 4 (Winter 2000): p. 30.

[42] Dave Johnson. “Feeling for Fire Wood,” Mother Earth News (Oct./Nov. 1999): p. 34.

[43] Dave Johnson, “Feeling for Fire Wood,” p. 34.

[44] Dave Johnson, “Feeling for Fire Wood,” p. 34.

[45] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[46] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[47] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[48] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[49] Personal communication. April 25, 2002. Subject has chosen to remain anonymous.

[50] Maryland DNR. “Maryland’s Master Logger Program,” on http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/programs/mlprogram.html page 4.

[51] Maryland DNR “Maryland’s Master Logger Program,” p. 4.

[52] Steve Eccleston. Company forester at J. V. Wells. Personal communication. April 29, 2002.

[53] Steve Eccleston. Personal communication.

[54] Jane Braxton Little, “Family Forests: Loving Care, Heavy Burdens,” p. 31.

[55] Hancock Timber Resource Group. “Sensitive Lands,” Brochure (November 2000): p. 1.

[56] Conservation Fund. “Largest Watershed Protection Purchase in Chesapeake Bay History,” on http://www.conservationfund.org/conservation/features/chespclosing.html page 1.

[57] State of Maryland Governor’s Press Office. “Governor Glendening Tours Eastern Shore Properties to be Acquired in State’s Largest Land Purchase,” on http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/press/1999/aug/html/chesapeaketour.html page 1. & Richard King Mellon Foundation. “History, Program Interests, and Geographic Focus,” on http://www.fdncenter.org/grantmaker/rkmellon/history.html page 1.

[58] State of Maryland Governor’s Press Office, “Governor Glendening Tours Eastern Shore Properties to be Acquired in State’s Largest Land Purchase,” p. 1.

[59] Maryland DNR. “The Chesapeake Forest Lands,” on http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/chesapeakeforests/ page 2.

[60] Maryland DNR. “The Chesapeake Forest Lands,” p. 2.

[61] Natural Resources article. Title 8, Subtitle 18.

[62] Natural Resources article. Title 8, Subtitle 18.

[63] Natural Resources article. Title 8, Subtitle 18.

[64] Maryland DNR. “Forest Conservation Act,” on http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/healthreport/act.html page 1.

[65] Maryland DNR, “Forest Conservation Act,” p. 1.

[66] Maryland DNR, “Forest Conservation Act,” p. 1.

[67] Maryland DNR, “Forest Conservation Act,” p. 1.

[68] Maryland DNR, “Forest Conservation Act,” p. 1.

[69] Maryland DNR, “Forest Conservation Act,” p. 1.

[70] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 2.

[71] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 2.

[72] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 1.

[73] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 1.

[74] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 1.

[75] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 1.

[76] Maryland DNR, “Department Administrative Actions to Support Smart Growth,” p. 1.

Economic Chapter List

Section Table of Contents

Home