AT YOUR SERVICE
by Chris Nieman
Conservation District Forester for Crawford/Roscommon Conservation Districts

A letter to landowners in my conservation district introducing the new forestry assistance program prompted Greg Schoo to do something with 90 acres of his 140 acres he owns. Greg is the owner of Jelly Stone park campground off of Four-Mile road in Crawford County. Over the phone Greg was concerned with the health of his jack pine, wanting to improve wildlife habitat on his parcel and was wondering if I could assist him in anyway.

The 90 acres was almost completely wooded with mainly jack pine and a few scattered northern red and pin oaks and an occasional red pine. There were areas each less than an acre in size that were naturally open. I pulled out an aerial photo of the property and had Greg show me about where we were. I then started to pace off some cruise points. This would give me an idea of the timber management possibilities, and time to talk with Greg about how they acquired the property and what goals they have for the land. Greg's concern was the health of the stand and wildlife. Greg had told me the he had tried to establish food plots for deer in the open areas but anything he planted never really took despite fertilizing and liming the soil. I completed six cruise points. The stocking was low and tree height was averaging 35'. I bored into a jack pine with my increment borer and counted 60 rings on the core before I gave up; they were getting too close for the naked eye. The core was also starting to discolor, a sign of an over mature tree. There was evidence of jack pine budworm and gypsy moth. The combination, along with little rainfall, probably led to the mortality I was seeing in the stand. Walking the ground, I hardly saw any regeneration. I had expected to see white pine and oak seedlings, but there were very few, possibly due to the heavy grass, sedge and woody plant competition for the little water available in the sandy excessively drained soils.

As I talked with Greg I told him the jack pines were looking rough because of the budworm. The infestation was due to the dry sandy conditions and because of age; jack pine is usually mature around 40-45 years of age. My recommendation to Greg was to do a timber harvest. At first Greg was a little apprehensive about doing a timber harvest but he knew that nothing was going to change if he did not do something. The oaks on the property were of marginal quality and for the most part they would not bring in much money by selling them. They were of more importance to wildlife that depended on the acorns for a fall food source. After I explained that the remaining oaks could benefit from a harvest of the jack pine he started to like the idea more. As I began to look around the property and imagining what it would look like after the jack pine were removed, I came up with an idea. I turned to Greg and asked if he had ever heard of a pine barren or oak savanna? “No” he said. I explained that barrens and savannas were areas that were dominated by grasses with only a few trees per acre. They were a fire dependant plant community and because of human’s control of wildland fires these areas were no longer as common as they once were.

I explained to Greg the benefits of establishing a pine barren or savanna. We looked at an aerial photograph, the surrounding land looked exactly like his. There was no reason for a deer to choose to go to his property over any other parcel on the block; it for the most part was pretty much the same. By establishing an open grass dominated barren he would be providing a habitat cover type that the wildlife did not have access to any where else. I started to tell Greg that part of the problem with his food plots was that that sandy soils are were too droughty for many of the crop type plants in food plot mixes. One of the advantages to establishing native warm season grasses such as big and little blue stem would be they are well adopted to the sandy, nutrient poor soils in the area. Greg would not have to worry about liming or fertilizing the grasses and once they were established they would be drought resistant. The native grasses of a barren or savanna would provide food for deer and seeds as well as cover for birds.

Upon returning to the office I called Brian Piccolo the coordinator for the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) in Northern Lower Michigan, and told him about Greg Schoo and his goals for his propriety and that he would be a good candidate for LIP. Brian explained to Greg that LIP would provide him with technical and financial assistance which would include planting jack pine in specific areas, conducting prescribed burns to restore habitats, and managing to remove exotic/invasive species. Once Greg was signed for LIP, Brian helped Greg map out a forty-acre clear cut. All of the jack pine was removed, because the oaks in this unit were few and far between; they were left to provide mast for wildlife. Twenty of the forty acres is planned to be replanted in jack pine Kirtland Warbler habitat, while the other twenty is set up for a prescribed burn to help with the warm season grass re-establishment. The logging company that Greg contracted with is chipping the jack pine but is taking the branches and other slash. It is believed that no additional seeding of warm season native grasses will be required to establish them after the burn. The prescribed burn is set to take place this fall and is being contracted with a company that specializes in this type of habitat management and establishment.

Once the prescribed burn has been conducted the site will be evaluated to ensure that the burn was successful. Since jack pine cones are serotinous, fire will release the seeds within the cones. For jack pine regeneration this would be good but the burn is not designed to regenerate the jack pine but rather leave the area open and grass dominated. Follow up treatments such as mowing or another burn may be required to cull any regeneration and firmly establish the barrens.

The barrens created by Greg will become home to not only the endangered Kirtland's warbler but also many other rare and threaten species of mammals, insects and plants. Big and Little bluestems are native warm season grasses that can be found throughout Pine Barrens and oak savannas. Flowers such as cylindrical blazing star and rough blazing star are found in abundance following a wildfire. Spruce grouse, upland sandpiper, white-tailed deer will find forage and food in the barrens that has been created by Greg and his willingness to participate in managing our natural resources.

FOREST SERVICE CENTENNIAL FOCUS
By Don Ingle

HURON THE FIRST MICHIGAN NATIONAL FOREST

As was the case with all of the state's federal forests, its journey from the startup to the present has following a sometimes convoluted path through many decades, many changes of forest size, and many reorganizations. Today this large neighboring playground offers a wide variety of uses for many people.

It began in what is now the eastern half of the Huron-Manistee NF. In the first of the 20th century much of Northern Lower Michigan was cut-over, burnt-over land, much of which was being abandoned and reverting to public ownership for unpaid taxes. In addition there were many areas of unclaimed homestead lands and other lands never claimed that were under the Government Land Office ownership.

Reserves of these "lands no one wanted" for the use of reforestation and other purposes was made a bit earlier, but in 1902 land for what would become the Huron NF was reserved. These lands included all vacant, unappropriated tracts in Townships 21 to 28 North and Ranges 1 to 4 in n Crawford and Roscommon Counties. A second reservation was made in February 1908 and a third in May 1908. On the Lake Huron side there was a large tract around Long (Mack) Lake and another south of the Au Sable and east of Hale.

In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the US Forest Service, naming Gifford Pinchot the first chief. Five years later, 1909, the Huron NF was established by Presidential Proc. 841 on Feb. 11. It was initially called the Michigan National Forest - the first in the state.

The same year, the first Ranger exam for the Michigan NF was given in October. Clyde Green and Ralph Johnson are the only ones to pass the exam. Green is assigned to the Marquette Unit (UP) of the Michigan NF, Johnson to the Huron Supervisor's Office in Au Sable (Oscoda); in 1910 Ralph Johnson was named first Ranger at Mio District.

As the years passed these highlights were noted:

* In 1910, the first (13.5 acre) red pine plantation established at Seven Mile Hill.

* 1911-July 11 Au Sable Fire destroys FS office in Au Sable/Oscoda. Headquarters moves to East Tawas. Johnson reassigned as Ranger at Silver Creek. Mr. Johnson is said to have "developed the Michigan system of planting, and devised the Michigan planting bar, a tool that was the instrument responsible for planting millions of seedlings around the state.

* 1911-Cooke Dam completed; plantations at head of Buck Creek begun.

* 1912 - Ranger Howard Flint and wife occupy a 10' by 12' tent at Seven Mile Hill during the summers of 1912 and 1913 - the first ranger station on the Huron.

* 1915-Executive Order 2163 (April 6) combines the Michigan with the Marquette NF. Michigan NF, therefore, was in both UP and LP).

* Beal Nursery established in East Tawas. In 1922, Johnson put in charge of the Beal Nursery.

* 1924-Alcona Dam (last of the six on the Au Sable River) completed.

* 1928-Presidential Proclamation. 1844 established the Huron NF from that part of the Michigan NF in the LP. UPNF still called the Michigan NF.

* 1932-Lumbermen's Monument dedicated July 16.

* In 1933 the Manistee Purchase Unit - 469,110 acres in four counties north of US 10 [Wexford, Manistee, Lake, Mason], was approved by NF Reservation Commission August 30. Headquarters established in the Federal Building in Manistee September 23,

* 1933-1934 Chittenden Nursery site clearing and construction begun March 1 with local ERA/WPA program workers and Camp Irons CCC enrollees.

* 1935 - Manistee NF headquarters moved to Muskegon during the summer. In January , there was the first expansion of boundary with 348,280 additional acres [two new counties - Newaygo, Oceana ] approved. March 7 - second expansion approved-523,680 additional acres [three new counties -Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon]. By April 1935 the Manistee's boundary contained a total of 1,341,070 acres in nine counties.

* 1938 - Manistee NF proclaimed October 25. (Between 8/30/1933 and 10/25/1938, over 1200 cases had been approved for land purchase covering 225,370 acres, total cost S659,000. Camps Wellston and White River established. First Memorial Plantation - Muskegon American Legion Auxiliary - established

* 1939 - Chittenden Extension or transplant nursery established.

* 1941-Huron Supervisor's Office and Tawas Ranger District office move into the second floor of the newly completed East Tawas Federal Bldg.

* 1943 -Tenth anniversary of the birth of the Manistee NF-August 30; present gross total of 1,3 12,296 acres.

* 1945 -Consolidation of Manistee and Huron NFs. Combined headquarters at Cadillac took place on November 15. For administrative purposes, the name "Lower Michigan National Forest" was used.

* 1949-Loda Lake Wildflower Sanctuary formally established by the Regional Forester December 15 (though it had been set aside for that purpose. in 1932). It remains the only such dedicated wildflower preserve in the nation's National Forests

* 1958 - Harrisville RD office opens in July. Ken Adams is Ranger.

* 1959 - Huron NF is 50 yrs old.

* 1962 - Manistee NF, as of June 30, has a gross area is 1,254,855 acres; under FS administration and management. are 449,443 acres

* 1963- Kirtland's Warbler Management Area dedicated near Mack Lake.

* 1964 - Name "Lower Michigan Na- tional Forest" changed to Huron-Manistee National Forests

* 1966-Planes replace lookout towers in forest tire detection.

* 1985 - Huron Forest boundary encompasses 694.098 acres; 425,804 NFS acres 1985 - Manistee Forest boundary encompasses 1,331,671 acres; 524,235 NFS acres

* 2004 - Sept. 30th to date- 539,135 Manistee NF acres.

Our thanks to John Davis and the staff of the H-M NF for their historical input. Also thanks, on a personal note, to the many FS staffers who continue to serve our citizens through the long-established guideline - "for the greater good."

On this, the 100th year of the Forest Service, Michigan can celebrate its share of that history-making time, and join others across the country in saying-"Happy 100th Birthday and many more to come!"

OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST

When the Ottawa National Forest was founded, it was made up of a lot of "land that nobody wanted," tax reverted land or land left in poor condition after decades of mining, logging, and wildfires. By the 1920's, large acres of land were available and were acquired by the US Department of Agriculture for forestry and recreational development. (The first National Forest in Michigan, the Huron, was formed in 1909, only the second National Forest in the eastern U.S.) The Ottawa purchase unit was approved

by the National Forest Reservation Commission in 1928. Acquisition progressed favorably until January 27, 1931 when the purchase unit was proclaimed the Ottawa National Forest by President Herbert Hoover.

The gross area of the original forest was 253,551.07 acres. The first extension consisted of 465,007.64 acres and was approved in September, 1933. The aggregate gross area of the forest was then 718,558.71 acres.

The Gogebic purchase unit was approved on January 21, 1935, and consisted of 1 .026,329.43 acres. This unit was added to the Ottawa National Forest by a proclamation by President Franklin Roosevelt on January 11, 1937. The total gross area of the forest today is now approximately one million acres.

The administration of the Ottawa National Forest is vested in the Supervisor and Rangers. The original unit consisted of one Ranger district in Kenton. It was first administered under the immediate supervision of the Supervisor of the (then) three Upper Michigan National Forests, who had his headquarters in Munising,

The Ironwood office was established February 28, 1935 and the Ottawa National Forest has since been administered as a separate unit.

In February, 1935, the Iron River Ranger District was created and on March 1, 1935 the Watersmeet Ranger District was established.

In the spring of 1935 the Wakefield, Ontonagon, Bergland and Marenisco Ranger Districts were authorized.

The Wakefield district headquarters was transferred to Bessemer in May, 1937. The Bessemer and Marenisco Ranger districts were consolidated on July 6,1937 and are now administered as one district with headquarters in Bessemer.

Today, five separate district offices located at Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet serve the Ottawa National Forest with the Forest Supervisor's office located in Ironwood along with the J.W. Tourney Nursery and the Ottawa Visitor Center which are both located in Watersmeet, MI.

This once played out landscape has since been reforested by both man and nature and is among the most beautiful sylvan playgrounds in the state. It is fitting to remember that what was once not wanted is today one of the most popular vacation and recreation areas in the Midwest.

HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST

Thanks to Congressional Acts passed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries designed to avert future timber shortages through large scale reforestation and scientific forestry, the course of establishing National Forests was set. These acts were also intended to provide for enhanced wild- life populations, soil and water protection, and recreational opportunities on forested lands. It was these acts that permitted the establishment of the Hiawatha in 1931.

"By the 1930's much of the Upper Peninsula was devoid of timber. Most of the area's pine had been cut in the late 19th century and much of the hardwood was cut during the first decades of the 20th century. Major fires swept over much of the cutover land, especially through the extremely flammable pine slash. In some areas, logging and subsequent burning damaged the soil and natural reforestation was not occurring. Many loggers let their cutover land revert to the Government for back taxes," says a Hiawatha report.

The Hiawatha currently is within the Eastern Region (Region 9) of the National Forest System, a region initially established in 1928 as the "Lake States Region" that included only those National Forests within Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The Hiawatha includes two units in Michigan's Upper Peninsula which initially existed as separate National Forests. In an executive order dated February 9,1962 all lands within the Marquette National Forest (East Unit) were transferred and made part of the Hiawatha (West Unit).

"The East unit had a long history as an independent entity. In central Chippewa County there were large barren sandy areas of public domain lands that had never been claimed or homesteaded. On June 17, 1908 this land was temporarily withdrawn from sale and on February 10, 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the establishment of the Marquette National Forest." On July 1, 1918 the Marquette National Forest land was transferred to the Huron, and together they became the Michigan National Forest.)

"The passage of the Clarke-McNary Act in 1924 allowed additional National Forest lands to be acquired by purchase and in 1925 a 307,500 acre Marquette Purchase Unit was established in Chippewa County to guide this acquisition. An expansion was approved by the National Forest Reservation Commission in 1935 and involved an area of 49,500 acres in Chippewa and Mackinac Counties."

On February 12,1931 President Hoover re-established the Marquette National Forest. The Hiawatha National Forest (West Unit) had a somewhat less complicated history. Under the 1924 Clarke-McNary Act, the National Forest Reservation Commission established a purchase unit in Alger, Schoolcraft, and Delta Counties, Michigan in 1928. Much of this area was denuded, burned, and abandoned timberland. By January 16, 1931 enough land had been purchased within this unit to warrant the establishment of a new National Forest and on this date President Hoover proclaimed the Hiawatha."

The cutover lands devastation reached its climax in the 1930's, just as the Great Depression swept through the area. Al though a federal response to the problems of the cutover in Northern Michigan had already been initiated, the Depression accelerated this response. The establishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933 as part of Roosevelt's "New Deal" profoundly influenced the newly created Hiawatha and Marquette National Forests. The establishment of the CCC actually stimulated an increase in purchases for the National Forests because President Roosevelt wanted "plenty of land" for CCC work projects.

"Many forest products companies were more than willing to sell land during the depression. The Bay de Noquet Company attempted to remain financially secure by selling nearly 100,000 acres to the United States for the newly created Hiawatha. Potential work projects on all the newly acquired lands, such as tree planting, blister rust control, fire suppression, road and trail construction, and campground construction were labor intensive, and this labor was forthcoming through the CCC. The Forest Service had acquired both the land base and the manpower to begin rehabilitating the cutover in order to provide a variety of resources.

"Over the decades. both the Hiawatha's landscape and the Forest Service mission evolved. The pines planted by the CCC became a valuable supply of timber. Additional land acquisitions resulted in the protection of many miles of Great Lakes shore.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
By Bill Cook MSU Extension Service Foreste

CARRYING CAPACITY

The carrying capacity idea gets tossed around in a variety of ways, most of which are difficult to define and defend, if not outright incorrect. Carrying capacity related to whitetailed deer is likely the most common context in which the idea is used, and misused.

In some ways, defining carrying capacity might be theoretical. In other ways it has practical implications. In any case, most people who use the term often find it hard to explain exactly what they mean. Notions of carrying capacity are largely value defined, rather than science defined.

Science-based evaluations of carrying capacity are difficult to find in the literature. Value-based evaluations are prolific. Both scientific and social definitions have legitimacy. The area of greatest conflict occurs when social values are mistaken for science. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a species that the landscape can support over time. That's not too hard to understand. However, imbedded in this definition are a number of difficult questions. Do all species behave the same? Which landscape? Which season? How are other species impacted? How long in time? Does the maximum fluctuate? How frequently? For what reasons?

Research has shown that populations of different species can behave in very different ways. A species relates to its own kind and with other species. Non-living habitat elements, such as weather, can have huge impacts. Growth curves showing change from low numbers to high numbers have more than one shape.

Not all species populations show the classic rate of increase to a sustainable plateau. For most species, the curves don't go flat or stabilize. Some species, such as whitetails, can irrupt and crash. Theoretically, these populations will stabilize in balance with their environment. However, most ungulate research has demonstrated a continuing cycle of irruptions and crashes. When a population is maintained at their carrying capacity; what impacts does that have on other parts of an ecosystem? Whitetails at carrying capacity can have negative impacts on the regeneration of timber species and understory plants, which serve critical habitat for many other wildlife species. Simply because a landscape might be able to carry a certain number of animals.. . should it?

An ecosystem's ability to support a population varies widely. For most species in the north, winter is the season when food is scarcest and environmental conditions most rigorous. The mix of habitats and constant habitat change are key variables. It is unrealistic to expect things to stay the same in our actively dynamic natural environment.

Calculating a carrying capacity for a species requires knowledge of the species and its environment, a definition of the range size, and a sense of time measured in years or decades. Once determined, can all species be managed at that level? Are population irruptions and crashes natural? Or are these patterns caused by human influence? Much more commonly, populations are managed using a set of social values. However, values are seldom universal and are not static. Deer populations probably provide the best examples and generate the most controversy. How much tree regeneration can be sacrificed before it is too much? How many car collisions are acceptable? How much risk to endangered species shall be tolerated? How much vegetation loss in parks and natural areas will be allowed? At what point is hunter satisfaction or dissatisfaction significant? Is a population crash a waste or merely nature taking its course? Is damage to vegetation permanent or does it recover after a period of time when deer populations are down? Can deer populations managed at artificially high populations prevent vegetation recovery? What is artificial? The list of questions continues.

Most wildlife and forest management systems are based on sets of societal values, using science-based data to achieve these values. The science that is used to support a value system should not be mistaken for science defining nature in a pristine sense or as a replacement for value judgments. The body of science that enables foresters to grow tree plantations, maintain aspen stands, or accelerate old growth conditions reflects a need to satisfy demands of society. The body of science used to manage whitetail populations reflects current values of society held towards deer. Values change.

Science employed to support one side of an inflammatory issue is usually a misuse of science. The conflict is over values and should be debated as such. Science, when properly funded, can tell us, for example, about the level of biodiversity across a defined landscape. Societal values will tell us whether that level is appropriate or not.