DOCSLIB.ORG

The Red Pine Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Red Pine Project Michigan Department of Natural Resources THE RED PINE PROJECT: Draft Guidelines for red pine management based on ecosystem management principles for STATE FORESTLAND IN MICHIGAN Prepared by the NORTHERN LOWER MICHIGAN ECOTEAM For THE MDNR STATEWIDE COUNCIL Conceptually Approved January 6, 2004 Red Pine Project Team: James Bielecki Robert Doepker Frank Krist Larry Pedersen John Pilon The Mission of the Northern Lower MichiganForeword Eco-Unit Team is to plan and coordinate management of the natural resources of Michigan’s Northern Lower Peninsula through the use of ecosystem management principles. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................4 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................5 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................................................9 Characterizing the Red Pine Resource.......................................................................................................13 Ecological Suitability...............................................................................................................................14 Forest Habitat Type Classification.....................................................................................................14 Landscape Management Units (LMUs)............................................................................................18 Other Site Classification Systems ....................................................................................................20 Ecological Characteristics ......................................................................................................................21 Past Condition ..................................................................................................................................21 Present Condition.............................................................................................................................24 Wildlife: Effects and A Desired Future Condition .............................................................................26 Forest Health: Effects and A Desired Future Condition ...................................................................31 Fisheries: Effects On and A Desired Future Condition ....................................................................33 Economic Characteristics.......................................................................................................................34 Social Characteristics.............................................................................................................................36 Future Red Pine Management: Balancing Biologic, Social and Economic Factors...............................38 Red Pine Forest Type Management Guidelines/Opportunities...................................................................40 Management Recommendations/Guidelines/Opportunities...................................................................42 Red Pine Type Guidelines................................................................................................................45 Guideline Implementation............................................................................................................................59 Decision Support System/Guideline Use ...............................................................................................59 Monitoring and Feedback Loop..............................................................................................................61 Communications Plan.............................................................................................................................62 Phase I: MDNR Staff ........................................................................................................................62 Phase II: Public Review....................................................................................................................63 Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................................................64 References ..................................................................................................................................................68 January 6, 2004 2 PREFACE Achieving sustainability in our natural environment, our economy and our communities requires rethinking traditional approaches to managing complex and interrelated natural resources. The fragmented and compartmentalized tactics of the past are giving way to more integrated and comprehensive strategies. Sustainability of our natural resources through ecosystem-based management is a continuing endeavor by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Sustainability assures the well-being of biological communities and their economic vitality by protecting and maintaining the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. The State Forestland Red Pine Type Management Project is a broad-based effort toward implementing the management of a forest type in a long-term sustainable manner for the State Forest system. A skewed age class distribution of red pine created an opportunity to address a silvicultural issue for a major forest type utilizing ecosystem management principles. Over time, all the forest types that make up the State Forest system should be taken up in a similar fashion. Such efforts as Biodiversity Stewardship, Kirtland Warbler Management, and riparian zone plans could also benefit from being addressed in a like manner. During the duration of this project, the Northern Lower Peninsula Ecoteam was chaired by Glen Matthews then by Penney Melchoir, Michigan DNR District Wildlife Supervisors. The Red Pine Management Project team consisted of James Bielecki (FMFMD), Robert Doepker (WLD), Frank Krist (Space Imaging Services), Larry Pedersen (FMFMD), and John Pilon (FMFMD). Providing valuable input into the project were the following: Keith Kintigh, Lauri Marzolo, Don Kuhr, Lee Evison, Roger Hoeksema, Larry Visser, Roger Mech, Ron Murray, Matt Tonello, Mike Mang, Rex Ainslie, Joyce Angel-Ling, Dean Reid, Andy Nuhfer, Mike Walters, MSU, Joe Gates, Huron-Manistee National Forest, Al Saberniak, Hiawatha National Forest, Rich Corner, Huron Manistee National Forest, and Phyllis Higman, MNFI. A job well done to Brian Maki and the compartment digitizing staff. Special thanks to Joshua Cohen, MNFI for providing invaluable comments and advice on this project. Many thanks to all the FMFM and Wildlife staff at the Atlanta Forest Management Unit who commented on and participated in discussions on this project. Special thanks to Bernie Skipper, and the NRCS digitizing staff, who provided digital soil data ahead of schedule allowing this analysis to be conducted in a timely manner. January 6, 2004 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Much of Michigan’s existing red pine resource was planted on areas devoid of trees, often tax reverted agricultural land, during the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and again in the 1950s by the state of Michigan. Planting efforts since the 1950s have been at much lower acreages, resulting in an unbalanced age-class structure for this forest type. Despite this extensive planting, red pine as a forest component has declined significantly across northern Michigan since circa 1800. In addition, naturally occurring dry northern and dry-mesic forest communities, of which red pine is considered a significant component, have declined significantly and are now listed by Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) as “state rare.” According to MNFI, old growth dry northern and dry-mesic communities are among the rarest forest communities occupying the Great Lakes region. Due to the planting practices of the CCC, much of the current red pine resource is in single species plantations and on sites which are sometimes less suitable for red pine than for other species. Despite this, these plantations have nursed the reestablishment of deciduous forest communities on richer and more moist sites while providing significant economic returns and aesthetic value. Although most of the state’s red pine type is of plantation origin, Michigan also has red pine stands that originated naturally as a result of slash fires during the logging era, 80 to 120 years ago. Due to fire suppression many of these areas are beginning to convert to mesic forest types. There is a fundamental conflict between increasing red pine timber values and promoting biodiversity. The highest timber values are achieved through pure, densely- stocked uniform age and size stands (plantations). High stocking density fosters height growth and minimizes knots and defects from branching, but it reduces diversity in flora and fauna. This is the basic trade off between timber production and biodiversity values that is faced at several scales, from the stand level through the entire State Forest system. The range of the natural red pine community (dry northern, dry-mesic, and pine and oak barrens) has been in significant decline since circa 1800. With the confluence of the current
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Forests in Michigan
    OriqiMI from Digitized by Go gle UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NATIONAL FORESTS IN MICHIGAN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTH CENTRAL REGION • MILWAUKEE, WIS. ON THE COVER. —Great Conglomerate Falls on the Black River. p-3e«M ERRATA Page Line 5 3 97,000,000 should be 45,000,000. 7 4 Porcupine should not be listed vvilh fur bearers. 17 7 Si.o'jld read "the red pine by its ClUoLC"G Cf t»Vj". 44 2-3 Should read "4 rniies east of Munising". UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 sEr^ •*«$• . AU TRAIN FALLS ON THE HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST. Drama of Michigan Forests DRAMA of the forests of Michigan has been written in several acts THEeach with its colorful pageantry. The action has concerned the magni ficent woodlands of the redman, the rapid depletion of those forests in the last century, and their slow but sure rebuilding in the present. The elusive "northwest passage" to China, Indian furs and Indian souls, iron and land and copper brought the white men to Michigan. In 1621, only 1 year after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, young Etienne Brule, protege of Champlain, reached Lake Superior and was disappointed to find its waters fresh. Thirteen years later, Jean Nicolet, another protege of the French governor of Canada, entered the unknown Lake Michigan through the Straits of Mackinac. Though he never found the longed-for route to the Orient, Nicolet did initiate the French fur trade with the Indians in this territory. Heroic followers of Brule and Nicolet were the Jesuit fathers Jogues and Raymbault, who preached to the Ojibwas in 1641 at Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Analysis
    APPENDIX A Supporting Analysis Table of Contents A.1 PARK SETTING ................................................................................................................................................ 2 A.2 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 A.3 HISTORY OF THE LUDINGTON AREA ........................................................................................................... 6 A.4 HISTORY OF LUDINGTON STATE PARK ....................................................................................................... 7 A.5 LAND OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITIONS ................................................................................................... 10 A.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RECREATION RESOURCES ............................................................................. 13 A.7 LEGAL MANDATES ........................................................................................................................................ 19 A.8 NATURAL SYSTEMS AND NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 23 A.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 27 A.10 EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................................... 30 A.11 RECREATION RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • From the Gilbert Lake Project, Huron-Manistee National Forests
    BIOLOGICAL OPINION Effects to the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) from the Gilbert Lake Project, Huron-Manistee National Forests Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michigan Ecological Services Field Office East Lansing, MI Log # 18-R3-ELFO-03 July 19, 2018 INTRODUCTION This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (BO) based on our review of the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) proposed Gilbert Lake Project on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF) and the Project’s effects on the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The HMNF determined that the proposed project was “likely to adversely affect” Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, NLEB), and was “not likely to adversely affect” the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus, EMR). The HMNF’s request for formal consultation was received on January 24, 2018. Additional information about the proposed project and the project’s effects to listed species was provided on March 15, 2018. On March 2, 2006, the Service issued a programmatic Biological Opinion (programmatic BO) for the HMNF revised 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). In the programmatic BO, we evaluated the effects of HMNF Forest Plan activities on bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its critical habitat, Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri), Indiana bat, and Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). We concurred that implementation of the Forest Plan was likely to adversely affect these species, but not likely to adversely affect piping plover critical habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Ottawa National Forest
    0614spj1 Ottawa National Forest United States Department of Agriculture Record of Decision Forest Service Eastern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2006 To accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan Cover Photo: Burned Dam, Watersmeet Ranger District, Ottawa National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon Counties Responsible Official: Randy Moore, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service Eastern Region 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-297-3428 For Further Information Contact: Ottawa National Forest Forest Supervisor E6248 US Hwy. 2 Ironwood, MI 49938 Phone: 906-932-1330 Fax: 906-932-0122 TTY: 906-932-0301 Table of Contents PREFACE......................................................................................................................................................I RECORD OF DECISION ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1 THE OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST .............................................................................................................. 2 A VISION OF THE FUTURE........................................................................................................................... 3 DECISION AND RATIONALE.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2020 to 06/30/2020 Huron-Manistee National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Nancy Rusho 228, subpart A Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-731-9196 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] *NEW LISTING* Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations will be applicable to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the United States Mining Law. Huron-Manistee National Forest, Forestwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Forest) R9 - Eastern Region Forest-wide Aquatic Organism - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants Completed Actual: 01/08/2020 01/2020 Andrea Ania Passage - Watershed management 231-775-5023 x8763 CE - Road management [email protected] *UPDATED* Description: Replace or remove road stream crossing structures such as bridges or culverts to allow for fish & other aquatic organism to pass under roads & restore natural stream flow. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=56111 Location: UNIT - Huron-Manistee National Forest All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan
    Huron-Manistee United States Department of National Forests Agriculture Forest Service Eastern Region Huron-Manistee National Forests March 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (as Amended January 2012) Cooperating Agencies: United States Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service United States Environmental Protection Agency HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS Cadillac, Michigan September 2013 2006 FOREST PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Table 1. Guide to Page Numbers Where Amendment #1 has Resulted in Changes to the 2006 Forest Plan. WITH REPLACE Amendment #1 Replacement Page Original 2006 Forest Plan Page Numbers Numbers i through vi Same II-1 through II-2 Same II-11 through II-12 Same II-15 through II-24 Same II-29 through II-40 II-29 through II-41 Chapter III – Management Area Direction Same Table of Contents (not numbered) III-1 Same III-2.1-1 through III-2.1-2 Same III-4.2-1 through III-4.2-4 Same III-4.3-1 through III-4.3-2 Same III-4.4-1 through III-4.4-2 Same III-5.1-1 through III-5.1-2 Same III-6.1-1 through III-6.1-11 Remove all pages – no replacements. III-6.2-1 through III-6.2-2 Same III-7.1-1 through III-7.1-2 Same III-8.1-1 through III-8.1-4 Same III-8.2-1 through III-8.2-2 Same III-8.3-1 through III-8.3-2 Same III-8.4-1 through III-8.4-4 III-8.4-1 through III-8.4-14 III-9.1-1 through III-9.1-2 Same III-9.2-1 through III-9.2-2 Same Appendix A – Scenery Management System; Same A-13 through A-16 Appendix A – Scenery Management System; Same A-27 through A-30 Appendix B – Harvest Cutting Methods Table Same of Contents (not numbered) Appendix B – Harvest Cutting Methods; B-1 Same through B-23 Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Produced and Other Same Information Table of Contents (not numbered) Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Produced and Other D-7 through D-25 Information; D-7 through D-23 Table 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5, Final Environmental Impact Statement Distribution
    Chapter 5 – FEIS Distribution Table of Contents FEIS RECIPIENTS................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 ELECTED OFFICIALS .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 FEDERAL AGENCIES .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 STATE AGENCIES................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES ................................................................................................................................... 5-2 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.......................................................................................................................................... 5-3 LIBRARIES ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-3 BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5-3 INDIVIDUALS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-3 Chapter 5 Final EIS Distribution Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • 06 MI HMNFLRMP.Pdf
    Biological Opinion for the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan March 2006 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 CONSULTATION HISTORY • August 23, 2005: The Service received the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ (Forest) August 19, 2005 request for formal consultation on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (proposed Plan). The request included a BA that described the proposed Plan and made determinations of “may effect, likely to adversely affect” for the Pitcher's thistle, Kirtland's warbler, bald eagle, piping plover, Karner blue butterfly, and Indiana bat. The Forest made a determination of “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” for designated piping plover critical habitat. • September 16, 2005: The Service responded to the Forest’s request for formal consultation, indicating that the information received in the BA constituted a complete initiation package. • September – December 2005: Jessica Hogrefe (USFWS) worked with Forest biologists via email and telephone to discuss the proposed Plan and effects to listed species. • December 20, 2005: The Service transmitted a Draft Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Forest for review. • January 2006: The Forest transmitted several sets of comments to the Service on the Draft Programmatic Biological Opinion. Jessica Hogrefe discussed these comments with the Forest biologists and incorporated changes, where appropriate. • February 6, 2006: The Service transmitted a Draft Final Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Forest for review. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Proposed Action The U.S. Forest Service proposes to revise the 1986 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF, Forest, Forest Service).
    [Show full text]
  • National Forests on the Edge D E V E L O P M E N T Pressures on a M E R I C A’S Nat I O N a L Forests and Grasslands
    1 NATIONAL FORESTS ON THE EDGE D E V E L O P M E N T PRESSURES ON A M E R I C A’S NAT I O N A L FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS U.S. Department of Agriculture Susan M. Stein, Ralph J. Alig, Eric M. White, Forest Service Sara J. Comas, Mary Carr, Mike Eley, Kelly Elverum, Mike O’Donnell, David M. Pacific Northwest Research Station Theobald, Ken Cordell, Jonathan Haber, and General Technical Report Theodore W. Beauvais PNW-GTR-728 August 2007 2 ABSTRACT Keywords: Land use change, national forest, housing density, road density, ecosystem services, amenity resources, amenity Stein, Susan M.; Alig, Ralph J.; White, Eric M.; Comas, migration, housing development, planning. Sara J.; Carr, Mary; Eley, Mike; Elverum, Kelly; O’Donnell, Mike; Theobald, David M.; Cordell, Ken; Haber, Jonathan; Beauvais, Theodore W. 2007. National AUTHORS forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s Susan M. Stein is a private forest-land studies coordinator, national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- Sara J. Comas is a natural resource specialist, and Theodore GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, W. Beauvais is an assistant director, U.S. Department of Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p. Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry Staff, Many of America’s national forests and grasslands—collectively Mailstop 1123, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, called the National Forest System—face increased risks and DC 20250-1123. Ralph J. Alig is a research forester and team alterations from escalating housing development on private rural leader, and Eric M.
    [Show full text]
  • Huron-Manistee National Forest Plan Revision Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    December 23, 2011 Kenneth Arbogast Public Affairs Officer Huron-Manistee National Forests Okanogan Valley Office 1755 S. Mitchell Street Cadillac, MI 49601 [email protected] RE: Huron-Manistee National Forest Plan Revision Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Arbogast, Thank you for your hard work on the recently released Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Huron-Manistee National Forest Plan Revision. Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of six national, member-based organizations that includes: Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American Hiking Society, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance. Outdoor Alliance represents the interests of the millions of Americans who hike, paddle, climb, mountain bike, ski and snowshoe on our nation’s public lands, waters and snowscapes. Collectively, Outdoor Alliance has members in all fifty states and a network of almost 1,400 local clubs and advocacy groups across the nation. The Outdoor Alliance and its six founding members represent the interests of the human-powered outdoor recreation community. We are delighted that the SEIS for the Plan Revision acknowledges that providing recreational settings represents an important value of the Huron-Manistee National Forest. As America continues to grow, becomes more urbanized and thus more disconnected from the outdoors, the value of quality user experiences becomes ever more important. COMMENTS The SEIS takes some important steps towards articulating the need for quality recreational experiences instead of simply defaulting to existing infrastructure, which was largely developed to facilitate resource extraction. We view this as a significant philosophical shift that is profoundly important to our community.
    [Show full text]
  • Huron-Manistee National Forest Fire Management
    HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT Visitor Resource Briefing 2019 RESOURCE INFORMATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HMF Fire Management (Notes) PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO THE FIRE MANAGE- MENT SUPERVISORS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. Date_______________ Time of Arrival_______________ Type of Resource:______________________ Call Sign_______ Lead Name________________________________________________ Cell Phone Number (if available):_______________________________ Home Unit_________________________________________________ Last Day Off:______________________________________________ Are you part of a Strike Team or Task Force? ( ) Y ( ) N Provide crewmember names and top red card qualifications (please write on back if more room needed): Name Qualifications Total number of persons:____________ Additional Remarks: Location and phone number of lodging (if known):____________________________ IN-BRIEFING CHECKLIST From AFMO/Zone FMO: TABLE OF CONTENTS HMF Incident Organizer Area Maps HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT 4 Aviation Resources – Aviation Officer has separate briefing packet Fuels & Tactics Briefing including Fire Management Plan, appropriate response EXPECTATIONS 5 and fire restrictions CADILLAC DISPATCH 6 S Numbers are not given until receipts are provided. INITIAL ATTACK OPERATIONS/PROTOCOLS 6 To AFMO/Zone FMO: Manifest, phone numbers and radio call sign provided to dispatch MOP UP STANDARDS 8 Hotel name and room numbers and crew cell phone numbers provided for after- AIRCRAFT
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Forest History
    -Forest Basics- Michigan Forest History Adapted from the on-line Teachers Guide http://mff.dsisd.net 1 0 MICHIGAN FOREST HISTORY www.dsisd.k12.mi.us/mff BEGINNING MODERN ICE PRESETTLEMENT LOGGING OF FOREST AGE TIMES ERA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT Note: This timeline is NOT to scale. The left side represents many more years than the right. The right side shows more years because there were more things happening . and there still are more things happening in the forest today! Michigan has a colorful forest history, similar to that of Wisconsin and Minnesota. After the retreat of the glaciers, vegetation gradually moved back into Michigan. Some tree species returned centuries before other tree species. Our forests are ever-changing from the effects of climate, nature, and the influences of human beings. American Indians changed the forest in many ways. When people began logging the forest in the middle 1800s, the forest at that time was in a condition useful to our growing nation. Our forests continue to be great natural resources, both for wood production as well as the many other benefits we receive from the Great Forests of the Great Lakes State! 1 MICHIGAN FORESTS DURING THE ICE AGE It's pretty easy to imagine what forests looked like during the Ice Age. There were no forests! At least not in what we now call Michigan. In fact, there wasn't much in the way of living things at all. Michigan was covered with as much as a mile of ice! So, where were all the trees and other living things that make up our forests today? Glaciers cooled nearby areas so that northern species could live farther and farther south as the glaciers advanced.
    [Show full text]