Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F094AB018MI

Rich Sandy Drift

Last updated: 2/25/2025
Accessed: 04/13/2025

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 094A / Ecological site F094AB018MI

USC

Metric

General information

Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.

Basemap provided by ESRI. Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community.

Click to explore map

Figure 1. Mapped extent

Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.

MLRA notes

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 094A–Northern Michigan Sandy Highlands

This area is dominated by outwash plains and moraines. The terrain can be steep on the moraines and flat in the areas of outwash. Elevation ranges from 177 to 520 m (580 to 1705 ft). Local topographic relief averages 14 m and ranges up to 188 m (45 to 615 ft). This area is covered entirely by drift. Bedrock consisting of Devonian limestone and dolomite with interbedded shale, chert, and anhydrite stringers is at various depths below the surface because of the curvature of the Michigan basin. However, bedrock exposures completely absent, as the depth of glacial drift ranges from 60 to 300 m (200-1000 ft). The Au Sable, Manistee, Au Gres, and Pine Rivers are the major streams draining this MLRA, in both the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron watersheds. The Muskegon River has its headwaters in this area.

About 70 percent of this area is forested, and about 15 percent is cropland or hayland. About one-third of the area is in small, privately owned holdings, and another one-third consists of national and State forests. The forests are used mainly for timber production and recreation. Dairy and beef operations are very important enterprises in the area. Forage and feed grains for dairy cattle and other livestock are the principal crops. Wheat, oats, corn, potatoes, and hay also are grown in the area. The Huron and Manistee National Forests, Hartwick Pines State Park, Camp Grayling (Department of Defense), Pigeon River Country State Forest are among the most notable conservation lands in the area. Reaches of the Au Sable and Pine Rivers are National Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Summary of existing land use:
Upland Forest (58%)
Hardwood (41%)
Conifer (15%)
Swamps and Marshes (14%)
Developed (11%)
Agricultural (10%)
Grassland (5%)

Classification relationships

According to the USFS (Bailey) system of ecoregions, the site is located mostly within 212Hg (Kirtland's Warbler High Sand Plains) and 212Hh (Gladwin Silty Lake Plain) subsections. According to the EPA (Omernik) system of ecoregions, the site is located in 50ae (Mio Plateau), 50ah (Tawas Lake Plain) and eastern 50ad (Vanderbilt Moraines) level IV ecoregions. This site roughly corresponds to PArVVb, in the Kotar system. This site corresponds to the Mesic Ice Contact Sand Hills, ecological land type 30, in the USFS Ecological Land Type system.

Ecological site concept

The central concept of Rich Sandy Drift is uplands with a seasonal high watertable greater than 100 cm in depth (excessively drained to moderately well drained) and a dark reddish brown (Bhs) or strong brown (Bs) spodic horizon present in soil profile. Site occurs on sandy drift (outwash, ice contact, or lake plains) where soil textures are sand or loamy sand (upper 50 cm >70% sand). Site is outside the heavy snowfall belt, mostly east of Houghton Lake where fire was frequent. Vegetation trending towards mesophytic forest with a poor herb understory and a low fire frequency.

Associated sites

F094AB019MI	Dry Sandy Plains

F094AB019MI

Dry Sandy Plains

Similar sites

F094AA005MI	Snowy Rich Sandy Drift

F094AA005MI

Snowy Rich Sandy Drift

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Pinus resinosa (2) Pinus strobus
Shrub	Not specified
Herbaceous	(1) Maianthemum canadense

Download full description

Physiographic features

Site occurs on coarse textured ice contact, glacial till, outwash, and lake plain deposits. Landforms are gently to steeply sloping.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Kame (2) Outwash plain (3) Lake plain
Runoff class	Negligible to medium
Elevation	581 – 1,572 ft
Water table depth	59 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

Mean annual temperatures are 5.7 to 7.6 °C (42 to 46 °F). The warmest six months average 14.3 to 16.1 °C (58 to 61 °F). Mean July temperatures range from 19.1 to 20.8 °C (66 to 69 °F). Mean January temperatures range from -8.2 to -6.0 °C (17 to 21 °F). The maximum monthly average daily highs are 25.9 to 27.7 °C (79 to 82 °F). The minimum monthly average daily lows are -13.2 to -10.7 °C (8 to 13 °F).Temperatures generally decrease with elevation and latitude. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 700 to 870 mm (28 to 34 in). Precipitation decreases from west to east. Average 0 °C (32 °F) frost-free season ranges from 73 to 144 days. Average -2 °C (28 °F) freeze-free season is 106 to 172 days. Mean annual snowfall ranges from 1.1 to 2.9 m (40 to 120 in). Snowfall decreases from northwest to southeast. Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -33.3 to -23.1 °C (-28 to -10 °F), or hardiness zones 4a to 6a.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	76-110 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	119-143 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	29-31 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	52-113 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	114-150 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	28-33 in
Frost-free period (average)	92 days
Freeze-free period (average)	133 days
Precipitation total (average)	30 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) EAST TAWAS [USC00202423], Tawas City, MI
(2) GRAYLING [USC00203391], Grayling, MI
(3) MIO HYDRO PLT [USC00205531], Mio, MI
(4) VANDERBILT 11ENE [USC00208417], Vanderbilt, MI
(5) HOUGHTON LK ROSCOMMON AP [USW00094814], Houghton Lake, MI
(6) HALE LOUD DAM [USC00203529], Glennie, MI
(7) WEST BRANCH 3SE [USC00208800], West Branch, MI

Soil features

Soils are well drained to excessively well drained sands. They are commonly classified Alfic Haplorthods, Entic Haplorthods, and Arenic Glossudalfs, and commonly mapped as Rubicon, Klacking, and Graycalm series or components. The top 50 cm has a typical pH of 5.7 and is 85% sand and 1% organic matter. At depth, pH ranges up to 6.6, and texture averages 85% sand and 10% clay. Depth to impeded hydraulic conductivity or root restrictive layers averages >200 cm. Depth to carbonates averages 195 cm.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Outwash
Surface texture	(1) Sand
Drainage class	Excessively drained to well drained
Permeability class	Moderately rapid to rapid
Soil depth	79 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	1%
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-39.4in)	1.57 – 3.94 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-19.7in)	3.5 – 6
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-59.1in)	10%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-59.1in)	5%

Ecological dynamics

Rich Sandy Drift tends to share the same ecological dynamics as Natureserve/Landfire system, Laurentian-Acadian Northern Pine(-Oak) Forest. Stand replacing fires occurred every 150-600 years, with light surface fires every 30-115 years. Overstory was dominated by fire dependent, early successional pine (Pinus spp.) or oak (Quercus spp.). Understory is composed of shade-tolerant, acid-tolerant forbs such as Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense). Kotar community, PArVVb (Pinus strobus-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium spp.-Viburnum acerifolium), understory indicator species include: Acer saccharum, Aralia nudicaulis, Eurybia macrophylla, Galium triflorum, Gaultheria procumbens, Hamamelis virginiana, Lonicera canadensis, Lysimachia borealis, Maianthemum canadense, Mitchella repens, Polygaloides paucifolia, Polygonatum pubescens, Pteridium aquilinum, Trillium grandiflorum, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Viburnum acerifolium (Sugar Maple, Wild Sarsaparilla, Big-leaved Aster, Fragrant Bedstraw, Teaberry, Witch-hazel, Canadian Fly Honeysuckle, Star-flower, Canada Mayflower, Partridge-berry, Fringed Polygala, Downy Solomon's-seal, Bracken Fern, Great White Trillium, Northern Lowbush Blueberry, and Maple-leaved Viburnum).

State and transition model

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text

State 1
Reference State

Community 1.1
Mesophytic Conifer Forest: Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Great Lakes Forest

Community 1.2
Dry-Mesophytic Hardwood Forest: Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - (Quercus velutina, Acer rubrum) / Viburnum acerifolium Forest

Community 1.3
Native Ruderal Forest: Populus (tremuloides, grandidentata) - Betula (populifolia, papyrifera) Ruderal Woodland

Dominant plant species

quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), tree
bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata), tree
western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), other herbaceous

Table 5. Canopy structure (% cover)

Height Above Ground (ft)	Tree	Shrub/Vine	Grass/ Grasslike	Forb
<0.5	–	1-2%	1-2%	1-3%
>0.5 <= 1	5-7%	1-3%	4-8%	8-16%
>1 <= 2	5-7%	1-1%	2-7%	8-16%
>2 <= 4.5	1-3%	–	–	–
>4.5 <= 13	28-34%	–	–	–
>13 <= 40	44-69%	–	–	–
>40 <= 80	52-57%	–	–	–
>80 <= 120	12-38%	–	–	–
>120	–	–	–	–

Community 1.4
Pine Forest: Pinus resinosa - Pinus strobus - (Quercus rubra) / Corylus cornuta Forest

Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Blowdown/clearcut followed by fire a few years after, destroying conifer regeneration, deferentially favoring oak regeneration.

Conservation practices

Prescribed Burning
Forest Stand Improvement

Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3

Blowdown/clearcut

Conservation practices

Early Successional Habitat Development/Management
Forest Stand Improvement

Pathway 1.1C
Community 1.1 to 1.4

Crown fire, or blowdown/clearcut with fire in close succession.

Conservation practices

Prescribed Burning
Forest Stand Improvement

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Succession

Pathway 1.2C
Community 1.2 to 1.3

Blowdown/clearcut

Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.4

Crown fire, or blowdown/clearcut with fire in close succession.

Conservation practices

Prescribed Burning
Forest stand improvement for habitat and soil quality

Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1

Succession

Conservation practices

Tree/Shrub Site Preparation
Tree/Shrub Establishment

Pathway 1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.2

Succession if fire consumed any subsequent pine regeneration.

Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.4

Light fire removes the leaf litter, allowing for pine seedlings to establish followed by succession.

Pathway 1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.1

Succession.

Pathway 1.4C
Community 1.4 to 1.2

Blowdown/clearcut followed by fire a few years after, destroying conifer regeneration, deferentially favoring oak regeneration.

Pathway 1.4B
Community 1.4 to 1.3

Blowdown, clearcut, or crown fire, with establishment of clonal tree species.

State 2
Cultural State

Community 2.1
Sustainable Agriculture

Community 2.2
Unsustainable Agriculture

Community 2.3
Conservation Feature.

Can be a grassed waterway, conservation reserve, a small patch pollinator garden, or other land taken out of its primary cultural production to mitigate or reduce impacts of adjacent land use, and is not by itself a permanent restoration of a complete native biological community and associated ecosystem services.

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Apply unsustainable farming techniques.

Pathway 2.1B
Community 2.1 to 2.3

Establish conservation feature.

Conservation practices

Conservation Cover
Grassed Waterway

Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Apply sustainable farming techniques.

Conservation practices

Conservation Crop Rotation
Cover Crop
Nutrient Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Pathway 2.2B
Community 2.2 to 2.3

Establish conservation feature.

Conservation practices

Conservation Cover
Grassed Waterway

Pathway 2.3A
Community 2.3 to 2.1

Revert to sustainable agriculture.

Conservation practices

Conservation Crop Rotation
Cover Crop
Nutrient Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Pathway 2.3B
Community 2.3 to 2.2

Revert to unsustainable agriculture.

State 3
Seminatural State

Community 3.1
Ruderal Meadow & Shrubland: Dactylis glomerata - Festuca spp. - Solidago canadensis Ruderal Mesic Meadow Alliance

Community 3.2
Exotic Ruderal Forest: Acer platanoides - Ailanthus altissima - Pinus spp. Exotic Ruderal Forest Alliance

Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Succession

Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Blowdown/clearcut

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced

Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1

Remove domesticated species; restore native species

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation
Tree/Shrub Establishment
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management
Herbaceous Weed Control

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

Abandoned, succession

Restoration pathway R3
State 3 to 1

Control invasive species; restore native species

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation
Tree/Shrub Establishment
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management
Herbaceous Weed Control

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species

Additional community tables

Table 6. Community 1.3 forest overstory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height (ft)	Canopy cover (%)	Diameter (in)	Basal area (square ft/acre)
Tree
bigtooth aspen	POGR4	Populus grandidentata	Native	64–87.3	48.8–50.2	6.3–11	–
American beech	FAGR	Fagus grandifolia	Native	19.7–39.4	12–31.6	–	–
hophornbeam	OSVI	Ostrya virginiana	Native	19.7–39.4	11.8–31.2	–	–
red maple	ACRU	Acer rubrum	Native	13.1–62.3	4.1–10.9	5.9–11	–
red maple	ACRU	Acer rubrum	Native	19.7–39.4	2.8–7.2	–	–
sugar maple	ACSA3	Acer saccharum	Native	19.7–39.4	0.8–2.2	–	–
American basswood	TIAM	Tilia americana	Native	26.2–36.1	0.8–2.2	–	–
northern red oak	QURU	Quercus rubra	Native	19.7–49.2	0.8–2.2	–	–
sugar maple	ACSA3	Acer saccharum	Native	26.2–42.7	0.6–1.4	5.1	–
hophornbeam	OSVI	Ostrya virginiana	Native	9.8–45.9	0.6–1.4	–	–
white ash	FRAM2	Fraxinus americana	Native	19.7–39.4	0.3–0.7	–	–

Table 7. Community 1.3 forest understory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height (ft)	Canopy cover (%)
Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)
deertongue	DICL	Dichanthelium clandestinum	Native	0.7–1.6	2.2–5.8
roughleaf ricegrass	ORAS	Oryzopsis asperifolia	Native	0.3–0.7	0.7–1.5
northern shorthusk	BRAR9	Brachyelytrum aristosum	Native	0.7–1.6	0.6–1.4
Forb/Herb
starflower	TRBO2	Trientalis borealis	Native	0–0.3	0.8–2.2
wild sarsaparilla	ARNU2	Aralia nudicaulis	Native	0.7–1.6	0.6–1.4
wood anemone	ANQU	Anemone quinquefolia	Native	0.7–1.6	0.2–0.4
Canada mayflower	MACA4	Maianthemum canadense	Native	0–0.3	0.2–0.4
starry false lily of the valley	MAST4	Maianthemum stellatum	Native	0.7–1.6	0.2
white trillium	TRGR4	Trillium grandiflorum	Native	0.3–0.7	0.1
poke milkweed	ASEX	Asclepias exaltata	Native	0.7–1.6	0–0.1
Fern/fern ally
western brackenfern	PTAQ	Pteridium aquilinum	Native	0.7–1.6	5.8–14.6
Shrub/Subshrub
eastern teaberry	GAPR2	Gaultheria procumbens	Native	0.3–0.7	0.8–2.2
lowbush blueberry	VAAN	Vaccinium angustifolium	Native	0.7–1.6	0.3–0.7
chokecherry	PRVI	Prunus virginiana	Native	0.7–1.6	0.3
mapleleaf viburnum	VIAC	Viburnum acerifolium	Native	0.7–1.6	0–0.1
Tree
American basswood	TIAM	Tilia americana	Native	8.2–16.4	8.2–21.8
red maple	ACRU	Acer rubrum	Native	8.2–16.4	1.9–5.1
red maple	ACRU	Acer rubrum	Native	0.7–1.6	1.7–4.3
hophornbeam	OSVI	Ostrya virginiana	Native	8.2–16.4	1.7–4.3
American witchhazel	HAVI4	Hamamelis virginiana	Native	3.3–9.8	1.1–2.9
eastern white pine	PIST	Pinus strobus	Native	4.9–9.8	0.6–1.4
green ash	FRPE	Fraxinus pennsylvanica	Native	0.7–1.6	0.6–0.9
white ash	FRAM2	Fraxinus americana	Native	8.2–16.4	0.3–0.7
white ash	FRAM2	Fraxinus americana	Native	0.7–1.6	0.3–0.7
common serviceberry	AMAR3	Amelanchier arborea	Native	0.7–1.6	0.5–0.6
black cherry	PRSE2	Prunus serotina	Native	0.7–1.6	0.2–0.4
northern red oak	QURU	Quercus rubra	Native	0.7–1.6	0.2–0.3
bigtooth aspen	POGR4	Populus grandidentata	Native	0.7–1.6	0.2
American basswood	TIAM	Tilia americana	Native	0.7–1.6	0–0.1
hophornbeam	OSVI	Ostrya virginiana	Native	0.7–1.6	0–0.1
sugar maple	ACSA3	Acer saccharum	Native	0.7–1.6	0.1
American witchhazel	HAVI4	Hamamelis virginiana	Native	0.7–1.6	0.1
eastern white pine	PIST	Pinus strobus	Native	0.7–1.6	0.1
Vine/Liana
stickywilly	GAAP2	Galium aparine	Native	0.3–1	0.1–0.4
American hogpeanut	AMBR2	Amphicarpaea bracteata	Native	0.7–1.6	0.1

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Medium intensity field data was collected in 2024 from 2 sites representing community phase 1.3. More data are needed from other community phases to verify this provisional ecological site.

Other references

A PROVISIONAL ECOLOGICAL SITE is a conceptual grouping of soil map unit components within a major land resource area (MLRA) based on the similarities in response to management. A provisional ecological site is a first approximation based on a cursory literature review, personal experience, and limited field reconnaissance. As more adequate literature review, expert opinion, and intensive plot data are collected, the site concept is subject to shifting, broadening, narrowing, subdivision, or re-aggregation in definition. Likewise, the community dynamics will be more elaborate in content, and may also change in structure, upon reaching approved status.

Future work, as described in a project plan, to validate the information in this provisional ecological site description is needed. This will include field activities to collect low and medium intensity sampling, soil correlations, and analysis of that data. Annual field reviews should be done by soil scientists and vegetation specialists. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD will be needed to produce the final document. Annual reviews of the project plan are to be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team.

Albert, D. A. et al., 1995. Vegetation circa 1800 of Michigan. Michigan's native landscape as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856 (digital map), Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Baker, M.E. and Barnes, B.V., 1998. Landscape ecosystem diversity of river floodplains in northwestern Lower Michigan, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28(9), pp.1405-1418.

Barnes, B. V. and Wagner, W. H., 2004. Michigan trees: a guide to the trees of the Great Lakes region. Ann Arbor (Michigan): University of Michigan Press.

Burger, T. L. and Kotar, J., 2003. A Guide to Forest Communities and Habitat Types of Michigan. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin.

Cleland, D. T. et al., 1994. Field guide: Ecological classification and inventory system of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, s.l.: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Eichenlaub, V.L., 1979. Weather and climate of the Great Lakes region. University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana. 335 pages.

GHCN, 2016. Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Versions 2 and 3 (temperature and precipitation data). NOAA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/

Kost, M. A. et al., 2010. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description, Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Landfire, 2017. Landfire Biophysical Settings Review Site. Accessed May, 2017 http://www.landfirereview.org/descriptions.html.

National Ocean Service, 2017. Tides and Currents (historic water level data for US coastal waters). https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.html?type=Water+Levels

NDBC, 2017. National Data Buoy Center (wave height and period data for US coastal waters). NOAA. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

PRISM Climate Group. 2013. Gridded 30 Year Normals, 1981-2010. Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2011. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/

USFS, Witness Tree data for northern Lower Michigan.

Contributors

Gregory J. Schmidt

Approval

Greg Schmidt, 2/25/2025

Acknowledgments

The following individuals made substantive comments regarding the development of the Provisional Ecological Sites: Randy Swaty, The Nature Conservancy; Trevor Hobbs, USFS; Richard A. Corner, USFS; Andy Henriksen, NRCS; Dan Zay, NRCS.

Rangeland health reference sheet

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.

Author(s)/participant(s)
Contact for lead author
Date	02/06/2025
Approved by	Greg Schmidt
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
Presence of water flow patterns:
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):

Dominant:

Sub-dominant:

Other:

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
Perennial plant reproductive capability:

Download reference sheet

Search

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F094AB018MI

Rich Sandy Drift

Last updated: 2/25/2025 Accessed: 04/13/2025

General information

Figure 1. Mapped extent

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Ecosystem states

State 1 submodel, plant communities

State 2 submodel, plant communities

State 3 submodel, plant communities

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 2/25/2025
Accessed: 04/13/2025