Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F094DY017WI

Wet Sandy Floodplains

Accessed: 11/13/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 094D / Ecological site F094DY017WI

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.

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): 094D–Northern Highland Sandy Pitted Outwash

The Wet Sandy Floodplains ecological site occupies about 5000 acres in MLRA 94D.

Ecological site concept

ATTENTION: This ecological site meets the NESH 2014 requirements for PROVISIONAL. A provisional ecological site is established after broad ecological site concepts are identified and an initial state-and-transition model is drafted. Following quality control and quality assurance reviews of the ecological site concepts, an identification number and name for the provisional ecological site are entered into ESIS. A provisional ecological site may include literature reviews, land use history information, some soils data, legacy data, ocular estimates for canopy and/or species composition by weight, and even some line-point intercept information. A provisional ecological site does not meet the NESH 2014 standards for an Approved ESD, but does provide the conceptual framework of soil-site correlation for the development of the ESD. For more information about this ecological site, please contact your local NRCS office.

The Wet Sandy Floodplains ecological site is occasionally flooded and has a poorly drained sandy soil stratified with thin loamy layers and a thin mucky surface layer. This is a wetland site on which woody vegetation is common, however the tree canopy cover is only about 25 to 50%. There is a high shrub abundance, but there are also areas dominated by grasses, sedges and rushes. Numerous alluvial landforms and features such as natural levees, low stream terraces, cutbanks and meander scars occur on this site; the result is patchwork of sites that provide a variety of habitats for both wetland and upland plants.

Associated sites

F094DY016WI	Mucky Floodplains Wey Sandy Floodplains occasionally have Mucky Floodplains within them.
F094DY018WI	Lower Riparian Terraces This site is often upslope from Wet Sandy Floodplains ecological sites.

F094DY016WI

Mucky Floodplains

Wey Sandy Floodplains occasionally have Mucky Floodplains within them.

F094DY018WI

Lower Riparian Terraces

This site is often upslope from Wet Sandy Floodplains ecological sites.

Similar sites

F094DY010WI	Wet Sandy Depressions This site has similar wetness, but without the flooding.

F094DY010WI

Wet Sandy Depressions

This site has similar wetness, but without the flooding.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Acer rubrum (2) Fraxinus nigra
Shrub	(1) Alnus incana (2) Salix discolor
Herbaceous	(1) Calamagrostis canadensis (2) Eupatorium maculatum

Download full description

Physiographic features

Physiographic Feature Narrative: The Wet Sandy Floodplains ecological sites occur on relatively recent alluvial sediments which may contain thin loamy layers within the otherwise sandy typical soil profile. These sites have 0 to 2 percent slopes and they occupy low portions of the floodplains that were not wet enough to produce organic soils, unlike the Mucky Floodplains ecological site. Essentially, these sites occur on the lowest mineral deposits near a creek or river, and the hydraulic gradient on these sites trends toward that creek or river such that parts of this site drain well enough to preclude frequent ponding. However, these sites also include abandoned meanders and small overflow channels, which are typically ponded for a longer duration starting in spring and often continuing into the summer months.

Figure 2. Mucky Floodplains

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Flood plain
Flooding duration	Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days)
Flooding frequency	Frequent
Ponding duration	Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days)
Ponding frequency	Occasional to frequent
Elevation	1,390 – 1,870 ft
Slope	2%
Ponding depth	6 in
Water table depth	24 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The climate is humid continental with very cold winters and warm summers. As is common across northern Wisconsin, two-thirds of the precipitation falls as rain during the relatively short growing season of late May to early September. Most of the rainfall is transpired by plants. Snow cover is likely in the months of November through April. Snow cover prevents deep frost penetration which promotes groundwater recharge.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (average)	96 days
Freeze-free period (average)	123 days
Precipitation total (average)	34 in

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly precipitation range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) LONG LAKE DAM [USC00474829], Eagle River, WI
(2) NORTH PELICAN [USC00476122], Rhinelander, WI
(3) REST LAKE [USC00477092], Manitowish Waters, WI
(4) WILLOW RSVR [USC00479236], Hazelhurst, WI

Soil features

The soils on this ecological site were formed in stratified alluvium with a thin (less than 8 inches) mucky surface layer. The stratified alluvium has silty layers that are thicker in areas of loamy-mantled upland soils and are thinner to absent in areas of sandy upland soils. These are the Fordum and Totagatic components respectively. These soils are poorly drained with a water table within one foot of the surface at the beginning of the growing season and after heavy rain. Brief ponding can occur in the lower spots on this site. There is brief, occasional flooding on this site.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Surface texture	(1) Muck
Family particle size	(1) Sandy
Drainage class	Poorly drained
Permeability class	Moderate to very rapid
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	3%
Surface fragment cover >3"	1%
Available water capacity (0-40in)	5 – 10 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in)	Not specified
Electrical conductivity (0-40in)	2 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in)	Not specified
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	5.4 – 6.1
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	2%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	1%

Ecological dynamics

Wet Sandy Floodplains are hydrologically active sites; water tables fluctuate repeatedly in the soils and the surface is often reworked by floodwater. Moreover, these sites serve as groundwater conduits that maintain stream flow. This function alone places these sites in the critically-important habitat category. There are three main vegetation states on this site: the Reference State, which is the most common state; the Invaded State, which is becoming more common; and the Ponded State, which is the least common state.

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
Sedges-Shrubs Phase

This community phase is governed by water level. Any more water in the system would push it toward the aquatic, Ponded State, less water would increase woody vegetation. Seemingly, a delicate balance is maintained. The factor that acts a safety valve for maintaining this phase is the open drainage afforded by the stream or river. As long as that particular water course is flowing the hydrologic system on this site can equilibrate toward a lower water level and the terrestrial nature of the site in maintained.

Community 1.2
Shrubs-Trees Phase

State 2
Invaded/Disturbed State

...

Community 2.1
Reed Canary Grass Phase

Community 2.2
Converted Phase

...

State 3
Ponded State

Community 3.1
Open Water Phase

...

Community 3.2
Mud Flat Phase

...

Additional community tables

Supporting information

Other references

Attig JW. 1985 Pleistocene geology of Vilas County, Wisconsin. Wis. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Information Circular 50. 38 pp.
Black MR., Judziewicz EJ. 2009. Wildflowers of Wisconsin and the Great Lakes Region: a comprehensive field guide. 2nd ed. Univ. Wisc. Press 275pp. Bertness MD, Hacker SD. 1994. Physical stress and positive associations among marsh plants. American Naturalist 144: 363-372.
Boelter DH, Verry ES. 1977. Peatland and water in the northern Lake States. General Tech. Report NC-31, North Cent. Forest Exp. Station, USDA-Forest Service. 22 pp.
Brinson M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. US Army COE. 101 pp.
Chapin CT, Bridgham SD, Pastor J. 2004. pH and nutrient effects on above-ground net primary productivity in a Minnesota, USA bog and fen. Wetlands 24(1):186-201.
Cohen JG, Kost MA. 2008. Natural community abstract for poor fen. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 17 pp.
Crum H. 1988. A Focus on Peatlands and Peat Mosses. Univ. Mich. Press. 306 pp.
Curtis JT. 1971. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: an ordination of plant communities. Univ. Wisc. Press. 657 pp.
ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Epstein E, Smith W, Dobberpuhl J, Galvin A. 1999. Biotic inventory and analysis of the Northern Highland-American Legion State Forest. Bureau of Endangered Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 263pp.
Faber-Langedoen D, editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. + appendix (705 pp.).
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Frolking S, Roulet NT, Moore TR, Richard PJH, Lavoie M, Muller SD. 2001. Modelling northern peatland decomposition and peat accumulation. Ecosystems 4:479-498.
Heinselman ML. 1963. Forest sites, bog processes, and peatland types in the glacial lake Agassiz region, Minnesota. Ecol. Monographs 33:327-374.
Hipp AL. 2008. Field Guide to Wisconsin Sedges: An introduction to the genus Carex (Cyperaceae). Univ. Wisc. Press. 265pp.
Hribljan JA. 2012. The effect of long-term water table manipulations on vegetation, pore water, substrate quality, and carbon cycling in a northern poor fen peatland. PhD dissertation Mich. Tech. Univ.
Judziewicz EJ, Freckman RW, Clark LG, Black MR. 2014. Field Guide to Wisconsin Grasses. Univ. Wisc. Press. 346pp.
Kotar J, Burger TL. 2009. Habitat Type Classification for Wetland Forests, Region 3 (prelim. ver.) University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Forest and Wildlife Ecology. 43 pp.
Kotar J, Kovach JA, Burger TL. 2002. A Guide to Forest Communities and Habitat Types of Northern Wisconsin. 2nd ed. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Forest Ecology and Management.
Kowalski KP, Wilcox DA. 2003. Differences in sedge fen vegetation upstream and downstream from a managed impoundment. American Midland Naturalist 150(2):199-220.
Kozlowski TT, Pallardy SG. 2002. Acclimation and adaptive responses of woody plants to environmental stresses. The Botanical Review 68(2): 270-334.
Leifeld J, Muller M, Fuhrer J. 2011. Peatland subsidence and carbon loss from drained temperate fens. Soil Use and Management 27(2):170-176.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING: WETLANDS AND WATER Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Mitchell SJ. 2013. Wind as a natural disturbance in forests; a synthesis. Forestry 86:147-157.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: An overview and modification to better meet the needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note No. 190–8–76.
Novitzki R. 1982. Hydrology of Wisconsin Wetlands. Info. Circ. 40 Wis. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. 22 pp.
Pielou EC. 1991. After the Ice Age: the return of life to glaciated North America. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 366 pp.
Rydin H, Jeglum J. 2013. The Biology of Peatlands, 2nd ed. Oxford Univ. Press 382 pp.
Scheffer, RA, Van Logtestijn, RS, Verhoeven, JTA. 2001. Decomposition of Carex and Sphagnum litter in two mesotrophic fens differing in dominant plant species. Oikos 92: 44–54.
Venterink HO, van der Vliet RE, Wassen MJ. 2001. Nutrient limitation along a productivity gradient in wet meadows. Plant and Soil 234:171-179.
Weltzin JF, Bridgham SD, Pastor J, Chen J, Harth C. 2002. Potential effects of warming and drying on peatland plant community composition. Global Change Biology 9:141-151.
Weltzin JF, Pastor J, Harth C, Bridgham SD, Updegraff K, Chapin CT. 2000. Response of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water-table manipulations. Ecology 81(12):3464-3478.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2014. The ecological landscapes of Wisconsin: an assessment of ecological resources and a guide to planning sustainable management. Chapter 14, Northern Highland Ecological Landscape. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PUB-SS-1131P 2014, Madison. 84 pp.
Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) 2011. Wisconsin’s Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptations. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison & the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
Zedler JB. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15(10):402-407.
Zobel RW. 1992. Soil environment constraints to root growth. Adv. Soil Science 19:27-51.
Zweig CL, Kitchens WM. 2009. Multi-state succession in wetlands: a novel use of state and transition models. Ecology 90(7):1900-1909.

Contributors

Mark Krupinski

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
Approved by
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