Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F094AA006MI
Snowy Sandy Drift
Last updated: 9/10/2024
Accessed: 08/10/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral 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): 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 212Hc (Interlobate End and Ground Moraines), 212He (Kalkaska Sandy Moraines), and 212Hi (Wolverine Moraines) subsections. According to the EPA (Omernik) system of ecoregions, the site is located in western 50ac (Onaway Moraines), western 50ad (Vanderbilt Moraines), and 50af (Cadillac Hummocky Moraines) level IV ecoregions. This site roughly corresponds to PArVHa, in the Kotar system. This site corresponds to the Dry Ice Contact Sand Hills, ecological land type phases 20-23, in the USFS Ecological Land Type system.
Ecological site concept
The central concept of Snowy Sandy Drift is uplands with a seasonal high watertable greater than 100 cm in depth (excessively drained to moderately well drained) and lacking a dark brown spodic (Bhs) horizon in the soil profile (may have a Bs or Bw horizon). 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 in the heavy annual snowfall belt, mostly west of Houghton Lake where fire was rare. Vegetation trending towards mesophytic forest with a poor herb understory and a low fire frequency.
Associated sites
F094AA005MI Snowy Rich Sandy Drift
F094AA007MI Snowy Acidic Sandy Depression
Similar sites
F094AB019MI Dry Sandy Plains
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Fagus grandifolia
(2) Pinus strobusShrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Maianthemum canadense
Physiographic features
Site occurs mostly on sandy outwash plains, with minor amounts of coarse textured ice contact, glacial till, and lake plain deposits with similar properties. Landforms are mostly gently sloping, but there are no upper limits to slope defined.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Outwash plain
(2) Kame
Runoff class Negligible to medium Elevation 620 – 1699 ft Water table depth 59 – 0 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
Mean annual temperatures are 5.8 to 7.4 °C (42 to 45 °F). The warmest six months average 14.2 to 15.9 °C (58 to 61 °F). Mean July temperatures range from 18.6 to 20.6 °C (65 to 69 °F). Mean January temperatures range from -8.3 to -5.7 °C (17 to 22 °F). The maximum monthly average daily highs are 24.9 to 27.5 °C (77 to 82 °F). The minimum monthly average daily lows are -13.2 to -10 °C (8 to 14 °F). Temperatures generally decrease with elevation and latitude. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 770 to 910 mm (30 to 36 in). 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 1.5 to 4.1 m (60 to 160 in). 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) 90-110 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 120-140 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 90-120 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 120-140 days Precipitation total (actual range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (average) 100 days Freeze-free period (average) 130 days Precipitation total (average) 30 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) GAYLORD 9SSW [USC00203099], Gaylord, MI
-
(2) CADILLAC [USW00014817], Cadillac, MI
-
(3) GAYLORD [USC00203096], Gaylord, MI
-
(4) BIG RAPIDS WTR WKS [USC00200779], Big Rapids, MI
-
(5) KALKASKA [USC00204257], Kalkaska, MI
-
(6) BOYNE FALLS [USC00200925], Boyne City, MI
-
(7) EAST JORDAN [USC00202381], East Jordan, MI
-
(8) LAKE CITY EXP FARM [USC00204502], Lake City, MI
">Influencing water features
Lower slope positions and finer substrates may have a seasonal high water table 100-200 cm in depth. Well drained upper slope positions are 200 cm or more from the water table.<br />
Soil features
Soils are well drained to excessively well drained sands. They are commonly classified Alfic Haplorthods, Entic Haplorthods, and Lamellic Udipsamments, and commonly mapped as Montcalm, Rubicon, and Blue Lake series or components. The top 50 cm has a typical pH of 5.7 and is 90% sand and 0.7% organic matter. At depth, pH ranges up to 6.4, and texture averages 85% sand and 5% clay. Depth to impeded hydraulic conductivity or root restrictive layers averages >200 cm. Depth to carbonates averages >200 cm.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Outwash
Surface texture (1) Sand
Drainage class Well drained to excessively drained Permeability class Moderately rapid to rapid Soil depth 79 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 5 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 1 % 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)0 – 10 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 5 % Ecological dynamics
Snowy Sandy Drift tends to share the same ecological dynamics as Natureserve/Landfire system, Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest. Stand replacing fires occurred every 250-950 years, with light surface fires every 140-550 years. Overstory was dominated by a mix of fire dependent, early successional pine (Pinus spp.) or oak (Quercus spp.), and late successional beech (Fagus grandifolia) and maple (Acer spp.). Understory is composed of shade-tolerant, acid-tolerant forbs such as Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense). Kotar community, PArVHa (Pinus strobus-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium spp.-Hamamelis virginiana), understory indicator species include: Aralia nudicaulis, Epigaea repens, Eurybia macrophylla, Gaultheria procumbens, Gaylussacia baccata, Hamamelis virginiana, Maianthemum canadense, Maianthemum racemosum, Pteridium aquilinum, and Vaccinium angustifolium (Wild Sarsaparilla, Trailing-arbutus, Big-leaved Aster, Teaberry, Black Huckleberry, Witch-hazel, Canada Mayflower, Feathery Solomon's-plume, Bracken Fern, and Northern Lowbush Blueberry).
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 textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateCommunity 1.1
Mesophytic Conifer Forest: Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Great Lakes ForestCommunity 1.2
Dry-Mesophytic Hardwood Forest: Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - (Quercus velutina, Acer rubrum) / Viburnum acerifolium ForestCommunity 1.3
Native Ruderal Forest: Populus (tremuloides, grandidentata) - Betula (populifolia, papyrifera) Ruderal WoodlandCommunity 1.4
Pine Forest: Pinus resinosa - Pinus strobus - (Quercus rubra) / Corylus cornuta ForestPathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Blowdown/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 1.3Blowdown/clearcut
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.1C
Community 1.1 to 1.4Crown fire, or blowdown/clearcut with fire in close succession.
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Succession
Pathway 1.2C
Community 1.2 to 1.3Blowdown/clearcut
Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.4Crown 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 1.1Succession
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.2Succession if fire consumed any subsequent pine regeneration.
Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.4Light fire removes the leaf litter, allowing for pine seedlings to establish followed by succession.
Pathway 1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.1Succession.
Pathway 1.4C
Community 1.4 to 1.2Blowdown/clearcut followed by fire a few years after, destroying conifer regeneration, deferentially favoring oak regeneration.
Pathway 1.4B
Community 1.4 to 1.3Blowdown, clearcut, or crown fire, with establishment of clonal tree species.
State 2
Cultural StateCommunity 2.1
Sustainable AgricultureCommunity 2.2
Unsustainable AgricultureCommunity 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 2.2Apply unsustainable farming techniques.
Pathway 2.1B
Community 2.1 to 2.3Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover Grassed Waterway Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Apply sustainable farming techniques.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation Cover Crop Nutrient Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Pathway 2.2B
Community 2.2 to 2.3Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover Grassed Waterway Pathway 2.3A
Community 2.3 to 2.1Revert to sustainable agriculture.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation Cover Crop Nutrient Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Pathway 2.3B
Community 2.3 to 2.2Revert to unsustainable agriculture.
State 3
Seminatural StateCommunity 3.1
Ruderal Meadow & Shrubland: Dactylis glomerata - Festuca spp. - Solidago canadensis Ruderal Mesic Meadow AllianceCommunity 3.2
Exotic Ruderal Forest: Acer platanoides - Ailanthus altissima - Pinus spp. Exotic Ruderal Forest AlliancePathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Succession
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Blowdown/clearcut
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced
Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1Remove 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 3Abandoned, succession
Restoration pathway R3
State 3 to 1Control 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 2Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
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, 9/10/2024
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 08/10/2026 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:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
