Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
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): 094C–Northern Michigan Limestone Lake Plains
This area is dominated by lake plains, some of which are till-floored plains. Drumlins, moraines, and outwash plains occur throughout the area. The terrain includes flat outwash and lake plains and steep slopes in areas of moraines. Elevation ranges from 177 to 300 m (580 to 985 ft). Local topographic relief averages 7 m and ranges up to 79 m (25 to 260 ft). The Cheboygan, Ocqueoc, and Thunder Bay Rivers are the major streams in the area. This area is covered with thin to thick glacial deposits. Bedrock is generally at shallow depths and is evident throughout the area. It consists of Devonian limestone and dolomite with interbedded shale, chert, and anhydrite stringers. Karst features are very common in the area.
About two-thirds of this MLRA is in small, privately owned holdings, and the other third consists of State forestland. The forests are used mainly for timber production and recreation. Dairy and beef operations are very important enterprises in the area. Forage and feed grain crops for dairy cattle and other livestock are the principal crops. Wheat, oats, corn, potatoes, and hay also are grown. Wilderness State Park Natural Area, Negwegon State Park, Atlanta State Forest, and Beaver Island State Wildlife Research Area are among the more notable conservation lands in the area.
Summary of existing land use:
Upland Forest (40%)
Hardwood (24%)
Conifer (14%)
Swamps and Marshes (32%)
Developed (10%)
Agricultural (8%)
Open Water (6%)Classification relationships
According to the USFS (Bailey) system of ecoregions, the site is located mostly within 212Hj (Presque Isle Lake and Till Plains) and 212Hl (Valders Red Till and Sandy Lake Plain) subsections. According to the EPA (Omernik) system of ecoregions, the site is located in 50ab (Cheboygan Lake Plain) and eastern 50ac (Onaway Moraines) level IV ecoregions. This site concept is outside the range of the USFS Ecological Land Type classification and the Kotar system.
Ecological site concept
The central concept of Cool Loamy Till is uplands with a seasonal high watertable greater than 50 cm in depth (excessively drained to moderately well drained) on loamy drift (till or lake plains) with soil textures loamy to clayey (upper 50 cm <70% sand). Site is in lower elevation northern portions of the MLRA where boreal conifer species are more frequent associates. Vegetation trending towards mesophytic forest with a rich herb understory and a low fire frequency.
Associated sites
F094CY029MI Cool Loamy Depression
F094CY038MI Shallow Limestone Drift
R094CY001MI Cobble Shore And Fen Complex
Similar sites
F094AB015MI Loamy Till
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Thuja occidentalis
(2) Abies balsameaShrub (1) Acer pensylvanicum
Herbaceous (1) Streptopus lanceolatus
Physiographic features
Site occurs mostly on glacial till, but minor areas of fine lake plain deposits have similar properties. Landforms are gently to steeply sloping, and range from lower to upper slope positions.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Moraine
(2) Till plain
Runoff class Low to very high Elevation 581 – 1319 ft Water table depth 59 – 0 in Aspect W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW Climatic features
Mean annual temperatures are 6.0 to 7.1 °C (43 to 45 °F). The warmest six months average 14.6 to 15.4 °C (58 to 60 °F). Mean July temperatures range from 19.1 to 20.2 °C (66 to 68 °F). Mean January temperatures range from -7.9 to -5.9 °C (18 to 21 °F). The maximum monthly average daily highs are 24.1 to 27.3 °C (75 to 81 °F). The minimum monthly average daily lows are -13.3 to -9.4 °C (8 to 15 °F). Mean annual precipitation ranges from 720 to 810 mm (28 to 32 in). The western one-third of the area is wetter than the eastern two-thirds. The precipitation occurs as both rain during the growing season and snow in winter. Average 0 °C (32 °F) frost-free season ranges from 100 to 161 days. Average -2 °C (28 °F) freeze-free season is 137 to 188 days. Mean annual snowfall ranges from 1.6 to 2.9 m (60 to 110 in). Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -31.6 to -23 °C (-25 to -9 °F), or hardiness zones 4b to 6a.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 100-120 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 130-160 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 760-770 in Frost-free period (actual range) 80-130 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 120-170 days Precipitation total (actual range) 730-780 in Frost-free period (average) 110 days Freeze-free period (average) 140 days Precipitation total (average) 760 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) ONAWAY 4N [USC00206184], Onaway, MI
-
(2) ROGERS CITY [USC00207094], Rogers City, MI
-
(3) CHEBOYGAN [USC00201492], Cheboygan, MI
-
(4) PELLSTON RGNL AP [USW00014841], Pellston, MI
-
(5) CROSS VILLAGE 1E [USC00201896], Harbor Springs, MI
-
(6) ALPENA WWTP [USW00014814], Alpena, MI
-
(7) ALPENA CO RGNL AP [USW00094849], Alpena, MI
">Influencing water features
Lower slope positions and finer substrates may have a seasonal high water table 50-100 cm in depth. Well drained upper slope positions are 100 cm or more from the water table.<br />
Soil features
Soils are moderately well drained to well drained loams or clays. They are commonly classified Inceptic Hapludalfs, Oxyaquic Glossudalfs, and Haplic Glossudalfs, and commonly mapped as Emmet, Ossineke, and Krakow series or components. The top 50 cm has a typical pH of 6.6 and is 55% sand and 0.5% organic matter. At depth, pH ranges up to 7.9, and texture averages 50% sand and 20% clay. Depth to impeded hydraulic conductivity or root restrictive layers averages 160 cm. Depth to carbonates averages 65 cm.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Till
Surface texture (1) Loam
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Moderately slow to moderately rapid Soil depth 79 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 5 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 1 % Available water capacity
(0-39.4in)5.12 – 8.66 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-19.7in)6.5 – 7.5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 35 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 15 % Ecological dynamics
Cool Loamy Till tends to share the same ecological dynamics as Natureserve/Landfire system, Boreal White Spruce-Fir-Hardwood Forest or Laurentian-Acadian Northern Hardwoods Forest. Stand replacing fires occurred every 500-2000 years, while light surface fires were very rare. Overstory was dominated by nutrient loving late successional whitecedar (Thuja occidentalis) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Drought intolerant understory tree, striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), is frequent, especially in cooler foggy areas near the lakeshore. Moderately high nutrient conditions supports late successional herbs like rosy twisted stalk (Streptopus lanceolatus).
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 StateDominant plant species
-
arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis), tree
-
balsam fir (Abies balsamea), tree
-
striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), tree
-
twistedstalk (Streptopus lanceolatus), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Mesophytic Forest: Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana / Acer spicatum / Caulophyllum thalictroides ForestCommunity 1.2
Regenerating Forest: Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana / Acer spicatum / Caulophyllum thalictroides ForestCommunity 1.3
Native Ruderal Forest: Populus (tremuloides, grandidentata) - Betula (populifolia, papyrifera) Ruderal WoodlandPathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Blowdown/clearcut
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Blowdown/clearcut
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Succession
Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1Succession
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment 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 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. 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 10/30/2023 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
