Ecological site F094DY009WI

F094DY010WI	Wet Sandy Depressions Wet Sandy Depressions are common within larger Wet Sandy Drainageways.

Tree	(1) Acer rubrum (2) Abies balsamea
Shrub	(1) Corylus cornuta (2) Vaccinium myrtilloides
Herbaceous	(1) Clintonia borealis (2) Trientalis borealis

Landforms	(1) Drainageway (2) Flat (3) Draw
Flooding frequency	None
Ponding frequency	None
Elevation	1390 – 1850 ft
Slope	0 – 4 %
Ponding depth	0 in
Water table depth	6 – 42 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Frost-free period (average)	110 days
Freeze-free period (average)	130 days
Precipitation total (average)	30 in

Surface texture	(1) Loamy sand (2) Sand
Family particle size	(1) Sandy
Drainage class	Somewhat poorly drained
Permeability class	Rapid to very rapid
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0 – 5 %
Surface fragment cover >3"	0 – 2 %
Available water capacity (0-40in)	4 – 6 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in)	Not specified
Electrical conductivity (0-40in)	0 – 2 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in)	Not specified
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	4.9 – 6.1
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	2 – 20 %
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 2 %

Ecological dynamics

The Wet Sandy Drainageways ecological site is subject to a number of disturbance factors: wind damage, animal herbivory, snow and ice damage. However, disturbance caused by excess wetness is rare. In other words, the site is not subject ponding and will drain rapidly under normal conditions. The seasonal high water does occur within one foot of the surface in most years but the vegetation is well adapted to this level of wetness. Even after a clearcut, the site does not get too wet to regenerate forest trees, as wetland sites generally do. The fact that this site is a natural drainageway with porous soils means that water readily flows through this system from higher to lower elevations and that anaerobic conditions are transitory. Thus a large part of the root zone is oxygenated throughout the growing season.

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

The Reference State for this ecological has three main phases, and these are complicated by the fact that this site is both highly productive and many species are adapted to grow on it. Also, documenting these phases is complicated by the fact that logging has decimated the reference state, and also by the fact that natural regeneration of white spruce cover types is problematic in the modern era, presumably for a variety of reasons including: competition from better adapted species, loss of prolific seed trees, insect damage and slow growth rates.

Community 1.1
Quaking Aspen-Balsam Fir Phase

This is the early successional phase that was started by a stand-replacing disturbance event.

Community 1.2
Red Maple-White Spruce Phase

This mid-successional phase results from a more stable period with less disturbance. White spruce is a slow-growing species with poor reproductive potential.

Community 1.3
White Pine-White Spruce Phase

This late successional phase was common on this site in the pre-logging era, but has since become exceedingly rare in the modern era.

State 2
Cutover State

The Cutover State has largely replaced the Reference State on this site. Loggers in the past targeted the large white pine and white spruce that occurred on this site. There are two phases of this state and many intergrades of these phases. A variety of tree species will grow on this site but there are numerous conditions issues (tree damage) owing to numerous site-related disturbance factors and a high level of plant competition.

Community 2.1
Quaking Aspen-Balsam Fir Phase

This phase has become one of the most abundant on this site. Mainly because quaking aspen and balsam fir are at their most productive and competitive on this site. Aspen in particular is highly productive, enough so that it has become a target species for the forest products industry.

Community 2.2
Red Maple-Balsam Fir Phase

This phase occurs when the Quaking Aspen-Balsam Fir Phase becomes senescent, if indeed that is allowed to occur. Commonly aspen is logged off, and the successional clock is set back, but some sites are missed and this phase ensues. In places, this phase is dominated by low quality hardwoods with a thick balsam fir understory that seldom matures. Red maple itself is not a highly sought-after species, and low quality hardwoods which also occur in this phase include sugar maple with common defects, multi-stem basswood trees, and short-lived and crooked-stemmed paper birch. Some very tall white pines are also present in this phase, as a reminder of their former stature.

State 3
Disturbed/Invaded State

This state is even more problematic than the Cutover State. The disturbance factors (e.g. insects and diseases) and invasive species (e.g. earthworms and garlic mustard) have the potential to reduce forest productivity on this site and spread beyond this site. In general, the productivity of this site feeds some of the more deleterious pests found on the site, so in a sense, this site becomes a fertile breeding ground for forest pests if allowed to do so.

Community 3.1
Open Canopy Phase

This phase is the result of a stand destroying disturbance, which fortunately are not extensive, but occurred intensively in small areas. High grade logging practices, which were common in the past, led to open canopy gaps that promoted low quality, readily wind damaged trees. Over-browsing by whitetail deer can prolong this phase. Defoliating insects and wind storms also opened canopy gaps. If the gap replacement trees were of low quality, genetically or structurally, then stand deterioration ensued. Beaver herbivory also led to stand replacement, as hardwoods were selected against and conifers filled the gaps. The timing of logging operations on this site is a constant concern. Operations during unfrozen periods on wet soils leads to severe rutting which reduces forest regeneration potential, increases the likelihood of invasive weeds, and is not only an aesthetic and environmental problem but also a practical operational concern with muddy logs and excessive wear on equipment on the negative list.

Community 3.2
Closed Canopy Phase

Eventually canopy closure produces this phase, which is a mix of native and non-native species. Quaking aspen and balsam fir are common, so are an array low quality hardwoods, previously discussed. This is one of the more common phases on this site due the spread of weeds, earthworms, forest trails with ruts and washouts, sediment deposits, and old forest openings with compacted soils. In other words, this phase is the result of forest regrowth on used and abused sites.

State 4
Converted State

The Converted State is the result of intentional land use changes. The forest canopy is removed and the site is bulldozed to remove stumps and other debris. In this state, the low areas get filled and the higher areas get cut, thus leveling the surface. There are two main phases to this state, the developed phase and the plantation phase.

Community 4.1
Developed Phase

This phase is mostly the result of roads and trails. The affected area is often larger than roadbed alone. Building sites are limited due to wetness.

Community 4.2
Plantation Phase

This phase is somewhat rare on this site, but attempts have been made to create white spruce or white pine plantations. Disturbed/Invaded State sites can be reclaimed in this way.

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 3.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 12. Community 4.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 13. Community 4.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

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

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F094DY009WI

Wet Sandy Drainageways

Accessed: 05/30/2026

Search

General information

Figure 1. Mapped extent

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Natural Resources
Conservation Service