Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F096XB019MI
Rich Sandy Drift
Last updated: 9/11/2024
Accessed: 08/17/2026
-
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): 096X–Northwestern Michigan Fruit Belt
This area is dominated by outwash plains and moraines. Lake plains, till plains, drumlins, and sand dunes are found locally across the area. The terrain is steep on stream carved moraines, ice contact ridges, and sand dunes, and flat on outwash plains and lake plains. Elevation ranges from 177 to 369 m (580 to 1210 ft). Local topographic relief averages 11 m (35 ft) in the south to 20 m (65 ft) in the north and ranges up to a maximum of 158 m (520 ft) at Empire Bluff (Sleeping Bear Dunes). Much of the area rises sharply from the lakeshore to the adjoining hilltops. The Manistee River is the longest river in this area. Its trout fishery is maintained by constant inflow of cool ground water from the porous sand dominated landscape. The Pine and Pere Marquette Rivers also occur in this MLRA. Surficial topography are formed of glacial deposits except for local areas with dune building near Lake Michigan. Most of the bedrock surface is at or below the elevation of Lake Michigan, and is exposed in only in limited extents near Charlevoix. The bedrock, all Paleozoic in age, is the Traverse Group and the Dundee Limestone. These Silurian-Devonian rocks are mostly limestone and dolomite with some interbedded shale, chert, and anhydrite stringers. The drumlin belts in the northern portion of the area is the most affected by the limestone nearer to the surface in terms of carbonates in the till.
About two-thirds of this area is in small, privately owned holdings, and one-third consists mostly of State forests. The forests are used mainly for timber production and recreation. The growth of orchard crops and other crops and dairy and beef operations are important enterprises in the area. Forage and feed grains for dairy and other livestock are the principal crops. Asparagus, wheat, oats, corn, and hay are commonly grown in the area. Orchard products include sweet and tart cherries, apples, plums, and peaches. The Manistee National Forest and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore are among the more notable conservation lands in the area. Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is within the Manistee National Forest. Sections of the Pere Marquette, Pine, and Manistee Rivers, and Bear Creek have been designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Summary of existing land use:
Upland Forest (52%)
Hardwood (38%)
Conifer (11%)
Agricultural (15%)
Swamps and Marshes (13%)
Developed (13%)Classification relationships
According to the USFS (Bailey) system of ecoregions, the site is located mostly within 212Ha (Oceana Sandy Lake Plains and Dunes) and 212Hb (Manistee Sandy Outwash Plain) subsections. According to the EPA (Omernik) system of ecoregions, the site is located in 50ag (Newaygo Barrens) and northern 56d (Michigan Lake Plain) 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 phases 30-33, 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 in moderate annual snowfall belt, mostly south of Manistee River, where fire was locally important. Area has a more southern flora than sites further north. Vegetation trending towards mesophytic forest with a poor herb understory and a low fire frequency.
Associated sites
F096XB020MI Sandy Drift
Similar sites
F096XA006MI Snowy Rich Sandy Drift
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Fagus grandifolia
(2) Pinus strobusShrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Maianthemum canadense
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 low Elevation 577 – 1201 ft Water table depth 39 – 0 in Aspect W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW Climatic features
Mean annual temperatures are 7.1 to 8.5 °C (45 to 47 °F). The warmest six months average 15.5 to 16.5 °C (60 to 62 °F). Mean July temperatures range from 20.0 to 21.1 °C (68 to 70 °F). Mean January temperatures range from -6.7 to -3.9 °C (20 to 25 °F). The maximum monthly average daily highs are 25.5 to 28.1 °C (78 to 83 °F). The minimum monthly average daily lows are -11.2 to -7.3 °C (12 to 19 °F). Mean annual precipitation ranges from 850 to 920 mm (33 to 36 in). Prevailing winds pick up moisture from the Great Lakes in the form of lake effect rain and snow showers during fall and winter seasons, and in the form of fog during spring and summer. Thunderstorm intensity is reduced by temperature inversions over the lake during the spring and early summer when lake water is cools the air flowing over it. Average 0 °C (32 °F) frost-free season ranges from 108 to 161 days. Average -2 °C (28 °F) freeze-free season is 141 to 194 days increasing in length from north to south and decreasing in length from the lakeshore inward. Mean annual snowfall ranges from 1.6 to 2.5 m (60 to 100 in). Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -29 to -18.9 °C (-20 to -2 °F), or hardiness zones 4b to 6b.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 100-110 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 130-140 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 90-120 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 120-150 days Precipitation total (actual range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (average) 110 days Freeze-free period (average) 130 days Precipitation total (average) 40 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) HART 3 WSW [USC00203632], Hart, MI
-
(2) MONTAGUE 4 NW [USC00205567], Montague, MI
-
(3) HESPERIA 4 WNW [USC00203769], Hesperia, MI
-
(4) BALDWIN [USC00200446], Baldwin, MI
-
(5) MANISTEE 3SE [USC00205065], Manistee, 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 Entic Haplorthods, Psammentic Hapludalfs, and Arenic Hapludalfs, and commonly mapped as Grattan, Spinks, and Benona series or components. The top 50 cm has a typical pH of 5.7 and is 90% sand and 0.6% organic matter. At depth, pH ranges up to 6.5, 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 Soil depth 79 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 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)4.5 – 6 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 10 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 5 % Ecological dynamics
Rich 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, 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 textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateDominant plant species
-
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tree
-
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), tree
-
Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), other herbaceous
Community 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, 9/11/2024
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 08/17/2026 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
