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): 099X–Erie-Huron Lake Plain
This area is in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Province of the Interior Plains (USDA-NRCS, 2022). It is a nearly level glacial lake plain with a few scattered ridges of sand that represent past shorelines and moraines. The Saginaw, Clinton, and Huron Rivers empty into the Great Lakes in the part of the area in Michigan. The southern half of this area is covered with glacial deposits of till, lake sediments, and outwash from the Wisconsin and older glacial periods. The area also has some low moraines. Mississippian- to Silurian-age shale, limestone, and dolomite rocks are at or near the surface close to Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Sandstone comes near the surface in the Thumb area east of Saginaw Bay, and a sandstone headland exists on a short stretch of Lake Huron shoreline. An extensive swamp in proximity the Maumee River prevented overland travel prior to its drainage by early settlers. Remnant marshes are near the Lake Erie shore.
The dominant soils in this MLRA are Alfisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aquic soil moisture regime, and mixed or illitic mineralogy. Most soils in MLRA 99 are very deep, generally somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained, and loamy or clayey. Epiaqualfs (Blount, Hoytville, Nappanee, and Shebeon series) and Glossudalfs (Capac series) formed in till (some of which is dense) on till plains, moraines, and lake plains. Epiaquepts formed in loamy till on till plains and moraines (Kilmanagh series) and in lacustrine deposits on lake plains (Lenawee and Paulding series). Endoaquepts formed in lacustrine deposits on lake plains (Latty and Toledo series) and in loamy till on moraines (Parkhill series). Endoaquolls formed in outwash deposits on outwash plains and lake plains, in drainageways (Granby series), and in loamy till on till plains and moraines (Tappan series). Endoaquods (Pipestone series) formed in outwash deposits on outwash plains, lake plains, and beach ridges. Epiaquods (Wixom series) formed in sandy sediments over till or lacustrine deposits on till plains, outwash plains, and lake plains.
Broad flat areas of somewhat poorly drained soils support Landfire (2017) systems: North-Central Interior Beech-Maple Forest, with wetter patches of North-Central Interior Wet Flatwoods, and Central Interior and Appalachian Swamp. Sandy beach ridges and thin sand flats have Landfire (2017) systems: North-Central Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest and Woodland and Great Lakes Wet-Mesic Lakeplain Prairie. Central Interior and Appalachian Floodplain Systems occur adjacent to rivers that flow through the area. To the north, oak systems decline in coverage. Thin sandy flats in the north have Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest. The north and south are best separated as ecological inference areas due to floristic and dominant vegetation contrasts which also correspond to generally lower summer and winter temperatures northward. This north-south break is approximated by the drainage divide between the Lake Huron and Lake Erie/Lake St. Clair basins.
Nearly three-fourths of this MLRA is in farms. About three-fifths of the area is cropland. The rest of the farmland is mostly in small farm woodlots, but some of the farmland is used for permanent pasture or other purposes. Cash crops are important. Corn, winter wheat, soybeans, and hay are the major crops. Sugar beets and canning crops also are important. Some fruit and truck crops are grown on the coarse textured soils. Dairying is an important enterprise on some farms near the larger cities. Almost one-fifth of the area is used for urban development. Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge, Oak Openings Preserve Metropark (Ohio) are among the more notable conservation lands.
Summary of existing land use (South):
Upland Forest (7%)
Hardwood (6%)
Agricultural (60%)
Developed (28%)
Summary of existing land use (North):
Upland Forest (14%)
Hardwood (13%)
Agricultural (58%)
Developed (13%)
Swamps and Marshes (13%)
Classification relationships
The USFS ecoregion classification (Cleland et al., 2007) for the majority of MLRA 99 is the Humid Temperate, Hot Continental Division, Midwest Broadleaf Forest Province 222, Lake Whittlesey Glaciolacustrine Plain Section 222U. The ecoregion subsection composition is 222Ud (Sandusky Lake Plain) and 222Ue (Saginaw Clay Lake and Till Plain) in the north near Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay. In the south near Lake Erie, the area is composed of subsections 222Ua (Maumee Lake Plain), 222Ub (Paulding Plains), and 222Uc (Marblehead Drift/Limestone Plain). A mix of interlobate deposits extends into MLRA 99 as subsection 222Jf (Lum Interlobate Moraine) of South Central Great Lakes Section 222J. Sandy deposits extend south from adjacent MLRA are part the Warm Continental Division, Laurentian Mixed Forest Province 212, Northern Lower Peninsula Section 212H, subsection 212Hh (Gladwin Silty Lake Plain).
The Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron lake plains is coextensive with EPA ecoregion 57e (Saginaw Lake Plain) (Omernik and Griffith, 2014). The majority of the Lake Erie or Maumee Lake Plain includes EPA ecoregion 57a (Maumee Lake Plain), extending east to include 57d (Marblehead Drift/Limestone Plain). Large inclusions of sand are delineated as ecoregion 57b (Oak Openings). A significant area of higher clay is designated as 57c (Paulding Plains).
Ecological site concept
The central concept of Moist Floodplains is soils subject to river or creek flooding of short duration (non hydric). The vegetation is mostly mesophytic forest.
Site occurs on floodplains of small streams or floodplain terraces of large rivers.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms
(1) Flood plain
Runoff class
Negligible to medium
Flooding duration
Extremely brief (0.1 to 4 hours) to brief (2 to 7 days)
Flooding frequency
Rare to occasional
Elevation
571–896 ft
Water table depth
10 in
Aspect
Aspect is not a significant factor
Climatic features
This ecological site experiences a humid continental climate with mild summers and cold winters. Precipitation is moderately well distributed through the year with higher amounts during the growing season than the winter.
Temperature extremes are moderated in immediate proximity to the Great Lakes, but this moderation has minimal effect inland due to prevailing winds blowing mainly offshore. Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -26.6 to -18.8 °C (-16 to -2 °F), which falls within hardiness zones 5a to 6a (USDA, 2009). In general, temperatures are cooler northward, though local city heat island effects may interrupt this pattern.
The lack of significant topographic relief and general downwind direction to the Great Lakes likely contribute to this MLRA having lower annual precipitation and snowfall compared to the MLRA to the west. Mean annual snowfall ranges from 0.7 to 1.5 m (25 to 55 in). In general, snowfall is highest northward.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range)
127-147 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)
157-184 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)
32-35 in
Frost-free period (actual range)
112-152 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)
146-188 days
Precipitation total (actual range)
32-37 in
Frost-free period (average)
134 days
Freeze-free period (average)
169 days
Precipitation total (average)
34 in
Characteristic range
Actual range
Bar
Line
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic range
Actual range
Bar
Line
Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic range
Actual range
Bar
Line
Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
Bar
Line
Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
(1) SANDUSKY [USC00207350], Sandusky, MI
(2) YALE 1 NNW [USC00209188], Yale, MI
(3) FINDLAY WPCC [USC00332791], Findlay, OH
(4) PAULDING [USC00336465], Paulding, OH
(5) SAGINAW MBS INTL AP [USW00014845], Freeland, MI
(6) CASS CITY 1 SSW [USC00201361], Cass City, MI
(7) DEARBORN [USC00202015], Dearborn, MI
(8) ESSEXVILLE [USC00202631], Bay City, MI
(9) MIDLAND [USC00205434], Midland, MI
(10) STANDISH 5SW [USC00207820], Bentley, MI
(11) DEFIANCE [USC00332098], Defiance, OH
(12) FREMONT AG STN [USC00332976], Fremont, OH
(13) ALMA [USC00200146], Alma, MI
(14) SAGINAW #3 [USC00207222], Saginaw, MI
(15) NAPOLEON [USC00335669], Napoleon, OH
(16) TOLEDO EXPRESS AP [USW00094830], Monclova, OH
(17) DETROIT METRO AP [USW00094847], Romulus, MI
(18) BAD AXE [USC00200417], Bad Axe, MI
(19) HOYTVILLE 2 NE [USC00333874], Cygnet, OH
(20) TIFFIN [USC00338313], Tiffin, OH
(21) WAUSEON WTP [USC00338822], Wauseon, OH
(22) MT CLEMENS ANG BASE [USW00014804], Harrison Township, MI
(23) GLADWIN [USW00014828], Beaverton, MI
(24) CARO WWTP [USC00201299], Caro, MI
(25) MONROE [USC00205558], Monroe, MI
Influencing water features
Site subject to temporary flooding during the growing season, at short enough duration so as not to exclude flood sensitive species. Seasonal high water table generally below the depth of a majority of roots, more that 25 cm.
Soil features
Soils are well drained to somewhat poorly drained sand and loam. They are commonly classified Fluvaquentic Hapludolls, Aeric Fluvaquents, and Fluventic Eutrudepts, and commonly mapped as Ceresco, Shoals, and Genesee series or components.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material
(1) Alluvium
Surface texture
(1) Sand
(2) Silt
(3) Loam
Drainage class
Well drained to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability class
Moderately slow to moderately rapid
Soil depth
79 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"
0–1%
Surface fragment cover >3"
0–1%
Available water capacity (0-39.4in)
1.97–9.84 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-19.7in)
6–7
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-59.1in)
0–5%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-59.1in)
0–1%
Ecological dynamics
Moist Floodplain tends to share the same ecological dynamics as Natureserve/Landfire system, Central Interior and Appalachian Floodplain Systems (Landfire, 2017). Stand replacing fires occurred extremely rarely, while light surface fires happened every 30-100 years. Occasional brief duration flooding may transport nutrients and enhance vegetation growth. Although the site is non hydric, overstory was dominated by flood tolerant green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and calcium-loving hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). The flood disturbed understory favors clonal grasses like Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus).
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
The Reference State consists of plant-community-types in settings where natural ecological processes are operating that are unmanaged or only minimally-managed by land-use conditioning, e.g., ranging from old-growth plant community-types (sometimes construed as mature, or pre-settlement vegetation) to inherent transitional ruderal plant community-type phases.
The Cultural State includes settings where natural ecological processes are absent or eclipsed by significant land-use conditioning and the conversion/transformation of plant cover is considered as Cultivated/Pasture/Plantation.
Community 2.1 Sustainable Agriculture
Community 2.2 Unsustainable Agriculture
Community 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 2.2
Apply unsustainable farming techniques.
Pathway 2.1B Community 2.1 to 2.3
Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover
Grassed Waterway
Pathway 2.2A Community 2.2 to 2.1
Apply sustainable farming techniques.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation
Cover Crop
Nutrient Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Pathway 2.2B Community 2.2 to 2.3
Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover
Grassed Waterway
Pathway 2.3A Community 2.3 to 2.1
Revert to sustainable agriculture.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation
Cover Crop
Nutrient Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Pathway 2.3B Community 2.3 to 2.2
Revert to unsustainable agriculture.
State 3 Semi-natural State
The Semi-natural State consists of plant community-types in settings where natural ecological processes are primarily still operating but with some land-use conditioning in the past or present, e.g., varieties of managed sites with replacement plant community-types such as results of harvests or planting, or settings that possess a significant artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants.
Community 3.1 Ruderal Meadow & Shrubland
Community 3.2 Exotic Ruderal Forest
Pathway 3.1A Community 3.1 to 3.2
Succession
Pathway 3.2A Community 3.2 to 3.1
Blowdown/clearcut
Transition T1A State 1 to 2
Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species
Transition T1B State 1 to 3
Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced
Restoration pathway R2 State 2 to 1
Remove 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 3
Abandoned, succession
Restoration pathway R3 State 3 to 1
Control 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 2
Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species
Additional community tables
Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Future work, as described in a future 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.
Other references
References consulted for MLRA 99 PES:
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.
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.
Brewer, L.G. and Vankat, J.L., 2004. Description of Vegetation of the Oak Openings of Northwestern Ohio at the Time of Euro-American Settlement1. The Ohio Journal of Science, 104(4):76-85.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H.McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. [Map. presentation scale 1:3,500,000, colored; A.M. Sloan, cartographer] Gen. Tech. Report WO-76D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. (https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/73326-wo-gtr-76d-cleland2007.pdf)
Forsyth, J.L., 1970. A geologist looks at the natural vegetation map of Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 70(3): 180-190.
GHCN, 2016. Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Versions 2 and 3 (temperature and precipitation data). NOAA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/
Knopp, P.D., 2012. The Distribution of Quercus rubra in the Maumee Lake Plain of Southeastern Michigan. The American Midland Naturalist, 168(1):70-92.
Kost, M. A. et al., 2010. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description, Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 2014. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environmental Management 54:1249–1266.
PRISM Climate Group. 2013. Gridded 30 Year Normals, 1981-2010. Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu
Shanks, R.E., 1953. Forest Composition and Species Association in the Beech-Maple Forest Region of Western Ohio. Ecology, 34(3), pp.455-466.
USDA-NRCS, 2022. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 296.
USDA, 2009. Plant Hardiness Zone Map, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2011. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/
Contributors
Greg J. Schmidt
Approval
Nels Barrett, 6/04/2024
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
01/25/2024
Approved by
Nels Barrett
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:
The 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.
Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.
The server returned a "500 Internal Server Error".
Something is broken. Please let us know what you were doing when this error occurred.
We will fix it as soon as possible. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
