Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F003XY701OR
High Cascades
Wet
Last updated: 2/03/2025
Accessed: 06/28/2026
-
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.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Tsuga mertensiana
Shrub (1) Vaccinium scoparium
Herbaceous (1) Chimaphila umbellata
Physiographic features
The site is on deep, moderately well drained and moderate to steeply sloping soils cindercones, glacial moraines and pumice and ash flow deposits.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Ground moraine
(2) Cinder cone
(3) Ash flow
Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 4500 – 7500 ft Slope 0 – 60 % Water table depth 60 in Aspect N Climatic features
Precipitation comes mostly as snow. Winters are snowy and cold. Summers are cool and dry. Summer thunderstorms do occur, providing occasional summer precipitation.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 50 days Freeze-free period (average) 90 days Precipitation total (average) 100 in BarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 3. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
None
Soil features
Soils derived from the volcanic activity of Mount Mazama. They formed from ash flows from the eruption and as cinder cones developed on the flanks of the volcano. Soils that developed from glacial activity are also included.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Paragravelly loamy sand
(2) Gravelly loam
Family particle size (1) Sandy
Drainage class Moderately well drained to excessively drained Permeability class Moderate to very rapid Soil depth 20 – 60 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 5 – 35 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 35 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)3.4 – 14.7 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)5.6 – 6.5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)15 – 50 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 50 % Ecological dynamics
Mountain hemlock is the dominant specie in the overstory, with lesser amounts of Shasta red fir and Western white pine present. The major disturbance factor in this site is fire and disease.
Due to the high elevation and long periods of snow cover, fire return intervals are long (possibly 400+ years). When fire does occur it is usually a stand replacement fire, consuming all trees. After such a fire Lodgepole pine, a pioneer specie, establishes and starts the succession process all over again.
Older mountain hemlock trees are susceptible to disease, especialy laminated root rot (phellinus weirii). The disease kills trees creating openings for grass/forb/shrub growth or for new seedlings to become established.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
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 1
ReferenceCommunity 1.1
Mountain HemlockThe historic climax plant community is comprised mostly of an overstory of Mountain hemlock. Other species that maybe present in the overstory are Shasta red fir, Western white pine, Lodgepole pine and subalpine fir. The understory is sparce and specie richness is very low. Only one plant makes up the shrub component of the understory, grouse huckleberry. Forbs/grasses makes up a very small percentage of the remaining ground cover.
Forest overstory.At maturity Mountain hemlock dominates the overstory.
Forest understory. The typical annual production of the understory species to a height of 4.5 feet (excluding boles of trees) under low, high, and representative canopy covers. The understory composition is in "percent canopy cover." A "0" is used to show less than 1 percent canopy.
Table 5. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 30-40% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-20% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-0% Forb foliar cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 20-30% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-20% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 10-20% Table 6. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-0% Forb basal cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 50-60% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-20% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 10-20% Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 0-1% 0-2% >0.5 <= 1 0-1% 10-15% – – >1 <= 2 0-1% 1-5% – – >2 <= 4.5 0-1% – – – >4.5 <= 13 1-3% – – – >13 <= 40 1-3% – – – >40 <= 80 35-45% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.2
Shasta Red FirShasta red fir is a seral plant community that occurs when some disturbance negatively effects the mountain hemlock allowing shasta red fir to become dominant in the overstory or on a successional path from the lodgepole pine plant community to mountain hemlock plant community.
Forest overstory.The typical forest overstory composition for the Shasta red fir plant community.
Forest understory. The typical annual production of the understory species to a height of 4.5 feet (excluding boles of trees) under low, high, and representative canopy covers. A "0" shows a canopy cover of less than 1%.
Table 8. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 20-30% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0-0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-10% Forb foliar cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0-0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 20-30% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0-0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 20-30% Table 9. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0-0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-0% Forb basal cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 40-50% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0-10% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 20-20% Table 10. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – 0-1% 2-4% 1-3% >0.5 <= 1 – – 0-1% – >1 <= 2 0-1% – – – >2 <= 4.5 0-1% – – – >4.5 <= 13 – – – – >13 <= 40 0-2% – – – >40 <= 80 30-40% – – – >80 <= 120 1-3% – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.3
Lodgepole PineThe Lodgepole pine plant community develops after a severe disturbance occurs in the Mountain hemlock or Shasta red fir plant communities. The primary disturbance factor is a stand replacement fire (SRF). Generally, all trees are killed in a SRF fire. Lodgepole is recognized as a pioneer tree species and it easily establishes after a fire.
Forest overstory.The typical forest overstory composition for the Lodgepole pine community.
Forest understory. The typical annual production of the understory species to a height of 4.5 feet (excluding boles of trees) under low, high, and representative canopy covers.
Table 11. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 30-30% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-0% Forb foliar cover 0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 20-20% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-10% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 30-40% Table 12. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-0% Forb basal cover 0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 20-30% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 20-30% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 40-50% Table 13. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 0-2% – >0.5 <= 1 0-1% – – – >1 <= 2 0-1% – – – >2 <= 4.5 0-1% – – – >4.5 <= 13 0-1% – – – >13 <= 40 3-5% – – – >40 <= 80 20-30% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Additional community tables
Table 14. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Contributors
C Ziegler
Approval
Kirt Walstad, 2/03/2025
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 06/28/2026 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
