Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F003XY706OR
High Cascades Moist
Last updated: 2/04/2025
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 Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii
Physiographic features
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Stratovolcano
(2) Ash flow
Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 4500 – 7500 ft Slope 0 – 90 % Water table depth 60 in Aspect N Climatic features
Winters are long, cold, windy and snowy, due to the very high elevations. Summers are short and cool. Effective precipitation comes mostly as snow. Average annual ppt is 67 inches.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 50 days Freeze-free period (average) 60 days Precipitation total (average) 100 in BarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 3. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
Soil features
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Paragravelly loamy sand
(2) Gravelly loamy sand
(3) Ashy loamy sand
Family particle size (1) Sandy
Drainage class Well drained to excessively drained Permeability class Rapid to very rapid Soil depth 60 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 5 – 35 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 35 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)2.9 – 8 in Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)5.6 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)15 – 50 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 40 % Ecological dynamics
Mountain Hemlock plant community is the historic climax plant community. The major disturbance factor is wild fire. The fire return intervals estimated to be approximately 400 or more years. These fires are generally stand replacing fires, meaning that the fires are large and intense.
Small fires can occur that burn smaller acreages. Where small fires occur a seed source is available (mountain hemlock/shasta red fir) and the resiliency of the site allows seedling re-establishment.
Another significant disturbance factor is disease. Old Mountain hemlock are susceptible to disease, with laminated root rot (Phellinus weiri) being the top infecting agent. Openings created by disease killed trees allows other tree species (Shasta red fir, Western white pine, and Lodgepole pine) to establish.
The Shasta red fir community occurs as a successional step from the Lodgepole pine towards the Mountain hemlock plant community (HCPC). The SRF community also occurs when a significant disturbance occurs in the mountain hemlock plant community that kills the hemlock and allows the fir to become dominant. Mountain hemlock and Lodgepole composition can vary greatly in the overstory.
Ground cover and specie diversity is generally low. The canopy cover is not as great as the mountain hemlock community, and different plants are found in the understory.
The lodgepole pine plant community occurs after a stand replacement fire occurs and consumes all trees. Lodgepole pine, a pioneer specie, establishes readily. If it does not, then brush/forb/grasses establish. When lodgepole establishes the amount of regeneration is generally heavy. When a dense stand matures it becomes susceptible to the mountian pine beetle. If an outbreak occurs all lodgepole are generally killed. By this time, fir and/or hemlock seedlings are established and released when the pine dies.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 HemlockMountain hemlock dominates the mature stand conditions. Other tree species that can be found are Shasta red fir, Western white pine, and sub-alpine fir. The understory is quite sparse and composition is very low.
Forest overstory.The typical forest overstory composition of the historic climax plant community.
Forest understory. The typical forest understory composition. Understory vegetation is expressed as "percent canopy" and "0" denotes less than 1% canopy.
Table 5. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 40-50% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 10-20% Forb foliar cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 40-40% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0-0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0-10% Table 6. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-10% Forb basal cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0-0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 90-100% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0-0% Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 12-15% 1-4% >0.5 <= 1 – – 7-10% – >1 <= 2 0-1% – – – >2 <= 4.5 0-1% – – – >4.5 <= 13 – – – – >13 <= 40 1-3% – – – >40 <= 80 50-55% – – – >80 <= 120 2-5% – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.2
Shasta Red FirShasta red fir community is a seral community. It's the transition between the Lodgepole pine plant community and the Mountain hemlock plant community. Understory specie composition is low and canopy cover is low.
Forest overstory.The forest overstory composition for the Shasta red fir plant community.
Forest understory. The forest understory composition of the Shasta red fir plant community. Understory vegetation is expressed as "percent canopy" and "0" denotes less than 1% canopy.
Table 8. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 40-50% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 10-20% Forb foliar cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 30-40% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-10% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 20-30% Table 9. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-10% Forb basal cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 40-50% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-10% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 30-40% Table 10. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 2-5% 0-1% >0.5 <= 1 – – 5-10% – >1 <= 2 0-1% – – – >2 <= 4.5 0-1% – – – >4.5 <= 13 1-2% – – – >13 <= 40 1-2% – – – >40 <= 80 35-45% – – – >80 <= 120 5-10% – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.3
Lodgepole PineThis plant community comes about, generally, after a stand replacement fire has occurred. Lodgepole pine is a pioneer specie and established easily. It is usually the only tree specie but others may be present in a limited amount.
Forest overstory.The typical forest overstory composition of the Lodgepole pine community.
Forest understory. The typical forest understory composition of the Lodgepole pine community. Understory vegetation is expressed as "percent canopy" and "0" denotes less than 1% canopy.
Table 11. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 20-30% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 10-20% Forb foliar cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-10% Surface fragments >3" 0-0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 40-50% Table 12. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-10% Forb basal cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 30-40% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-10% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 20-30% Table 13. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 0-5% 0-1% >0.5 <= 1 0-1% – 5-10% 0-5% >1 <= 2 1-2% – – – >2 <= 4.5 1-2% – – – >4.5 <= 13 0% – – – >13 <= 40 1-5% – – – >40 <= 80 35-45% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2Additional 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, 2/04/2025
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
