Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F101XY007NY

Wet Outwash

Last updated: 10/03/2024
Accessed: 04/20/2026

Home / esd CATALOG / MLRA 101X / ecological site F101XY007NY

USC

Metric

General 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.

MLRA notes

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 101X–Ontario-Erie Plain and Finger Lakes Region

Most of the MLRA is a nearly level to rolling plain. Low remnant beach ridges are commonly interspersed with a relatively level lake plain in the northern part of the area. Drumlins (long, narrow, steep-sided, cigar shaped hills) are prominent in an east-west belt in the center of the area. The Finger Lakes Region consists of a gently sloping to rolling till plain. Elevation increases gradually from the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Oneida to the Allegheny Plateau, the southern border of the area. The bedrock underlying this area consists of alternating beds of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale of Ordovician to Devonian age. Most of the surface of the area is covered with glacial till or lake sediments. The texture of the lake sediments is silt, loam, or sand. Ancient beaches, formed at different lake levels, form ridges along the shoreline of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Stratified drift (eskers and kames) and glacial outwash deposits are in many of the valleys. A large drumlin field occurs in the Finger Lakes Region.

Classification relationships

USDA-NRCS (USDA, 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): L — Lake States Fruit, Truck Crop, and Dairy Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 101— Ontario-Erie Plain and Finger Lakes Region
USDA-FS (Cleland et al., 2007)
Province: 211 — Northeastern Mixed Forest Province (in part)
Section: 211J — Mohawk Valley (in part)
Subsection: 211Jd — Mohawk Valley
Province: 222 — Midwest Broadleaf Forest Province (in part)
Section: 222I — Erie and Ontario Lake Plain
Subsection: 222Ia — Lake Erie Plain
222Ib — Erie-Ontario Lake Plain
222Ic — Eastern Ontario Till Plain
222Id — Cattaraugus Finger Lakes Moraine and Hills
222Ie — Eastern Ontario Lake Plain

Ecological site concept

Landform/Landscape Position:
The site occurs in depressions within outwash plains. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.

Soils:
The site consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils formed in glacial outwash deposits. Soils are typically moderately coarse to coarse textured. Representative soils are Cheektowaga, Fredon, Halsey, Lamson, and Wareham mapped within MLRA 101.

Vegetation
The reference community coincides with NY natural heritage community: Red maple-hardwood swamp and/or NatureServe's Black Ash - Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL007441).

Associated sites

F101XY014NY	Wet Till Depression
F101XY006NY	Moist Outwash Moist Outwash sites are higher in the landscape profile.

F101XY014NY

Wet Till Depression

F101XY006NY

Moist Outwash

Moist Outwash sites are higher in the landscape profile.

Similar sites

F101XY010NY	Wet Lake Plain Depression Wet Lake Depression sites may be more enriched.
F101XY003NY	Low Floodplain Depression

F101XY010NY

Wet Lake Plain Depression

Wet Lake Depression sites may be more enriched.

F101XY003NY

Low Floodplain Depression

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Acer rubrum (2) Fraxinus nigra
Shrub	(1) Alnus incana (2) Lindera benzoin
Herbaceous	(1) Symplocarpus foetidus (2) Carex leptalea

Download full description

Physiographic features

The site occurs in depressions within outwash plains and terraces. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.

Figure 1. Wet Outwash (Fredon soils)

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Outwash plain > Depression (2) Delta (3) Lake plain (4) Outwash plain (5) Terrace (6) Valley train
Runoff class	Negligible to very high
Flooding frequency	None
Ponding frequency	None to frequent
Elevation	49 – 1968 ft
Slope	0 – 2 %
Water table depth	0 – 8 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The Koppen-Geiger climate classification of the area in which this MLRA occurs is
Dfb, Warm-summer humid continental. Rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms in the summer. However, snow comprises most of the precipitation in this area. The frost-free-free period in this area averages 165 days and ranges from 130 to 200 days, with the coldest temperatures and the shortest frost-free periods occurring in the high-elevation areas in the eastern part of the MLRA.

Table 3 Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	140-140 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	170-190 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	40-40 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	140-140 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	170-190 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	40-40 in
Frost-free period (average)	140 days
Freeze-free period (average)	180 days
Precipitation total (average)	40 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) SUNY ESF SYRACUSE [USC00308386], Syracuse, NY
(2) DELANSON 2NE [USC00302031], Delanson, NY
(3) ROCHESTER GTR INTL AP [USW00014768], Rochester, NY
(4) DUNKIRK CHAUTAUQUA AP [USW00014747], Dunkirk, NY
(5) LOCKPORT 3 S [USC00304844], Lockport, NY

Influencing water features

Poorly drained 
Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow depth. Free water at shallow depth is common. The water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, nearly continuous rainfall, or a combination of these. 
 
Very poorly drained 
Water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water remains at or very near the surface during much of the growing season. Internal free water occurrence is very shallow and persistent or permanent. Unless the soil is artificially drained, most mesophytic crops cannot be grown. The soils are commonly level or depressed and frequently ponded. In areas where rainfall is high or nearly continuous, slope gradients may be greater.

Wetland description

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979) 
 
Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Saturated, Fresh, Circumneutral to Alkaline 
or 
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Saturated, Fresh, Circumneutral to Alkaline

Soil features

The site consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils formed in glacial outwash deposits. Soils are typically moderately coarse to coarse textured. Representative soils are Cheektowaga, Fredon, Halsey, Lamson, Jebavy, Joliet, and Wareham mapped within MLRA 101.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Glaciofluvial deposits – limestone and shale (2) Glaciolacustrine deposits (3) Eolian deposits (4) Till
Surface texture	(1) Fine sandy loam (2) Silt loam (3) Very fine sandy loam (4) Gravelly loam (5) Loam (6) Mucky loam (7) Mucky fine sandy loam (8) Mucky silt loam (9) Mucky very fine sandy loam
Family particle size	(1) Fine-loamy (2) Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal (3) Sandy (4) Sandy over clayey (5) Coarse-loamy (6) Loamy
Drainage class	Very poorly drained to poorly drained
Permeability class	Very slow to moderately rapid
Depth to restrictive layer	11 – 72 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	2 – 7 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	3.6 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 50 %
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 15 %

Ecological dynamics

The reference community coincides with NY natural heritage community: Red maple-hardwood swamp and/or NatureServe's Black Ash - Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL007441).

Activities that impact hydrology (roads, dams, diversions, drainage) and introduction of invasive species are some of the primary drivers of ecological change.

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
Red Maple Forest

Reference state. Minimally managed.

Dominant plant species

green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
Freeman maple (Acer ×freemanii), tree
sedge (Carex), other herbaceous
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), other herbaceous
intermediate woodfern (Dryopteris intermedia), other herbaceous
New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), other herbaceous
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), other herbaceous

Community 1.1
Red Maple Forest/Swamp

The plant community is characterized as a Red maple-Hardwood Swamp (New York Natural Heritage Program) however, without plants typically found in acidic areas such as highbush blueberry. Another cross reference would be Black Ash - Red Maple / Alderleaf Buckthorn / Bristly-stalked Sedge Swamp Forest (CEGL007441) described by NatureServe.

Community 1.2
Young Forest/Swamp Community

Pathway P1.1
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Natural disturbances such as flooding, wind, ice storm, insects.

Pathway P1.2
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Time/succession

State 2
Disturbed (Invasive Species and/or Hydrology Change)

Highly disturbed forest resulting from changes in hydrology and/or presence of invasive species.

Dominant plant species

American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tree
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), shrub

Community 2.1
Mature Forest

Invasive species present

Community 2.2
Young Forest

Invasive species present

Pathway P2.1
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Disturbance: Flooding, wind, ice storms, insects.

Pathway P2.2
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Time/succession

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Establishment of invasive plants. Changes to hydrology (drainage, diversions, roads,) may also been a driver of change.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Conservation practices

Invasive Plant Species Control

Additional community tables

Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition

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

Table 6. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height ft	Canopy cover (%)	Diameter in	Basal area (square ft/acre)

Table 7. Community 1.1 forest understory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height (ft)	Canopy cover (%)

Table 8. Community 1.2 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 2.1 forest overstory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height ft	Canopy cover (%)	Diameter in	Basal area (square ft/acre)

Table 11. Community 2.1 forest understory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height (ft)	Canopy cover (%)

Table 12. Community 2.2 plant community composition

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

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Site Development and Testing Plan: Future work to validate the vegetation information in this provisional ecological site description is needed. This will include field activities to collect low and medium intensity sampling and analysis of that data. 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 approved level document. Reviews of the project plan are to be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team.

Other references

Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions, Sections, and Subsections of the Coterminous United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-76. Washington, DC.

Cowardin L. M., Carter V., Golet F. C., and LaRoe E.T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402.

Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., and A.M. Olivero, A.M. (eds.). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition, A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

NatureServe 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: January 2019).

USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.

USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2016. National Soils Information System (NASIS) [Software] Version 7.x. USDA, Kansas City, MO.

USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. http://usnvc.org/explore-classification/ (Accessed: 2018).

Contributors

Joshua Hibit

Approval

Greg Schmidt, 10/03/2024

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	05/21/2020
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 F101XY007NY

Wet Outwash

Last updated: 10/03/2024 Accessed: 04/20/2026

Search

General information

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 10/03/2024
Accessed: 04/20/2026