Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F144AY044VT
Semi-Rich Well Drained Outwash
Last updated: 10/04/2024
Accessed: 06/03/2026
-
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.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144A–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part
MLRA 144A: New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part. The eastern half of the eastern part of this MLRA is in the Seaboard Lowland Section of the New England Province of the Appalachian Highlands. The western half of the eastern part and the southeastern half of the western part are in the New England Upland Section of the same province and division. The northwestern half of the western part is in the Hudson Valley Section of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is a very scenic area of rolling to hilly uplands that are broken by many gently sloping to level valleys that terminate in coastal lowlands. Elevation ranges from sea level to 1,000 feet (0 to 305 meters) in much of the area, but it is 2,000 feet (610 meters) on some hills. Relief is mostly about 6 to 65 feet (2 to 20 meters) in the valleys and about 80 to 330 feet (25 to 100 meters) in the uplands.
This area has been glaciated and consists almost entirely of till hills, drumlins, and bedrock-controlled uplands with a mantle of till. It is dissected by narrow glacio-fluvial valleys. The southernmost boundary of the area marks the farthest southward extent of Wisconsinian glaciation on the eastern seaboard. The river valleys and coastal plains are filled with glacial lake sediments, marine sediments, and glacial outwash. The bedrock in the eastern half of the area consists primarily of igneous and metamorphic rocks of early Paleozoic age. Granite is the most common igneous rock, and gneiss, schist, and slate are the most common metamorphic rocks. In the parts of the MLRA in eastern and southeastern New York, Devonian- to Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, shale, and limestone are dominant. Carbonate rocks, primarily dolomite and limestone, are the dominant kinds of bedrock in the part of this MLRA in northwestern Connecticut.Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144A— New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part.
USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007)
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221A - Lower New England
Subsection: 221Aa – Boston Basin
221Ac – Narragansett-Bristol Lowland and Islands
221Ad – Southern New England Coastal Lowland
221Ae – Hudson Highlands
221Ag - Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains
221Ah - Worcester-Monadnock Plateau
221Ai – Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain
221Ak - Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland
Section: 221B – Hudson Valley
Subsection: 221Ba – Hudson Limestone Valley
221Bb - Miami – Taconic Foothills
221Bc – Hudson Glacial Lake PlainsEcological site concept
This site consists of well drained soils formed in loamy mantled stratified drift and glacial outwash. The soils are moderately deep to stratified sand and gravel and are very deep to bedrock. They are nearly level to very steep soils on outwash plains, terraces, kames, eskers, and moraines. . Semi-rich refers to the higher to circumneutral pH values. Representative soils are Copake.
The representative plant comminutes are not well-described. The plant community-types are expected to be similar to Semi-Rich Dry Outwash ecological sites, except with a more diverse understory. Typified by a sugar maple- oak forest type to more of an oak-hickory forest type.Associated sites
F144AY025MA Semi-Rich Moist Outwash
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer saccharinum
(2) Quercus rubraShrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa
Physiographic features
This site consists of a range of landforms occurring in outwash plains and valleys, in variably sloping terrain, and is rarely subject to flooding.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Outwash plain > Delta
(2) Valley > Outwash plain
(3) Terrace
(4) Kame
(5) Ridge
Runoff class Very low to low Flooding frequency None to rare Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 1345 ft Slope 0 – 45 % Water table depth 54 – 72 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Koppen-Geiger climate classification of the area in which this MLRA occurs varies between Dfb (Warm-summer humid continental) in the North, and Dfa (Hot-summer humid continental) in the southern portion of the MLRA. Precipitation is usually uniformly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, however, it is slightly lower in summer. Precipitation is slightly higher in spring and fall in inland areas. Rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during the summer. During the winter, most of the precipitation occurs as moderate-intensity storms (northeasters) that produce large amounts of rain or snow. The freeze-free period increases in length to the south.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 130-140 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-190 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 120-160 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-200 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 140 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) RUTLAND [USC00436995], Rutland, VT
-
(2) GLOVERSVILLE [USC00303319], Gloversville, NY
-
(3) BELVIDERE BRG [USC00280734], Bangor, NJ
-
(4) GROTON NEW LONDON AP [USW00014707], Groton, CT
-
(5) PLYMOUTH MUNI AP [USW00054769], Carver, MA
-
(6) DURHAM 2 SSW [USW00054795], Durham, NH
-
(7) ORANGE MUNI AP [USW00054756], Orange, MA
">Influencing water features
NONE
Wetland description
NONE
Soil features
This site consists of moderately to very deep, well drained soils formed in wind and water deposited parent materials derived from limestone, dolomite, and schist. Representative soil is Copake.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Eolian deposits – limestone and dolomite
(2) Glaciofluvial deposits – schist
Surface texture (1) Channery silt loam
(2) Fine sandy loam
(3) Gravelly loam
(4) Gravelly silt loam
Family particle size (1) Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Moderately slow Depth to restrictive layer 26 – 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)4 – 5 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)4.5 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)23 – 35 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)5 – 6 % Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, not yet validated with field work.*]
The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer 2003). Terrestrial ecological SYSTEMS are specifically defined as a group of plant community-types called ASSOCIATIONS that tend to [co-]occur within landscapes with similar ecological processes, substrates, and/or environmental gradients. Any given system will typically manifest itself in a landscape at intermediate geographic scales of tens-to-thousands of hectares and will persist for 50 or more years. A vegetation association is a plant community that is much more specific to a given soil, geology, landform, climate, hydrology, and disturbance history. It is the basic unit for vegetation classification and recognized by the US National Vegetation Classification (US FDGC 2008). Each association will be named by the diagnostic and often dominant species that occupy the different height strata (tree, sapling, shrub, and herb). Within the NatureServe Explorer database (NatureServe, 2015), ecological systems are numbered by a Community Ecological System Code (CES) and individual vegetation associations are assigned an identification number called a Community Element Global Code (CEGL).
Additional and more localized vegetation information is provided by the State Natural Heritage Programs of Connecticut (Metzler and Barrett 2001), Massachusetts (Swain and Kearsley 2001), New Hampshire (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011), New York (Edinger et al., 2014), and Rhode Island (Enser and Lungren, 2006).
The Semi Rich Dry Outwash ecological site is characteristic of Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest system (CES202.593) and the Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest system (CES202.591). The vegetation of this ecosite is not well described. The reference community is typified by a Sugar Maple-Oak forest type but can range to more Oak-Hickory forest type. Given its semi-rich nature it has much in common with the semi-rich and mesic till sites. Invasive species include European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), Japnese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Morrow’s shrubby honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). This forest occurs in uneven-aged stands with canopy gaps formed by storm extremes ranging from windthrows to downbursts to ice-storms. Fires are typically suppressed. Logging is a widespread management activity.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 textState 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (Minimally-managed)The reference community type is characterized by:
• Sugar Maple - Ash - Oak - Hickory Mesic Forest (CEGL006046)
Acer saccharum - Quercus rubra / Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa Forest
(Translated) Sugar Maple - Northern Red Oak / Round-lobe Liverleaf Forest
Other vegetation types may include:
• Red Oak - Transitional Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006635)
Quercus rubra - Acer saccharum / Viburnum acerifolium - Lindera benzoin Forest
(Translated) Northern Red Oak - Sugar Maple / Mapleleaf Viburnum - Northern Spicebush Forest
• Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak / Sedge Forest (CEGL006162)
Acer saccharum - Quercus muehlenbergii / Carex platyphylla Forest
(Translated) Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak / Broadleaf Sedge ForestCommunity 1.1
Sugar Maple - Ash - Oak - Hickory Mesic Forest (CEGL006046)Sugar Maple - Ash - Oak - Hickory Mesic Forest (CEGL006046)
Acer saccharum - Quercus rubra / Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa Forest
(Translated) Sugar Maple - Northern Red Oak / Round-lobe Liverleaf Forest
Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and white ash (Fraxinus americana) are common in the tree canopy, with red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), pignut hickory (Carya glabra) and white oak (Quercus alba). American Basswood (Tilia americana) and sweet birch (Betula lenta) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) can be occasional associates. Hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana ssp. virginiana) can form a prominent subcanopy. The shrub layer includeswitch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum var. lucidum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin). The herb layer is often quite diverse with broadleaf sedge (Carex platyphylla), longstalk sedge (Carex pedunculata), eastern woodland sedge (Carex blanda), broad loose-flowered sedge (Carex laxiflora), red baneberry (Actaea rubra),hairy Solomon’s seal ( Polygonatum pubescens),broad beechfern (Phegopteris hexagonoptera [= Thelypteris hexagonoptera]), roundleaf violet (Viola rotundifolia), ealy meadow-rue (Thalictrum dioicum), roundlobe hepatica (Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa [= Hepatica americana]), rue anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides [= Anemonella thalictroides]), nodding fescue (Festuca subverticillata), white baneberry (Actaea pachypoda), common blue violet (Viola sororia), rockcress (Arabis spp)., roundleaf ragwort(Packera obovata (= Senecio obovatus]), and Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political state):
CT: Sugar Maple - Northern Red Oak / Round-lobe Hepatica Forest (Metzler and Barrett, 2006)
MA: Dry, rich oak Forest/Woodland (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)
NY: Appalachian oak-hickory Forest (Edinger et al., 2014)Dominant plant species
-
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tree
-
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
-
hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), shrub
-
beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), shrub
-
eastern woodland sedge (Carex blanda), other herbaceous
Community 1.2
Ruderal Forest/WoodlandCommunity 1.3
Abandoned Field/MeadowPathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Disturbance, early successional habitat development
Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Disturbance, early successional habitat development
Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Abandonment, succession
Pathway P1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3Disturbance, early successional habitat development
Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.2Abandonment, succession
State 2
Semi-natural StateThe Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes are primarily operating with some land conditioning in the past or present, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants.
Community 2.1
Managed trees/shrubs/herbs(?)Community 2.2
Invasive PlantsPathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Disturbance, invasive species management
Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Invasive species control, forest management
State 3
Cultural StateThe Cultural State would expect the ecological site to be very strongly conditioned by land management conversion, by transformation to Cultivated/Pasture/Plantation.
Community 3.1
CultivatedCommunity 3.2
PastureCommunity 3.3
PlantationPathway P3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.1Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.2Changing agricultural phases
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Forest management, disturbance
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Disturbance/cutting/clearing, brush removal
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Restoration and management, forest stand improvement, early successional habitat development, upland wildlife management, invasive species control, plant establishment
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Disturbance/cutting/clearing, brush removal
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1Restoration and management, forest stand improvement, early successional habitat development, upland wildlife management, invasive species control, plant establishment
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Abandonment, plant establishment, forest management
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 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Future work is needed, as described in a future project plan, to validate the information presented in this provisional ecological site description. Future work includes field sampling, data collection and analysis by qualified vegetation ecologists and soil scientists. As warranted, annual reviews of the project plan can be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD are necessary to approve a final document.
Other references
REFERENCES
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)
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K., Snow, and J.Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
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.
Enser, R., Gregg, D., Sparks, C., August, P., Jordan, P., Coit, J., Raithel, C., Tefft, B., Payton, B., Brown, C. and LaBash, C., 2011. Rhode Island ecological communities classification. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI.
Enser, R. and Lundgren, J.A., 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston (RI).
FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..
Gawler, S.C. and Cutko, A., 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: a guide to natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation.
Metzler, K.J. and Barrett, J.P., 2006. The Vegetation of Connecticut, a Preliminary Classification. Department of Environmental Protection, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut.
NatureServe 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: December 2015).
PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. Available http://prism.oregonstate.edu, (created February 26, 2013).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agricultural Handbook 296. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).
Sperduto, D.D., & Nichols, W.F. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire, Second Ed. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Publ. UNH Cooperative Extension.
Swain, P.C. and Kearsley, J.B., 2001. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Thompson, E.H. and Sorenson, E.R., 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy. Publ. University Press of New England.
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017 (Date accessed). United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcomittee, Washington DC.Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D. (vegetation)
Approval
Greg Schmidt, 10/04/2024
Acknowledgments
Michael Margo and tech team provided earlier drafts. Josh Hibit made compliance updates w/ 2021 Checklist V.2
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 06/03/2026 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
