Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F144BY110ME
Broad Floodplain Riparian Complex
Last updated: 5/13/2025
Accessed: 07/14/2026
-
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): 144B–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern Part
This major land resource area (MLRA) is characterized by plateaus, plains, and mountains. The climate is generally cool and humid with an average annual precipitation of 34 to 62 inches (865 to 1,575 millimeters). The average annual air temperature is typically 40 to 48 degrees F (4 to 9 degrees C). The freeze-free period generally is 130 to 200 days, but it ranges from 110 days in the higher mountains to 240 days in some areas along the Atlantic coast. The soils in this region are dominantly Entisols, Spodosols, and Inceptisols. They commonly have a fragipan. The dominant suborders are Ochrepts, Orthods, Aquepts, Fluvents, and Saprists. The soils in the region dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime with some cryic areas at higher elevation, a udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. Most of the land is forested, and 98 percent is privately owned. Significant amounts of forest products are produced including lumber, pulpwood, Christmas trees, and maple syrup. Principal agricultural crops include forage and grains for dairy cattle, potatoes, apples, and blueberries. Wildlife habitat and recreation are important land uses. Stoniness, steep slopes, and poor drainage limit the use of many of the soils.
Classification relationships
NRCS: Land Resource Region: R—Northeastern Forage and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144B–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern PartEcological site concept
This site occurs next to large rivers and includes a complex of soils and landforms associated with floodplains. Well-drained natural levees occur near the stream bank, with broad, somewhat poorly to moderately well-drained floodplains behind. Side channels often carry water past the levees into the floodplains during high water, the lowest areas of the floodplain, including poorly- and very poorly-drained oxbows and depressions, may be ponded at times. These soils are derived from alluvium, are typically silt loams to fine sands in texture, and may have gravel or sand layers from particular flooding events. Poorly-drained soils are often organic over alluvium.
The variability in microtopography on this site results in a patchy mosaic of plant communities. Silver maple is the most common overstory species, with diverse grasses and herbs indicating differences in soil wetness throughout the site due to slight variability in elevation above the water table. This site is subject to ice scour and flooding, but the most extensive disturbance is cultivation. These broad, flat landforms are nutrient rich with high water-holding capacity. These factors along with their adjacency to rivers made them ideal farming locations for early settlers, much of which continues today. The effects of altered flow regimes from modern dams may also be significant, but require further study.Similar sites
F144BY120ME Small Floodplain Riparian Complex (reserved)
The Small Floodplains site occurs next to small rivers and streams, supports mostly herbaceous species, and has floodplains too small for extensive cultivation; whereas the Broad Floodplains site occurs next to large rivers supporting tree cover and extensive vegetation.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer saccharinum
(2) Pinus strobusShrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site consists of complex microtopography associated with rivers, including: stream banks, natural levees, floodplains, backswamps, stream terraces, etc. Slopes are gentle throughout this site, and minor changes in slope and elevation often correspond to major differences in flooding, ponding, and the resultant soil moisture and vegetation. This site is therefore considered a riparian complex of distinct soils and plant communities which occur together on distinctive, but closely associated fluvial landforms.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) River valley > Flood plain
(2) Levee
(3) Backswamp
(4) Plains > Marsh
(5) Alluvial plain > Flood plain
Runoff class Negligible to very high Flooding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) to very long (more than 30 days) Flooding frequency Rare to very frequent Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) Elevation 0 – 2400 ft Slope 0 – 8 % Ponding depth 0 – 19 in Water table depth 0 – 72 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The climate is humid and temperate and is characterized by warm summers and cold winters. In general, precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, precipitation is slightly lower in summer. Throughout inland areas, precipitation is slightly higher during spring and fall seasons. Rainfall occurs during high-intensity, convective thunderstorms in summer. During winter, most of the precipitation occurs as moderate- intensity storms (northeasters) that produce large amounts of rain or snow. Heavy snowfalls commonly occur late in winter. Temperatures and the length of the freeze-free period increase from north to south and closer to the coast.
MLRA 144B has coverage across six states and may have substantial climate variability among locations: Maine (56 percent), New Hampshire (22 percent), Vermont (14 percent), Massachusetts (6 percent), Connecticut (1 percent), and New York (1 percent).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 100-130 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 140-160 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 80-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 120-170 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 120 days Freeze-free period (average) 150 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) BORDEN BROOK RSVR [USC00190759], Granville, MA
-
(2) LANESBORO [USC00194075], Lanesboro, MA
-
(3) PITTSFIELD MUNI AP [USW00014763], Pittsfield, MA
-
(4) GRAFTON [USC00303360], Cropseyville, NY
-
(5) NORFOLK 2 SW [USC00065445], Norfolk, CT
-
(6) BANGOR INTL AP [USW00014606], Bangor, ME
-
(7) ACADIA NP [USC00170100], Bar Harbor, ME
-
(8) JONESBORO [USC00174183], Addison, ME
-
(9) EAST HIRAM [USC00172238], Sebago, ME
-
(10) MADISON [USC00174927], Anson, ME
-
(11) BRUNSWICK NAS [USW00014611], Brunswick, ME
-
(12) AUGUSTA STATE AP [USW00014605], Augusta, ME
-
(13) SANFORD 2 NNW [USC00177479], Sanford, ME
-
(14) SAINT JOHNSBURY [USW00054742], Saint Johnsbury, VT
-
(15) WHITEFIELD MT WASHINGTON AP [USW00054728], Whitefield, NH
-
(16) BETHLEHEM 2 [USC00270706], Bethlehem, NH
-
(17) CHELSEA [USC00431360], Chelsea, VT
-
(18) MT SUNAPEE [USC00275629], Newbury, NH
-
(19) ASHBURNHAM NORTH [USC00190192], Ashburnham, MA
-
(20) BIRCH HILL DAM [USC00190666], Royalston, MA
-
(21) WORTHINGTON [USC00199972], Worthington, MA
">Influencing water features
This site occurs next to large perennial rivers that, when in reference condition, regularly overtop their banks, depositing sediment and nutrients on broad, forested floodplains. Natural levees often form near the channel, and side-channels may carry additional water behind the levees to low-lying areas on the floodplain. The lowest areas, including abandoned meander channels (oxbows), may be poorly- or very poorly-drained wetland inclusions within the riparian complex. Small changes in elevation above the water table may result in large variability in soil moisture and plant community.
Wetland description
Wetland Description: Cowardin<br />
System: Riverine<br />
Subsystem: Lower perennial<br />
Class: Unconsolidated Shore, Emergent<br />
System: Palustrine<br />
Class: Forested, EmergentSoil features
The soils of this site include well-drained natural levees and mounds, moderately well- to somewhat-poorly drained floodplains, and poorly- to very-poorly drained oxbows and depressions. All of these soils are formed in alluvium, with some of the wetter areas having a very thick organic cap. Textures are typically silt loams to sandy loams and may include lenses of distinctive textures or gravels from particular flooding events. These soils are deep, nutrient rich, and often cultivated.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium
(2) Organic material
(3) Glaciolacustrine deposits
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Fine sandy loam
(3) Very fine sandy loam
Drainage class Very poorly drained to excessively drained Permeability class Slow to rapid Soil depth 60 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-19in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(3.2-7.8in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-40in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-8in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, and future projects support validation through field work. *] The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer et al., 2003) and localized associations provided by the New York Natural Heritage Program (Edinger et al., 2014), Maine Natural Areas Program (Gawler and Cutko, 2010), New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011), and Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Swain, 2020).
This site is a complex of plant communities occurring on floodplains and associated landforms. The vast majority is dominated by silver maple, with a diverse understory of ferns (particularly ostrich fern), graminoids, shrubs, and forbs.
Natural levees are well-drained and form near poorly-drained stream banks. The stream banks tend to support water-loving graminoids and forbs, while natural levees often have silver maple (or red maple) as well as grass and shrub species that prefer well-drained soil conditions.
Behind the natural levees, the floodplains typically have silver maple, with some red maple, white ash, brown ash, and many other tree species increasing as elevation above channel increases. Depressions, oxbows and other low-lying areas may exhibit little tree cover and be herbaceous-dominated. These herbaceous areas tend to have organic soils. All of these varied communities are closely associated and form the riparian plant community complex.
Because this site is flat, nutrient-rich, and close to major waterways, it has been cultivated in many areas for crop or pasture land. Man made dams that affect flow regimes may also have a significant impact on the dynamics of this site, but require further study. Beaver dams typically do not influence the flow regime on rivers of this size, despite the fact that beaver activity is common on this site.
Relationship to Other Classification Systems
This site includes the following state natural heritage program types:
• Silver Maple Floodplain Forest (Sperduto and Nichols 2004)
• Upper Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Sperduto and Nichols 2004)
• Silver Maple Floodplain Forest (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Upper Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Silver Maple Floodplain Forest (Thompson and Sorenson 2000)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 / Current PotentialCommunity 1.1
Silver Maple WoodlandDiverse understory of herbs and to a lessor extent, shrubs. Wetland patches of organaic soils and associated plants.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
State 2
Cultivated CroplandCommunity 2.1
Cultivated CropsState 3
Pasture / HaylandCommunity 3.1
Pasture / HaylandTransition T1-2
State 1 to 2Vegetation removal and crops cultivated
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Invasive Plant Species Control Herbaceous Weed Control Key drivers
-
Mechanical soil disturbance
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Cultural heritage values
-
Fuel
-
Educational values
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Recreation
-
Knowledge systems
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
-
Climate regulation
Transition T1-3
State 1 to 3Tree removal, hayland establishment
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Riparian Herbaceous Cover Riparian Forest Buffer Land Clearing Invasive Plant Species Control a Riparian forest buffer, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat Herbaceous Weed Control Key ecosystem services affected
-
Cultural heritage values
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Recreation
-
Ornamental resources
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Water regulation
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
-
Climate regulation
Restoration pathway R2-1
State 2 to 1floodplain restoration via self-restoration, or active restoration with mgmt and plantings
Conservation practices
Brush Management Clearing and Snagging Riparian Herbaceous Cover Riparian Forest Buffer Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Recreation Area Improvement Trails and Walkways Tree/Shrub Establishment Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Wetland Restoration Riparian Buffers - Vegetative Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Invasive Species Pest Management Extending riparian forest buffers for water quality protection and wildlife habitat Riparian forest buffer, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats Transition T2-3
State 2 to 3Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Riparian Herbaceous Cover Riparian Forest Buffer Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Riparian Buffers - Vegetative Extending riparian forest buffers for water quality protection and wildlife habitat Improve the plant diversity and structure of non-cropped areas for wildlife food and habitat Non-forested riparian zone enhancement for fish and wildlife Wildlife corridors Multi-species Native Perennials for Biomass/Wildlife Habitat Monitoring and Evaluation Establish pollinator and/or beneficial insect habitat Key drivers
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
-
Conversion from crops to pasture
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Cultural heritage values
Restoration pathway R3-1
State 3 to 1Floodplain Restoration: self-restoration or assisted restoration via plantings, mgmt
Conservation practices
Brush Management Riparian Forest Buffer Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Record Keeping Riparian Buffers - Vegetative Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Extending riparian forest buffers for water quality protection and wildlife habitat Riparian forest buffer, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat Wildlife corridors Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats Transition T3-2
State 3 to 2converstion from pasture / hayland to cropland
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Invasive Plant Species Control Use of Cover Crop Mixes Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 3.1 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
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Grawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schultz, 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., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero (editors). 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.
Gawler, S. and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine.
NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (accessed 10 July. 2021).
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
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. (accessed 11 Aug. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Climate Research Station Data. Available online. (accessed 23 June. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for [MLRA 141, Maine]. Available online. (accessed 14 Oct. 2021).
Sperduto, D.D. and William F. Nichols. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. 2nd Ed. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Pub. UNH Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH.
Swain, P. C. 2020. Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017. United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. Available The U.S. National Vegetation Classification (usnvc.org) (accessed 2 July. 2021).Contributors
Christopher Mann
Jamin JohansonApproval
Greg Schmidt, 5/13/2025
Acknowledgments
Nels Barrett and Nick Butler provided considerable review of this ecological site concept.
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 06/29/2020 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:
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
