Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F145XY002MA
Silty Low Floodplain
Last updated: 2/10/2025
Accessed: 08/05/2026
-
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): 145X–Connecticut Valley
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 145 – Connecticut Valley (USDA-NRCS, 2006)
The nearly level floor of the Connecticut Valley makes up most of the area. Nearly level to sloping lowlands are at the outer edges of the river valley. These lowlands are broken by isolated, north- to south-trending trap-rock ridges that are hilly and steep. Elevation ranges from sea level to 100 meters (330 feet) in the lowlands and from 50 to 100 meters (650 to 1,000 feet) on ridges. The geology of this rift valley is a late Triassic and early Jurassic sandstone, shale, and conglomerate sequence. Tilted basalt flows along rift zones form the trap rock ridges exhibiting the greatest landscape relief. Glaciation accounts for glacial lake deposits, outwash, and till. Following glacial retreat, wind-deposited loess caps some areas. Recent alluvium deposits form well-developed flood plain along the Connecticut River. These deposits created some of the most productive agricultural soils in New England. The dominant soils are entisols and incepticols with a mesic temperature regime in combination with parent materials such as glacial lakebeds, glacial outwash, glacial till, and recent alluvium. From north-to-south within the Connecticut Valley, the climate transitions from humid-continental to humid temperate with pronounced seasons and frequent storms. The forests are predominately central hardwoods to the south and transition hardwoods to the north. Significant habitats include trap rock ridges, sandplains, and floodplains of the Connecticut River and major tributaries. Much of the area is currently in residential and urban development and agriculture. While forested areas remain, habitat loss and fragmentation are widespread throughout the lower part of the Connecticut River Valley. The Silty Low Floodplain ecological site is found primarily low in the elevational profile of active floodplains of variously sized rivers.Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA, 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): R – Northeastern Forage and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 145 – Connecticut Valley
USDA-FS (Cleland et al, 2007):
Province: 221 – Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Section: 221A – Lower New England
Subsection: 221Af –Lower Connecticut River Valley
Province: M211 – Adirondack New England Mixed Forest – Coniferous Forest – Alpine Meadow (in part)
Section: M211B– New England Piedmont (in part)
Subsection: 211Bb – Southern Piedmont (in part)Ecological site concept
The Silty Low Floodplain ecological site consists of deep, coarse-silty, moderately well drained, alluvial soils at lower elevations in the flood profile of active floodplains. These sites are best developed along major, low gradient rivers, but are also represented along medium to small-sized rivers, too. These floodplains are subject to frequent to occasional annual flooding frequency and/or longer flood duration than the adjacent high floodplains. The representative soil is Winooski and Bash. The reference plant community varies with wetness due to flooding and the size and hydrologic gradient of the river. Within the major river systems, the reference community includes includes Silver Maple - (Eastern Cottonwood) / Ostrich Fern - Canadian Woodnettle Floodplain Forest on large, low gradient river systems, American Sycamore - Green Ash Floodplain Forest on medium-sized river systems, and Pin Oak - Red Maple / Gray's Sedge - White Avens Wet Forest on small rivers.
Along the wetter, more flooded portions large to medium sized rivers is the Silver Maple / Sensitive Fern - Small-spike False Nettle Floodplain Bottom Forest.Associated sites
F145XY001MA Silty High Floodplain
Silty High Floodplains are higher in the elevational flood profile of the active floodplain.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer saccharinum
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Onoclea sensibilis
Physiographic features
The Silty Low Floodplain ecological site occurs on nearly level floodplains along rivers, at low elevational positions in the floodplain profile where flooding is occasional to frequent. Flooding by stream overflow ranges from at least once a year during the spring freshet and additionally following periods of high rainfall. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
Figure 1. Low Floodplain - Winooski soils
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Flood plain
Runoff class Very low to low Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency Occasional to frequent Ponding frequency None Elevation 3 – 800 ft Slope 0 – 3 % Water table depth 24 – 27 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The regional climate of the Connecticut Valley transitions north to south, from humid-continental to humid temperate, respectively, with pronounced seasons and frequent storms. (Beck et al., 2018; Bailey, 2014). Locally, the Silty Low Floodplain ecological site is dependent upon regular flood events coinciding with freshets in the early spring due to snowmelt and heavy precipitation events within the watershed at any time (Metzler and Damman 1985).
Climate change is occurring, and the resiliency of any ecological site will depend upon the direct and indirect effects upon component species and shifting atmospheric and soil conditions. On these ecological sites, floodplain forests are at a moderate vulnerability risk to climate change with impacts considered to be both negative and positive. Although floodplain forests are adapted to annual and season flooding, greater storm frequency and magnitude causing more intense precipitation and flooding may pose risks associated with prolonged flooding, and streambank erosion, or provide benefits associate with greater deposition of sediments. Warmer seasonal temperatures as predicted are expected to diminish snowmelt and the benefits of sediment deposition during the spring freshets. Invasive species such as glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) continue to be a threat (Janowiak et al., 2018).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-150 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 160-190 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 110-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-190 days Precipitation total (actual range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (average) 130 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) MT CARMEL [USC00065077], Hamden, CT
-
(2) AMHERST [USC00190120], Amherst, MA
-
(3) HARTFORD BRADLEY INTL AP [USW00014740], Suffield, CT
">Influencing water features
The Silty Low Floodplain ecological site is located along low-gradient river systems of varying size from large to small. River flooding is variable, ranging from occasional to frequent, coinciding with seasonal flood events during the spring freshet to heavy precipitation events throughout the year.
Wetland description
National Wetland Classification System (Cowardin et al., 1979) considers the Silty Low Floodplain ecological site may be in the Palustrine system, with a vegetated class, such as emergent, scrub-shrub, or forested, and modified by a non-tidal water regime ranging from seasonally flooded to seasonally flooded/saturated.
Soil features
The site consists of very deep, moderately well drained silty soils formed in recent alluvial deposits derived from mixed crystalline and sedimentary rocks. Gravel ranges from 0 through 5 percent by volume throughout the soil. Reaction ranges from strongly acid through neutral.
Winooski soils mapped within MLRA 145 and surrounding MLRA 144A are representative of the Silty Low Floodplain provisional ecological site. Bash soils may also be included here. Winooski soils mapped within Maine
in the New England and Eastern New York Upland , Northern Part (MLRA 144B) and the Northeast Mountains (MLRA 143) are relicts. Winooski are also mapped within the Champlain Valley (MLRA 142), however, further investigation is needed to determine if the concept of this site extends that far north.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium – arkose
Surface texture (1) Very fine sandy loam
(2) Silt loam
Drainage class Moderately well drained Permeability class Moderately slow to moderate Soil depth 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)7 – 8 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)4.5 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 2 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section 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 et al., 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. They are intended to provide a classification unit that is readily mappable, often from terrain and remote imagery, and readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. A 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 (FDGC, 2008; USNVC, 2017). Each association will be named by the diagnostic and often dominant species that occupy the different height strata (represented by tree, shrub, and herb layers). Within the NatureServe Explorer database, 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 can be provided by the various State Heritage Programs. Additional insights to the vegetation were provided by: "The Vegetation of Connecticut: A Preliminary Classification" (Metzler and Barrett, 2006), "Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts" (Swain 2020), "Wetland, Woodland, Wildland" (Thompson and Sorenson 2000), and "Natural Communities of New Hampshire, 2nd Ed." (Spurduto and Nichols, 2011).
Due to a long history of human activity, the reference condition more accurately reflects the current naturalized, minimally-managed state rather than the historic, pre-European settlement condition. Within the Reference State, plant communities characteristic to the Silty Low Floodplain ecological site belong to the Central Appalachian River Floodplain Forest system (CES202.608) (NatureServe, 2020). These floodplains are often broad and well-developed along medium to large rivers and occasionally small, low-gradient river systems. Differences in the flood regime, related to proximity to the river and flood elevations, in combination with the variability of the substrate will determine the mix of floodplain vegetation (Marks et al., 2014). Silty Low Floodplain ecological sites are areas within the active floodplain profile subject to the regular annual flooding during the spring freshet and following periods of high rainfall. High fertility, fragmentation, and lack of natural buffers results in susceptibility to non-native plant invasions. Besides the mature plant community-types listed, other spontaneous, successional plant community-types may exist following natural disturbances.
Other ecological states, a Semi-natural State and a Cultural State are recognized. The Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes primarily operate with some conditioning by land management, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants. The Cultural State is a completely converted or transformed state heavily or completely conditioned by land management, e.g., cultivated lands, pasture/haylands, vineyards, and plantations, etc. Generally, the form of vegetation in the Semi-natural State or the Cultural State is not able to be specified until field work is conducted.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 (minimally-managed)As a result of a long history of human activity, the associations listed below, may in reality, reflect the current naturalized, minimally-managed state rather than the historic, pre-European settlement condition. Notice transition pathways are not always designated between some of the communities in the reference state because the differences in vegetation are more controlled by landscape position, rather than disturbances or management, or that the relationships are not understood. In addition, undisclosed successional plant community-types following disturbance may be included as community phases.
Within the reference state of the Silty Low Floodplain ecological site, the plant communities are quite variable depending upon the size of the river system. Ranked by the size of river system, the following low floodplain plant communities occur; along large rivers:
• Acer saccharinum - (Populus deltoides) / Matteuccia struthiopteris - Laportea canadensis Floodplain Forest (CEGL006147),
(Translated Name: Silver Maple - (Eastern Cottonwood) / Ostrich Fern - Canadian Woodnettle Floodplain Forest,
[Common Name: Silver Maple Floodplain Levee Forest]);
Along medium-sized rivers:
• Platanus occidentalis - Fraxinus pennsylvanica Floodplain Forest (CEGL006036),
(Translated Name: American Sycamore - Green Ash Floodplain Forest,
[Common Name: Riverine Floodplain Forest (Transitional Type)]);
and along small rivers:
• Quercus palustris - Acer rubrum / Carex grayi - Geum canadense Wet Forest (CEGL006185),
Translated Name: Pin Oak - Red Maple / Gray's Sedge - White Avens Wet Forest,
Common Name: Pin Oak Small River Floodplain Forest]).
Additionally, another common plant community along large rivers within the wetter more frequently flooded Silty Low Floodplain is:
• Acer saccharinum / Onoclea sensibilis - Boehmeria cylindrica Floodplain Forest (CEGL006176),
Translated Name: Silver Maple / Sensitive Fern - Small-spike False Nettle Floodplain Forest,
[Common Name: Silver Maple Floodplain Bottom Forest (Sensitive Fern Type)])
(Source: NatureServe 2020)Community 1.1
Silver Maple - (Eastern Cottonwood) / Ostrich Fern - Canadian Woodnettle Floodplain ForestAcer saccharinum - (Populus deltoides) / Matteuccia struthiopteris - Laportea canadensis Floodplain Forest (CEGL006147),
(Translated Name: Silver Maple - (Eastern Cottonwood) / Ostrich Fern - Canadian Woodnettle Floodplain Forest,
[Common Name: Silver Maple Floodplain Levee Forest])
The tree canopy is strongly dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum) with other locally common trees including eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), red oak (Quercus rubra), boxelder (Acer negundo), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), butternut (Juglans nigra), American ash (Fraxinus americana), and green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) is preferential to siltier soils and levees. Shrubs are typically uncommon, but may include northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), silky dogwood (Swida [= Cornus] amomum). Vines are conspicuous, such as river grape (Vitis riparia) and poison ivy (toxicodendron radicans). The dominant herbs are ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) and Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis). Associated herbs include river wildrye (Elymus riparius), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus), American hogpeanut (Amphicarpaea bracteate), white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima [= Eupatorium rugosum]), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), broadleaf enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum pubescens), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and jumpseed (Persicarium virginianum [= Tovara virginiana]). Due to chronic disturbance and fertility of this site, non-native plants may establish, such as exotic honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), European privet (Ligustrum vulgare), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolate), wild garlic (Allium vineale), fig buttercup (Ficaria verna [= Ranunculus ficaria]), and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).
(Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts and relationship (by political State or otherwise):
CT– Acer saccharinum / Ageratina altissima Floodplain Forest [intersects] (Metzler and Barrett, 2006)
MA – Major River Floodplain Forest [broader] (Swain, 2020)
NH –Silver Maple / Woodnettle - Ostrich Floodplain Forest [equivalent] (Spurduto, 2012)
VT – Silver Maple / Ostrich Floodplain Forest [equivalent] (Thompson and Sorenson, 2000)Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
-
ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), other herbaceous
-
Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), other herbaceous
Community 1.2
American Sycamore - Green Ash Floodplain ForestPlatanus occidentalis - Fraxinus pennsylvanica Floodplain Forest (CEGL006036),
(Translated Name: American Sycamore - Green Ash Floodplain Forest,
[Common Name: Riverine Floodplain Forest (Transitional Type)])Dominant plant species
-
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
Community 1.3
Pin Oak - Red Maple / Gray's Sedge - White Avens Wet ForestCommunity 1.4
Successional Plant Community-type(s)(to be developed)
Community 1.5
Successional Field MeadowPathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.4Disturbance
Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.5Disturbance, Early Successional Habitat Development
Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.4Disturbance
Pathway P1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.5Disturbance, Early Successional Habitat Development
Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.4Disturbance
Pathway P1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.5Disturbance, Early Successional Habitat Development
Pathway P1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.1Vegetation development/succession
Pathway P1.4C
Community 1.4 to 1.2Vegetation development/succession
Pathway P1.4B
Community 1.4 to 1.3Vegetation development/succession
Pathway P1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.5Disturbance, Early Successional Habitat Development
Pathway P1.5A
Community 1.5 to 1.4Abandonment, succession
State 2
Semi-natural StateThe Semi-natural State would expect plant communities that have been conditioned by land management, e.g. managed forests and lands; or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominantly invasive plants.
Community 2.1
Managed Forest/Woodland(to be developed)
Community 2.2
Altered with Invasive plants(to be developed)
Pathway 2.1 - 2.2
Community 2.1 to 2.2invasive plant establishment, vegetation development/succession
Key drivers
-
Nonnative disease presence and/or establishment
Pathway 2.2 - 2.1
Community 2.2 to 2.1invasive plant management, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Invasive Plant Species Control State 3
Cultural StateThe Cultural State would expect the ecological site to be very strongly conditioned by land management, i.e., transformed/converted to cultivated, pasture, or plantation.
Community 3.1
Cultivated(to be developed)
Community 3.2
Pasture(to be developed)
Community 3.3
Plantation(to be developed)
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Transition T1B
State 1 to 3cutting, land clearing, plant establishment
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1plant removal, plant establishment, successional management, Forest stand improvement, Invasive species control
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T2A
State 2 to 3cutting, land clearing, plant establishment
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1plant removal, plant establishment, successional management
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management 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 1.2 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 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 1.5 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Inventory data references Site Development and Testing Plan Future work is needed, as described in a 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.
References
-
. 2021 (Date accessed). USDA PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov.
Other references
Bailey, R. 2014. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. Second Edition. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Beck, H.E., N.E. Zimmermann, T.R. McVicar, N. Vergopolan, A.Berg, E.F. Wood. 2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Scientific Data 5(1):1-12.
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] General Technical 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, and K. Snow.2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of US Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. (https://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/pcom_2003_ecol_systems_us.pdf).
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.. (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/classification-of-wetlands-and-deepwater-habitats-of-the-united-states.pdf).
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.
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. VGDC‐STD‐005‐2008 (Version 2). FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee, Reston, Virginia. (https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf).
Janowiak, M.K., A.W. D'Amato, C.W. Swanston, L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson, W.D Dijak, S. Matthews, M.P. Peters, A. Prasad, J.S. Fraser, J.S. L.A. Brandt, P. Butler-Leopold, S.D. Handler, P.D. Shannon, D. Burbank, J. Campbell, C. Cogbill, M.J. Duveneck, M.R. Emery, N. Fisichelli, J. Foster, J Hushaw, L. Kenefic, A. Mahaffey, T/L. Morelli, N.J. Reo, P.G. Schaberg, K R. Simmons, A. Weiskittel, S. Wilmot, D. Hollinger, E. Lane, L. Rustad, and P.H. Templer. 2018. New England and northern New York forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the New England Climate Change Response Framework project. General Technical Report NRS-173, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA.
Marks, C.O., K.H. Nislow, and F.J. Magilligan. 2014. Quantifying flooding regime in floodplain forests to guide river restoration. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 2:1-15.
Metzler, K.J. and J.P. Barrett. 2006. The Vegetation of Connecticut: A Preliminary Classification. State Geological and Natural History of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Metzler, K.J. and A.W.H. Damman. 1985. Vegetation patterns in the Connecticut River flood plain in relation to frequency and duration of flooding. Naturaliste Canadien 112(4):535-547.
NatureServe 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available: http://explorer.natureserve.org (Accessed: April 2020).
PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. Available http://prism.oregonstate.edu, (created February 26, 2013).
Soil Survey Staff-USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2016. National Soils Information Service (NASIS Data Model Version7.3.4). Lincoln, NE. Available description: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552 (Accessed January 2020).
Sperduto, D.D. and W.F. Nichols. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. 2nd Ed. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, New Hampshire Publication. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH.
Swain, P.C. 2020. Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.
Thompson, E. H., and E.R. Sorenson. 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.
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. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2019. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.03. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. http://usnvc.org (accessed April 2020).Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D.
Approval
Nels Barrett, 2/10/2025
Acknowledgments
Michael Margo and tech team assisted w/drafts.
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 02/10/2025 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
