Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F145XY003CT
Very Wet Inland Lake Plain
Last updated: 9/27/2024
Accessed: 06/08/2026
-
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 inceptisols 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 much of the areas is also forested, habitat loss and fragmentation are widespread throughout the Connecticut ValleyClassification 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 Ver Wet Inland Lake Plain ecological site consists of deep, very poorly drained silty clayey soils formed in glacio-lacustrine sediments and occupy bottomlands and basins. Geographically, these areas were once occupied by former glacial Lake Hitchcock in MA and northcentral CT, as well other former glacial lakes within the CT valley. Representative soil is Maybid derived from inland glaciolacustrine parent materials. The vegetation is often a mosaic of forest, woodland, shrub land, and herbaceous communities. The reference forest community is typified by a red maple – hardwoods swamp forest. These sites may be influenced by seasonal flooding and high water tables or seepage and maybe considered minerotrophic (slightly enriched).
Associated sites
F145XY004CT Wet Lake Plain
Similar sites
F145XY006CT Semi-Rich Moist Lake Plain
F145XY007MA Well Drained Lake Plain
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer rubrum
(2) Nyssa sylvaticaShrub (1) Vaccinium corymbosum
(2) Rhododendron viscosumHerbaceous (1) Symplocarpus foetidus
(2) Dulichium arundinaceumPhysiographic features
The site consists occurs as nearly level depressions in lake plain landscapes. Frequent to occasional ponding occurs October-May.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Lake plain > Depression
Runoff class Negligible to low Flooding frequency None Ponding duration Long (7 to 30 days) Ponding frequency Occasional to frequent Elevation 3 – 1200 ft Slope 0 – 3 % Ponding depth 0 – 6 in Water table depth 3 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).
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, wetland forests are at a moderate vulnerability risk to climate change with impacts considered both negative and positive. Warmer seasonal temperatures and a prolonged growing season will be beneficial for increasing wetland forest productivity. However, climate extremes may introduce earlier leaf phenologies susceptible to frost damage and general plant weakening. Although wetland forests are adapted to seasonal changes in hydrology, more intense and catastrophic storms (wind, rain, ice) may increase the frequency of canopy gaps, amplify the effects of insect pests, and introduced species. Several invasive species will continue o be a threat. (Janowiak et al, 2018).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-140 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 160-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 110-140 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 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) HARTFORD BRADLEY INTL AP [USW00014740], Suffield, CT
-
(2) MIDDLETOWN 4 W [USC00064767], Middlefield, CT
-
(3) AMHERST [USC00190120], Amherst, MA
">Influencing water features
Very poorly drained<br />
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 Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979):<br />
<br />
Palustrine, class variable, leaf morphology variable, water regime variable, chemistry modifier variable.Soil features
The site consists of very deep and very poorly drained soils that formed in fine textured glaciolacustrine sediments. Content of rock fragments is usually less than 1 percent by volume. The soil ranges from strongly acid to moderately acid in the A horizon and from strongly acid to neutral in the B and C horizons. Permeability is slow or very slow. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high or high in the surface layer very low to moderately high in the subsoil and substratum. The soil is intermittently ponded or has very low runoff.
The representative soil map unit component is Maybid that is derived from lacustrine sediments rather than marine sediments.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Glaciolacustrine deposits – granite and gneiss
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
Family particle size (1) Fine
Drainage class Very poorly drained Depth to restrictive layer 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)6 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)5.1 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified 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 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).
The Very Wet Coastal Lake Plain ecological site is characteristic of the North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp system (CES202.604). The vegetation is often a mosaic of forest, woodland, shrub land, and herbaceous communities. The reference community is typified by red maple – hardwood swamp occasionally with a patchy canopy. Alteration of the natural hydrological regime (diversions, culverts, impoundments) can be a threat. Fires are typically suppressed, and otherwise less common in these wet lake plain environments compared to drier upland environments. Windthrows are common. Invasive species, such as common reedgrass (Phragmites australis ssp. australis ), purple loosetrife (Lythrum salicaria), and occasionally multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), non-native honeysuckles (Lonicera spp., Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), and barberry (Berberis thunbergii) may produce a state change. The most significant threat is the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), an Asian beetle that infests and kills North American ash trees.
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 state minimally-managed)Note: The reference plant communities for this ecological site is highly variable:
• Southern New England-Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406)
Acer rubrum - Fraxinus (pennsylvanica, americana) / Lindera benzoin / Symplocarpus foetidus Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple - (Green Ash, White Ash) / Northern Spicebush / Skunk-cabbage Swamp Forest
Other plant communities may occur:
• Red Maple- Blackgum Basin Swamp Forest
Acer rubrum - Nyssa sylvatica - Betula alleghaniensis / Sphagnum spp. Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple - Blackgum - Yellow Birch / Peatmoss species Swamp Forest
• Northeast Red Maple Acidic Swamp Forest (CEGL006220)
Acer rubrum / Ilex mucronata - Vaccinium corymbosum Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple / Mountain Holly - Highbush Blueberry Swamp Forest
• Lower New England Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL006156)
Acer rubrum / Rhododendron viscosum - Clethra alnifolia Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple / Swamp Azalea - Coastal Sweet-pepperbush Swamp Forest
• Southern New England Threeway Sedge Fen (CEGL006131)
Dulichium arundinaceum / Sphagnum spp. Fen
(Translated) Threeway Sedge / Peatmoss species Fen
• Eastern Cattail Marsh (CEGL006153)
Typha (angustifolia, latifolia) - (Schoenoplectus spp.) Eastern Marsh
(Translated) Narrowleaf Cattail, Broadleaf Cattail) - (Bulrush species) Eastern Marsh
A local variant plant community may be found:
• Silky Willow Shrub Swamp (CEGL006305)
Salix sericea Shrub Swamp
(Translated) Silky Willow Shrub SwampCommunity 1.1
Southern New England-Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406)Southern New England-Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406)
Acer rubrum - Fraxinus (pennsylvanica, americana) / Lindera benzoin / Symplocarpus foetidus Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple - (Green Ash, White Ash) / Northern Spicebush / Skunk-cabbage Swamp Forest
The reference community is typified by a red maple – hardwoods swamp forest. These communities may be perched or show seepage and maybe considered minerotrophic (slightly enriched). Canopy dominants include red maple (Acer rubrum) with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) or white ash (Fraxinus americana). Other trees include pin oak (Quercus palustris), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Shrubs density varies with openness and hydrology. Shrubs include northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and winterberry holly (Ilex verticillate), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum var lucidum). Groundcover is variable w/ skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus)and and/or ferns: cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustrius); and sedges: Gray’s sedge (Carex grayi) , fringed sedge (Carex crinata), hop sedge (Carex lupulina). Depending on the water table fluctuations, the “perched” wetlands may contain a more diverse shrub layer. (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]).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 Forest/Woodland [vegetation]Community 2.2
Invasive PlantsEuropean Buckthorn
Purple Loosestrife
Reed CanarygrassState 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
PlantationTransition T1A
State 1 to 2Disturbance, invasive species
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Disturbance/cutting/clearing, Brush removal
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Restoration & Mgmt, Forest Stand Improvement, Early Successional Habitat Development, Upland Wildlife Mgmt, Invasive spp. Control, Plant establishment
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Disturbance/cutting/clearing, Brush removal
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1Restoration & Mgmt, Forest Stand Improvement, Early Successional Habitat Development, Upland Wildlife Mgmt, Invasive spp. Control, Plant establishment
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Abandonment, Plant establishment, Forest mgmt.
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 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Site Development and Testing Plan 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
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] 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.
Cowardin, L.M. et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
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. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..
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.A. Lutz, A.P. Olivero-Sheldon. 2011. Ecologically important floodplain forests in the Connecticut River watershed. The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut River Program. 44pp.
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. Rpt of Investigations No. 12.
NatureServe. 2009. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA, U.S.A. Data current as of 06 February 2009.
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.
USDA, NRCS. 2022. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 10/03/2023). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC USA.
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.
Approval
Nels Barrett, 9/27/2024
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 06/08/2026 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
