Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F145XY007MA
Well Drained Lake Plain
Last updated: 9/27/2024
Accessed: 04/20/2026
-
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 Valley.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 Well Drained Lake Plain ecological site consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in silty lacustrine material. Representative soils are Hartland, Hitchcock, and Pollux.. This ecological site is restricted to the northern extremes of MLRA 145 in Northern New England. As such, the reference community trends toward a mixed northern/central hardwoods transition forest. This ecological site is not well known and not well described.
Associated sites
F145XY005MA Moist Lake Plain
F145XY006CT Semi-Rich Moist Lake Plain
Similar sites
F145XY003CT Very Wet Inland Lake Plain
F145XY006CT Semi-Rich Moist Lake Plain
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus rubra
(2) Acer saccharumShrub (1) Viburnum acerifolium
(2) Acer pensylvanicumHerbaceous (1) Dryopteris intermedia
(2) Trientalis borealisPhysiographic features
The site occur on lake plains and terraces with gentle sloping, and is not subject to flooding.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Lake plain > Escarpment
(2) Plains > Lake terrace
(3) Outwash plain
(4) Plain
(5) Terrace
Runoff class Low to very high Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 3 – 1801 ft Slope 0 – 25 % Water table depth 28 – 72 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, central hardwoods – pine forests are at a low 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 productivity of central hardwoods, especially trees with southern affinities such as oaks, hickory, and tuliptree. However, climate extremes may introduce earlier leaf phenologies susceptible to frost damage and general plant weakening. Although central hardwoods – pine forests are adaptable to warmer climate shifts, fragmentation and invasive species can amplify any adverse effects of climate change. Several invasive species will continue to be a threat. (Janowiak et al, 2018).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-120 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-160 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 120-130 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 140-170 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 120 days Freeze-free period (average) 160 days Precipitation total (average) 40 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) HANOVER [USC00273850], Hanover, NH
-
(2) BELLOWS FALLS [USC00430499], Bellows Falls, VT
-
(3) LEBANON MUNI AP [USW00094765], Lebanon, NH
">Influencing water features
NONE
Wetland description
NONE
Soil features
The site consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed on eolian or sedimetary materials on glaciolacustrine landscapes. Representative soils are Hartland, Hitchcock, and Pollux.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium – granite and gneiss
(2) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(3) Glaciofluvial deposits
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Very fine sandy loam
(3) Fine sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Coarse-loamy
(2) Coarse-silty
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Very slow to moderate Depth to restrictive layer 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)5 – 9 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)4.5 – 7.8 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 30 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 10 % 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 and Kersley 2011), "Wetland, Woodland, Wildland" (Thompson and Sorenson 2000), and "Natural Communities of New Hampshire, 2nd Ed." (Spurduto and Nichols, 2011).
The Well Drained Lake Plain ecological site is restricted to the northern reaches of MLRA 145, hence, characteristic of the Laurentian-Acadian Northern Hardwood Forest system (CES201.564). The vegetation is often a mosaic of forest, woodland, shrub land, and herbaceous communities. The reference community can be variable, but commonly, is a deciduous to occasionally mixed northern/central hardwoods transition forest. This forest exhibits canopy gaps formed by storm extremes ranging from windthrows to downbursts to ice-storms. Excessive deer browse may be an issue. Fires are typically suppressed, and otherwise less common in these mesic lake plain environments compared to drier upland environments. Logging is a widespread management activity. In disturbed sites, invasive plants can include European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and shrub honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.).
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)The reference state is quite variable, containing several plant communities, including:
• 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
Other plant associations may include:
• Dry-mesic Oak - Hickory / Viburnum Forest (CEGL006336)
Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) - Carya spp. / Viburnum acerifolium Forest
(Translated) (White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Black Oak) / Hickory species / Mapleleaf Viburnum Forest
• Sugar Maple - Ash - Oak - Hickory Mesic Forest (CEGL006046)
Acer saccharum - Quercus rubra / Hepatica nobilis var. obtuse Forest
(Translated) Sugar Maple - Northern Red Oak / Round-lobe Liverleaf (CEGL006046)
• Semi-rich Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006221)
Acer saccharum - (Fraxinus americana) / Arisaema triphyllum Forest
(Translated) Sugar Maple - (White Ash) / Jack-in-the-Pulpit ForestCommunity 1.1
Northern Red Oak - Sugar Maple / Mapleleaf Viburnum - Northern Spicebush Forest (CEGL006635)The deciduous-to-mixed canopy can be diverse with variable strata species in extent. Ericads and other dwarf-shrubs are also nearly absent, a characteristic that distinguishes this association from most other red oak forests in the Northeast. Canopy composition is a variable mixture of northern red oak (Quercus rubra) (usually at least 30% of the canopy), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum), and, occasionally, eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) or eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Minor canopy associates include white ash (Fraxinus americana), American basswood (Tilia americana), black birch (Betula lenta), butternut (Juglans cinerea, and American elm Ulmus americana). In the subcanopy, striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum) is common. Other common small trees to the south include flowering dogwood (Benthamidia florida [=Cornus florida]) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Typical shrubs include: beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), and American witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), and, occasionally (to the south) mountain laurel(Kalmia latifolia) and northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) Typical herb layer plants include eastern teaberry [=wintergreen] (Gaultheria procumbens), Canada mayflower) Maianthemum canadense, wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), eastern starflower (Lysimachia borealis [= Trientalis borealis]), sessileaf bellwort (Uvularia sessilifolia), Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana), northern longawned woodgrass Brachyelytrum erectum), evergreen woodfern (Dryopteris intermedia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), eastern hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and New York fern (Parathelypteris noveboracensis [= Thelypteris noveboracensis]). On slightly richer sites, the herb layer may contain axillary [bluestem] goldenrod (Solidago caesia), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), and white wood aster (Eurybia divaricata [= Aster divaricatus]). (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2022]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political State):
MA: Red oak transition forest (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)
NH: Semi-rich oak–maple forest (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011)
VT: Mesic maple-ash-hickory-oak forest (Thompson and Sorenson, 2000)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 plantsPathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Disturbance, Invasive species establishment
Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Invasive spp. Control, Forest mgmt..
State 3
Cultural StateThe 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.
Community 3.1
CultivatedCommunity 3.2
PastureCommunity 3.3
PlantationTransition T1A
State 1 to 2Invasion, disturbance
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Disturbance/cutting/clearing, Brush removal
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Invasive species removal, native outplanting, restoration management
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Disturbance/cutting/clearing, Brush removal
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1Restoration management
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 04/20/2026 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
