Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site W1244X00A999
Alpha
Omega
Beta
Last updated: 3/15/2026
Accessed: 10/03/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 244X–Northern Brooks Range Mountains
WAY OUT THERE
LRU notes
IN THE MIDDLE
Classification relationships
LANDFIRE
Ecological site concept
ANYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE
Associated sites
F244XA000AK TEST TEST TEST
Testing
Similar sites
YX244X00A113 Arctic Tussock Tundra Mountain Slopes
Figure 1. husky
Table 2. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Picea engelmannii
Shrub (1) Vaccinium alaskaense
Herbaceous (1) Calamagrostis canadensis
Legacy ID
F244XA999AK
Physiographic features
hvljvljkhgckhgckhxkhgc
Table 3. Representative physiographic features
Geomorphic position, mountains (1) Upper third of mountainflank
Landforms (1) Alluvial plain > Alluvial cone > Frost boil
(2) Coastal plain > Avalanche chute > Dune traces
Flooding duration Extremely brief (0.1 to 4 hours) to very long (more than 30 days) Ponding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) Elevation 2 – 15000 ft Ponding depth 3 – 20 in Aspect W, N, E, S Table 4. Representative physiographic features (actual ranges)
Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Elevation 0 – 20000 ft Ponding depth 1 – 25 in Climatic features
chjclujv,mn ,jcgkhgxkhdkujcv,m , /, .
kjb;olhWFO'IABVKXBCVJKLBzx
Table 5 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 40-100 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 80-130 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 10-70 in Frost-free period (actual range) 10-110 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 50-140 days Precipitation total (actual range) 10-70 in Frost-free period (average) 80 days Freeze-free period (average) 100 days Precipitation total (average) 30 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) DUTCH HARBOR [USC00502587], Unalaska, AK
-
(2) KITOI BAY [USC00504812], Kodiak, AK
-
(3) CHANDALAR LAKE [USC00501492], Yukon Flats Nat Wildlife, AK
-
(4) KOTZEBUE RALPH WEIN AP [USW00026616], Kotzebue, AK
">Influencing water features
nO WATER EQUALS DROUGHT
Wetland description
tOO MUCH WATER EQUALS FLOOD
Soil features
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO ANDREW MCPHEE
Figure 7. ecosystem
Table 6. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Backswamp deposits – argillite
(2) Beach sand – calcareous conglomerate
(3) Woody organic material
Surface texture (1) Very cobbly-artifactual, cobbly-artifactual, channery-artifactual loamy very fine sand
(2) Extremely cobbly, extremely cobbly silt loam
Family particle size (1) Ashy over medial
Drainage class Excessively drained to well drained Permeability class Very rapid to moderately rapid Depth to restrictive layer 2 – 12 in Soil depth 0 – 20 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 2 – 99 % Surface fragment cover >3" 74 – 86 % Clay content
(20-40in)2 – 6 % Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-20in)7.1 – 9.4 Table 7. Representative soil features (actual values)
Drainage class Well drained to very poorly drained Permeability class Very rapid to rapid Depth to restrictive layer 1 – 15 in Soil depth 0 – 30 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 100 % Surface fragment cover >3" 9 – 93 % Clay content
(20-40in)0 – 10 % Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-20in)6.2 – 10 Ecological dynamics
WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN TECHNOLOGY
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 textLand use 1
Dominant resource concerns
-
Seasonal high water table
-
Drifted Snow
-
Nutrients transported to ground water
State 1.1
State 1.2
State 1.3
Transition T
State 1.1 to 1.21
Context dependence.2
Conservation practices
Bedding Alley Cropping Waste Storage Facility Key drivers
-
Seed dispersal by livestock
-
Avalanche frequency or severity
-
Timber management
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Primary production
Transition T
State 1.1 to 1.3Restoration pathway R
State 1.2 to 1.1Restoration pathway R
State 1.3 to 1.1Community 2
Additional community tables
Table 8. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 Grass 10–20 Indian ricegrass ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides – – brome BROMU Bromus – – Forb2 flower 30–40 lillydale onion ALOX Allium oxyphilum 0–10 1–2 lily of the Nile AGAF Agapanthus africanus 1–5 3–4 Moss3 moss 50–60 sphagnum SPAF70 Sphagnum affine 5–20 0–1 Table 9. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) TreeSitka spruce PISI Picea sitchensis Native 50-150 20-50 1-5 0 Table 10. Community 1.1 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Forb/Herbprickly rose ROAC Rosa acicularis Native 0.5–2.5 1–99 Table 11. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Table 12. Representative site productivity
Common name Symbol Site index low Site index high CMAI low CMAI high Age of CMAI Site index curve code Site index curve basis Citation subalpine fir ABLA 2 6 35 75 110 005 100TA Hoyer, Gerald D. and Francis R. Herman. 1989. Height-age and site index curves for Pacific silver fir in the Pacific Northeast. USDA, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Research Paper PNW-RP-418. Table Other productivity information
Caribbean pine Totally out of place Supporting information
Inventory data references
forgot to add anything here... check to see if it shows because the nasis data did not show...
Type locality
Location 1: Aleutians East County, AK Township/Range/Section T10 R40 S2 Latitude 23° 10′ 22″ Longitude -102° 5′ 50″ References
-
. 2019. Chicken-sage — Sphaeromeria argentea. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on August 6, 2019, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PDAST8S010.
-
. 2015. Ecological Systems of Washington State. A Guide to Identification.
-
. March 2021. National Resources Inventory Grazing Land On-Site Data Collection Handbook of Instructions. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
-
Acker, J. 2012. Recent Trends in Western Screech-Owl and Barred Owl Abundances on Bainbridge Island, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 93:133–137.
-
Adams, C.R. and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2006. Increasing the Effectiveness of Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Control in Wet Meadow Restorations. Restoration Ecology 14:441–451.
-
Aerts, R., Verhoeven, and D.F. Whigham. 1999. Plant-Mediated Controls on Nutrient Cycling in Temperate Fens and Bogs. Ecology 80:2170.
-
Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C..
-
Agee, J.K. and L. Smith. 1984. Subalpine Tree Reestablishment After Fire in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. Ecology 65:810–819.
Other references
Anything you can think of.
Bill, Duck. 1901. Quacking up a storm. Wetland Press. The pond in the back yard.Contributors
c.m. knats
Approval
Marji Patz, 3/15/2026
Acknowledgments
I owuld like to thank my audience for my crazy ideas
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) You wrote, she edited it, he published it Contact for lead author Call me Date 12/12/2012 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Biomass Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
Testing one two three four -
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:
-
18:
Potential for ice build up
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
