Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F003XY701OR
High Cascades Wet
Accessed: 12/21/2024
General 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.
Figure 1. Mapped extent
Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
(1) Tsuga mertensiana |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
(1) Vaccinium scoparium |
| Herbaceous |
(1) Chimaphila umbellata |
Physiographic features
The site is on deep, moderately well drained and moderate to steeply sloping soils cindercones, glacial moraines and pumice and ash flow deposits.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Ground moraine
(2) Cinder cone (3) Ash flow |
|---|---|
| Flooding frequency | None |
| Ponding frequency | None |
| Elevation | 4,500 – 7,500 ft |
| Slope | 60% |
| Water table depth | 60 in |
| Aspect | N |
Climatic features
Precipitation comes mostly as snow. Winters are snowy and cold. Summers are cool and dry. Summer thunderstorms do occur, providing occasional summer precipitation.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 45 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | 90 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 100 in |
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 3. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Influencing water features
None
Soil features
Soils derived from the volcanic activity of Mount Mazama. They formed from ash flows from the eruption and as cinder cones developed on the flanks of the volcano. Soils that developed from glacial activity are also included.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Paragravelly loamy sand (2) Gravelly loam |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Sandy |
| Drainage class | Moderately well drained to excessively drained |
| Permeability class | Moderate to very rapid |
| Soil depth | 20 – 60 in |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 5 – 35% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 35% |
| Available water capacity (0-40in) |
3.4 – 14.7 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) |
5.6 – 6.5 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
15 – 50% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
50% |
Ecological dynamics
Mountain hemlock is the dominant specie in the overstory, with lesser amounts of Shasta red fir and Western white pine present. The major disturbance factor in this site is fire and disease.
Due to the high elevation and long periods of snow cover, fire return intervals are long (possibly 400+ years). When fire does occur it is usually a stand replacement fire, consuming all trees. After such a fire Lodgepole pine, a pioneer specie, establishes and starts the succession process all over again.
Older mountain hemlock trees are susceptible to disease, especialy laminated root rot (phellinus weirii). The disease kills trees creating openings for grass/forb/shrub growth or for new seedlings to become established.
State and transition model
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 text
Ecosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Mountain Hemlock
Community 1.1
Mountain Hemlock
The historic climax plant community is comprised mostly of an overstory of Mountain hemlock. Other species that maybe present in the overstory are Shasta red fir, Western white pine, Lodgepole pine and subalpine fir. The understory is sparce and specie richness is very low. Only one plant makes up the shrub component of the understory, grouse huckleberry. Forbs/grasses makes up a very small percentage of the remaining ground cover.
Forest overstory. At maturity Mountain hemlock dominates the overstory.
Forest understory. The typical annual production of the understory species to a height of 4.5 feet (excluding boles of trees) under low, high, and representative canopy covers. The understory composition is in "percent canopy cover." A "0" is used to show less than 1 percent canopy.
Table 5. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 30-40% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 12-17% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 0-1% |
| Forb foliar cover | 0-1% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 20-30% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 10-15% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 1-5% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 10-15% |
Table 6. Soil surface cover
| Tree basal cover | 0% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana basal cover | 0% |
| Grass/grasslike basal cover | 0-1% |
| Forb basal cover | 0-1% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 50-60% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 10-15% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 1-5% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 10-15% |
Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
| Height Above Ground (ft) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.5 | – | – | 0-1% | 0-2% |
| >0.5 <= 1 | 0-1% | 10-15% | – | – |
| >1 <= 2 | 0-1% | 1-5% | – | – |
| >2 <= 4.5 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >4.5 <= 13 | 1-3% | – | – | – |
| >13 <= 40 | 1-3% | – | – | – |
| >40 <= 80 | 35-45% | – | – | – |
| >80 <= 120 | – | – | – | – |
| >120 | – | – | – | – |
State 2
Shasta Red Fir
Community 2.1
Shasta Red Fir
Shasta red fir is a seral plant community that occurs when some disturbance negatively effects the mountain hemlock allowing shasta red fir to become dominant in the overstory or on a successional path from the lodgepole pine plant community to mountain hemlock plant community.
Forest overstory. The typical forest overstory composition for the Shasta red fir plant community.
Forest understory. The typical annual production of the understory species to a height of 4.5 feet (excluding boles of trees) under low, high, and representative canopy covers. A "0" shows a canopy cover of less than 1%.
Table 8. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 20-25% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 0-1% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 3-5% |
| Forb foliar cover | 0-1% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0-1% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 20-30% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 1-3% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 0% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 20-30% |
Table 9. Soil surface cover
| Tree basal cover | 0% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana basal cover | 0-1% |
| Grass/grasslike basal cover | 0-1% |
| Forb basal cover | 0-1% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 40-50% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 1-5% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 0% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 15-20% |
Table 10. Canopy structure (% cover)
| Height Above Ground (ft) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.5 | – | 0-1% | 2-4% | 1-3% |
| >0.5 <= 1 | – | – | 0-1% | – |
| >1 <= 2 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >2 <= 4.5 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >4.5 <= 13 | – | – | – | – |
| >13 <= 40 | 0-2% | – | – | – |
| >40 <= 80 | 30-40% | – | – | – |
| >80 <= 120 | 1-3% | – | – | – |
| >120 | – | – | – | – |
State 3
Lodgepole Pine
Community 3.1
Lodgepole Pine
The Lodgepole pine plant community develops after a severe disurtance occurs in the Mountain hemlock or Shasta red fir plant communities. The primary disturbance factor is a stand replacement fire (SRF). Generally all trees are killed in a SRF fire. Lodgepole is recognized as a pioneer tree specie and it easily establishes after a fire.
Forest overstory. The typical forest overtory composition for the Lodgepole pine community.
Forest understory. The typical annual production of the understory species to a height of 4.5 feet (excluding boles of trees) under low, high, and representative canopy covers.
Numbers shown are "percent canopy cover". A "0" is present when canopy cover is less than 1 percent.
Table 11. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 25-30% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 0% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 0-2% |
| Forb foliar cover | 0% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 15-20% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 5-10% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 2-5% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 25-35% |
Table 12. Soil surface cover
| Tree basal cover | 0% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana basal cover | 0% |
| Grass/grasslike basal cover | 0-1% |
| Forb basal cover | 0% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 20-25% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 15-30% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 0-5% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 40-50% |
Table 13. Canopy structure (% cover)
| Height Above Ground (ft) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.5 | – | – | 0-2% | – |
| >0.5 <= 1 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >1 <= 2 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >2 <= 4.5 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >4.5 <= 13 | 0-1% | – | – | – |
| >13 <= 40 | 3-5% | – | – | – |
| >40 <= 80 | 20-30% | – | – | – |
| >80 <= 120 | – | – | – | – |
| >120 | – | – | – | – |
Additional community tables
Interpretations
Supporting information
Contributors
C Ziegler
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 | |
| 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
Other
The 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.
Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.