Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F124XY008OH

Wet Floodplain and Drainageway

Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 124X / Ecological site F124XY008OH

USC

Metric

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.

MLRA notes

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124X–Western Allegheny Plateau

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124—Western Allegheny Plateau (USDA-NRCS, 2006)
MLRA 124, Western Allegheny Plateau extends from and includes western PA just north of Pittsburgh through southeastern OH to and includes northeastern KY. This area is primarily in the Kanawha Section of the Appalachian Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is on an unglaciated dissected plateau with narrow level valley floors, rolling ridgetops, and hilly to steep slopes with dendritic stream drainages. A notable exception is the broad, Teays Valley, and other glacio-fluvial and glacio-lacustrine features attributed to nearby Pleistocene glaciation. Elevation ranges from 660 to 1310 feet (200 to 400 meters). The geology is predominantly cyclic beds of sandstone, siltstone, clay, shale and coal of Pennsylvanian age. Soils are dominated by Udalfs, Udults, and Ochcrepts with a mesic temperature regime in combination with five parent materials, residuum, colluvium, alluvium, eolian, and extra-glacial material of glacio-fluvial and glaciolacustrine mesic materials. The climate is predominately a humid continental to temperate, with 940 to 1145 millimeters (37 to 45 inches) of precipitation. Average annual temperature is 8 to 13 degree C (46 to 56 degrees F) with a freeze-free period averaging 185 days. Much of the areas is either forest or in farms, principally for hay and pasture, with fruits and vegetables grown locally. Coal and gas extraction are important industries in the northern part of the MLRA.

Classification relationships

USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124—Western Allegheny Plateau

USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007):
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221E - Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau
Subsection: 221Ea - Pittsburgh Low Plateau
221Eb - Teays Plateau
221Ee - Unglaciated Muskingam Plains
221Ef - Western Hocking Plateau
221Eg - Lower Scotio River Plateau
221En - Kinniconick and Licking Knobs
Section: 221H - North Cumberland Plateau (in Part)
Subsection: 221Hb - Kinniconick and Licking Knobs
221He - Miami - Scioto Plain - Tipton Till Plain

Ecological site concept

Landscapes of narrow valleys are common within the dissected plateau of the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau, and fewer major valleys are broad with underfit rivers. The Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological site is situated in river systems of various sizes subject to wet conditions as a result of greater frequency and duration of flooding. Potentially, the Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological site may be split between small and medium to large size rivers. The parent material is recent alluvium weathered from sandstones siltstones, shales, and limestones, ranging from fine-loamy to fine-silty. River flood frequency and ponding is variable, ranging from rare to frequent. Frequent flooding/ponding is defined as more than a 50 percent chance of flooding in any year. Rare flooding/ponding is defined as 1 to 5 percent chance of flooding in any year or nearly 1 to 5 times in 100 years. Ponding depth and duration are variable depending on the flood event. The soils range from poorly drained to very poorly drained. Representative soils include: Atkins, Bonnie, Holly, Killbuck, Melvin, Piopolis, Purdy, and Zipp. Reference plant communities include: River Birch - American Sycamore Floodplain Forest and Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak - (Sweetgum) Swamp Forest.

Associated sites

F124XY007OH	Upper Floodplain Upper Floodplain ecological sites are higher in the flood frequency profile.

F124XY007OH

Upper Floodplain

Upper Floodplain ecological sites are higher in the flood frequency profile.

Similar sites

F124XY006OH	Wet Lowland and Depression Wet Lowland and Depression share wetland characteristics. However, Wet Floodplain and Drainageway experience flooding.

F124XY006OH

Wet Lowland and Depression

Wet Lowland and Depression share wetland characteristics. However, Wet Floodplain and Drainageway experience flooding.

Figure 1.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Acer saccharinum (2) Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Shrub	Not specified
Herbaceous	(1) Impatiens capensis

Download full description

Physiographic features

The Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological site is found on poorly drained floodplains and stream valleys. Poorly drained floodplain features include drainageways, depressions, backwater areas, and sloughs. The Wet Floodplain and Drainageway experiences rare to frequent flooding and ponding. Wet Floodplains and Drainageways are distinguished from the Upper Floodplain ecological site by exhibiting wetter conditions as a result of soils properties coupled with greater flooding and ponding conditions. The overall characteristic of the Wet Floodplain and Drainageway is that of a wetland.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Flood plain
Runoff class	Low to very high
Flooding frequency	Rare to frequent
Ponding frequency	Rare to frequent
Elevation	91 – 574 m
Slope	0%
Water table depth	0 – 20 cm
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The regional climate of the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau is predominately a humid continental climate grading at the extreme southwestern corner a to humid temperate climate with hot summers and cool winters (Beck et al., 2018; Bailey, 2014). However, the local climate is highly influenced by the dissected terrain, where climatic variations may be greater at the local scale, e.g., cooler temperatures and shorter growing season at higher elevations and more northerly latitudes. Winter precipitaion is mostly snow.

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.

Floodplain and riparian forests are highly vulnerable to climate change effects. Changes in the floodwater regimes (i.e. seasonality and intensity of streamflow) can affect floodplain species dependent on a reliable flood periodicity. Changing floodwater regimes is also expected to amplify the stresses of invasive species, pests, and pollution (Butler et al 2015).

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	122-142 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	156-178 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	1,016-1,118 mm
Frost-free period (actual range)	115-148 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	148-184 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	965-1,168 mm
Frost-free period (average)	132 days
Freeze-free period (average)	167 days
Precipitation total (average)	1,067 mm

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) PUTNEYVILLE 2 SE DAM [USC00367229], Dayton, PA
(2) FORD CITY 4 S DAM [USC00362942], Ford City, PA
(3) BUTLER 2 SW [USC00361139], Butler, PA
(4) DENISON WTR WKS [USC00332160], Dennison, OH
(5) NEW PHILADELPHIA FLD [USW00004852], New Philadelphia, OH
(6) MILLERSBURG [USC00335297], Millersburg, OH
(7) DANVILLE 2 W [USC00332044], Danville, OH
(8) COSHOCTON AG RSCH STN [USC00331905], Fresno, OH
(9) COSHOCTON WPC PLT [USC00331890], Coshocton, OH
(10) ZANESVILLE MUNI AP [USW00093824], Zanesville, OH
(11) PHILO 3 SW [USC00336600], Philo, OH
(12) NEW LEXINGTON 2 NW [USC00335857], New Lexington, OH
(13) LOGAN [USC00334672], Logan, OH
(14) JACKSON 3 NW [USC00334004], Jackson, OH
(15) WAVERLY [USC00338830], Waverly, OH
(16) PORTSMOUTH-SCIOTOVILLE [USC00336781], South Shore, OH
(17) WARNOCK2 [USC00158432], Greenup, KY
(18) GRAYSON 2 E [USC00153389], Grayson, KY
(19) OLIVE HILL 5NE [USC00156012], Olive Hill, KY
(20) GRAYSON 3 SW [USC00153391], Grayson, KY
(21) GIMLET 9N [USC00153230], Olive Hill, KY
(22) CAVE RUN LAKE [USC00152791], Morehead, KY
(23) ASHLAND [USC00150254], South Point, KY

Influencing water features

Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological sites are wetlands located along river systems of varying size. River flooding and ponding are variable, ranging from rare to frequent. Flood events may be seasonal, most common in the spring and early summer.

Wetland description

In the National Wetland Classification System (Cowardin et al., 1979), the Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological site may be considered 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

Representative soils include: Atkins, Bonnie, Holly, Killbuck, Melvin, Piopolis, Purdy, and Zipp. These soils formed from recent alluvium derived from a mixture of geologies including sandstone, siltstone, shale, and sedimentary rock. The soils’ texture family include fine-loamy and fine-silty. These soils are poorly-drained to very poorly-drained on floodplains undergoing rare to frequent flooding and ponding.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Alluvium
Surface texture	(1) Loam (2) Silt
Drainage class	Very poorly drained to poorly drained
Permeability class	Very slow to moderately slow
Soil depth	0 – 183 cm
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0%
Surface fragment cover >3"	0%
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	2.54 – 22.86 cm
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	4.5 – 7.8
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 25%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	1 – 5%

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 Plant Communities of Ohio: A Preliminary Classification (Anderson, 1982)and Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (Zimmerman et al., 2012).

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 Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological site belong to the Central Appalachian River Floodplain Forest system (CES202.608) and northern parts of the South Central Interior Floodplain system (CES202.694) as categorized and described by NatureServe (2020). Wet Floodplain and Drainageway ecological sites include wetter sections of floodplains typically associated with drainageways, depressions, backwater areas, and sloughs. Differences in the flood regime in combination with the variability of the substrate will determine the mix of floodplain vegetation. 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.

[*Caveat] The vegetation information presented is representative of complex plant communities. Key indicator plants and ecological processes are described to help inform land management decisions. Plant communities will differ across the MLRA because of the naturally occurring variability in weather, soils, and geography. The reference plant community is not necessarily the management goal. The drafts of species lists are merely representative and are not botanical descriptions of all species occurring, or potentially occurring, on this site. They are not intended to cover every situation or the full range of conditions, species, and responses for the site.

State and transition model

Custom diagram

Standard 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 text

State 1
Reference State (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 that no transition pathways are 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, the plant communities are quite variable depending on many factors such as proximity to the river, flood elevation, size of the river, and nature of the substrate. Typical plant communities include: • Acer (rubrum, saccharinum) - Fraxinus spp. - Ulmus americana Swamp Forest (CEGL005038), (Translated Name: Red Maple – (Silver Maple) - Ash species - American Elm Swamp Forest), [Common Name: Maple - Ash - Elm Swamp]; • Quercus palustris - Quercus bicolor - (Liquidambar styraciflua) Swamp Forest (CEGL002432), (Translated Name: Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak - (Sweetgum) Swamp Forest), [Common Name: Pin Oak Mixed Hardwood Depression Forest]. And many other plant community-types including a wetter version of small river floodplains: • Betula nigra - Platanus occidentalis Floodplain Forest (CEGL002086), (Translated Name: River Birch - American Sycamore Floodplain Forest, (Common Name: River Birch - Sycamore Small River Floodplain Forest]; (Source: NatureServe 2020)

Community 1.1
Maples (Red Maple, Silver Maple) - Ash species - American Elm Swamp Forest

Acer (rubrum, saccharinum) - Fraxinus spp. - Ulmus americana Swamp Forest (CEGL005038), (Translated Name: Maples (Red Maple, Silver Maple) - Ash species - American Elm Swamp Forest), [Common Name: Maple - Ash - Elm Swamp]; This plant community occupies wet bottomlands and floodplain depressions. The canopy cover is complete and dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), and/or silver maple (Acer saccharinum) (in parts of the range), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American ash (Ulmus americana). (American ash was probably a dominant tree in this community type prior to the introduction of Dutch elm disease (Ceratostomella ulmi) around 1930.) Pin oak (Quercus palustris), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) are also common. The subcanopy consists primarily of red maple (Acer rubrum) and American elm (Ulmus americana) underlain by a shrub layer which may contain a mixture of American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), common winterberry (Ilex verticillate), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), American black elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis), northern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), and speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa [= Alnus rugosa]) (in the northern parts of its range). Dominant vines include Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The depth and duration of flooding and light penetrating the forest canopy regulate density and diversity found in the herbaceous layer. Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Jack-in-th-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), and a variety of rushes (Juncus spp.) and sedges (Carex spp.) are among the most common species encountered. Arundinaria gigantea can form dense thickets within this forest at its southern limits. (Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).

Community 1.2
Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak - (Sweetgum) Swamp Forest

Quercus palustris - Quercus bicolor - (Liquidambar styraciflua) Swamp Forest (CEGL002432), (Translated Name: Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak - (Sweetgum) Swamp Forest), [Common Name: Pin Oak Mixed Hardwood Depression Forest]. This community type occupies wet bottomlands and floodplain depressions in more southern reaches of MLRA 124. The dominant trees include pin oak (Quercus palustris) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Other canopy trees include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). Other wetland hardwood species can occur, including silver maple (Acer saccharinum), river birch (Betula nigra), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Shrub and vine species are variable and may include dogwoods (Cornus spp.), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and American black elderberry (Sambucus nigra spp. canadensis). Herbaceous species also vary widely including Virginia water horehound (Lycopus virginicus), American water plantain (Alisma subcordatum), seedbox water primrose (Ludwigia alternifolia), ditch stonecrop (Penthorum sedoides), purple milkwort (Polygala sanguinea), whorled milkwort (Polygala verticillata), arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), blue mistflower (Conoclinium coelestinum [=Eupatorium coelestinum]), boneset thoroughwort (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Allegheny monkey-flower (Mimulus ringens), lilyleaf widelip orchid (Liparis liliifolia), purple fringless orchid (Platanthera peramoena), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), squarrose sedge (Carex squarrosa), green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), common rush (Juncus effusus), spikesedge (Eleocharis spp.), and wood rush (Luzula sp.). (Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).

Community 1.3
Successional forest/shrublands

(to be developed)

Community 1.4
Sucessional/[Abandoned] Field/Meadow

to be developed

Pathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.3

disturbance

Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.3

disturbance

Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1

vegetation development/succession

Pathway P1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2

vegetation development/succession

Pathway P1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.4

Pathway P1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.3

Abandonment, succession

State 2
Semi-natural State

The 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

(to be developed)

Community 2.2
Invasive Plants

(to be developed)

Pathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

invasive plant establishment, vegetation development/succession

Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

invasive plant management, forest management

Conservation practices

Forest Stand Improvement
Invasive Plant Species Control

State 3
Cultural State

The 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 2

forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment

Conservation practices

Forest Stand Improvement

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

cutting, land clearing, plant establishment

Conservation practices

Land Clearing

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

plant removal, plant establishment, successional management

Conservation practices

Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management
Invasive Plant Species Control

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

cutting, land clearing, plant establishment

Conservation practices

Land Clearing

Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1

plant removal, plant establishment, successional management

Conservation practices

Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management
Invasive Plant Species Control

Restoration pathway R3B
State 3 to 2

forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment

Conservation practices

Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management

Additional community tables

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

Anderson, D. M. 1982. Plant Communities of Ohio: A Preliminary Classification. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH (https://www.lm.doe.gov/cercla/documents/fernald_docs/cat/112509.pdf).

Apsley, D., and B.C. McCarthy. 2004. White-tailed deer herbivory on forest regeneration following fire and thinning treatments in southern Ohio mixed oak forests. P. 461–471. In: Yaussy, D.A., D.M. Hix, R.P. Long, and P.C. Goebel (eds.) Proceedings, 14th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Wooster, OH. 16-19 March 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Bailey, R. 2014. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. 2nd ed. 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.

Butler, P.R., L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson, L. Brandt, S. Handler, M. Janowiak, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, K. Karriker, J. Bartig, and S. Connolly. 2015. Central Appalachians Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis: a Report From The Central Appalachians Climate Change Response Framework Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-146, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

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, 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).

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).

Lafon, C.W., A.T. Naito, H.D. Grissino-Mayer, S.P. Horn, and T.A. Waldrop. 2017. Fire History of the Appalachian Region: a Review and Synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-219., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

NatureServe 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org (Accessed: April 2020).

Nowacki, G.J. and M.D. Abrams. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58(2):123–138.

Ohio Division of Wildlife. 2015. Ohio’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Columbus, Ohio, USA. (https://ohiodnr.gov/static/documents/wildlife/wildlife-management/OH_SWAP_2015.pdf).

Royo, A.A.; D.W. Kramer, K.V. Miller, N.P. Nibbelink, and S.L. Stout. 2017. Spatio-temporal variation in foodscapes modifies deer browsing impact on vegetation. Landscape Ecology 32(2):2281–2295.

Soil Survey Staff-USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2016. National Soils Information Service (NASIS Data Model Version 7.3.4) Lincoln, NE. Available description: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552 (Accessed January 2020).

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).

Zimmerman, E., T. Davis, G. Podniesinski, M. Furedi, J. McPherson, S. Seymour, B. Eichelberger, N. Dewar, J. Wagner, and J. Fike (editors). 2012. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, PA.

Contributors

Nels Barrett, Ph.D.
Jason Teets

Approval

Greg Schmidt, 9/26/2024

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	06/30/2020
Approved by	Greg Schmidt
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:

Download reference sheet

Search

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F124XY008OH

Wet Floodplain and Drainageway

Last updated: 9/26/2024 Accessed: 11/21/2024

General information

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

Figure 1.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Ecosystem states

State 1 submodel, plant communities

State 2 submodel, plant communities

State 3 submodel, plant communities

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024