Search

Search for a Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F144AY023CT

Well Drained Outwash

Accessed: 04/26/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 144A / Ecological site F144AY023CT

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): 144A–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part

MLRA 144A: New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part
The eastern half of the eastern part of this MLRA is in the Seaboard Lowland Section of the New England Province of the Appalachian Highlands. The western half of the eastern part and the southeastern half of the western part are in the New England Upland Section of the same province and division. The northwestern half of the western part is in the Hudson Valley Section of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is a very scenic area of rolling to hilly uplands that are broken by many gently sloping to level valleys that terminate in coastal lowlands. Elevation ranges from sea level to 1,000 feet (0 to 305 meters) in much of the area, but it is 2,000 feet (610 meters) on some hills. Relief is mostly about 6 to 65 feet (2 to 20 meters) in the valleys and about 80 to 330 feet (25 to 100 meters) in the uplands.
This area has been glaciated and consists almost entirely of till plains and drumlins dissected by narrow valleys with a thin mantle of till. The southernmost boundary of the area marks the farthest southward extent of glaciation on the eastern seaboard. The river valleys and coastal plains are filled with glacial lake sediments, marine sediments, and glacial outwash. The bedrock in the eastern half of the area consists primarily of igneous and metamorphic rocks of early Paleozoic age. Granite is the most common igneous rock, and gneiss, schist, and slate are the most common metamorphic rocks. In the parts of the MLRA in northeastern Pennsylvania and in eastern and southeastern New York, Devonian- to Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, shale, and limestone bedrock is dominant. Carbonate rocks, primarily dolomite and limestone, are the dominant kinds of bedrock in the part of this MLRA in northwestern Connecticut.

Ecological site concept

This site consists of mainly very deep, well drained, coarse loamy soils formed in glaciofluvial materials. Slopes range from 0 to 60 percent. Representative soils are Agawam, Hazen, Paulins Kill, and Dunellen.

The representative plant communities are varied but consist largely of pines (pitch, white) and oaks (chestnut, black, scarlet, and white). These dry sandy sites are subject to many disturbances including conversion by agricultural cropping, plantations, development, burning, cutting from occasional tree harvests, and invasive species such as tree-of-heaven and black locust.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Quercus velutina (2) Pinus strobus
Shrub	(1) Vaccinium pallidum
Herbaceous	Not specified

Download full description

Physiographic features

They are level to steep soils on outwash plains and terraces. Slope ranges from 0 to 60 percent.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Outwash plain (2) Outwash terrace (3) Stream terrace
Slope	60%

Climatic features

Mean annual precipitation is 51 inches and is usually uniformly distributed throughout the year. Frost free and freeze free days average 157 and 184, respectively.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (average)	157 days
Freeze-free period (average)	184 days
Precipitation total (average)	51 in

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 4. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) NORWICH PUB UTIL PLT [USC00065910], Norwich, CT
(2) BELCHERTOWN [USC00190562], Belchertown, MA
(3) WANAQUE RAYMOND DAM [USC00289187], Haskell, NJ
(4) KINGSTON [USC00374266], Kingston, RI
(5) BRIDGEPORT SIKORSKY MEM AP [USW00094702], Stratford, CT
(6) DANBURY [USC00061762], Bethel, CT
(7) NASHUA 2 NNW [USC00275712], Merrimack, NH

Soil features

The site consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in coarse loamy glacial outwash.

Representative soils are Agawam, Hazen, Paulins Kill, and Dunellen.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Glaciofluvial deposits – sandstone and shale
Surface texture	(1) Very gravelly fine sandy loam (2) Sandy loam (3) Loam
Drainage class	Well drained
Permeability class	Moderately slow to slow
Soil depth	72 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	4.1 – 6.6
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	2 – 15%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	2 – 25%

Ecological dynamics

The representative plant communities are varied but consist largely of pines (pitch, white) and oaks (chestnut, black, scarlet, and white), e.g., “Appalachian oak – pine forest” (Edinger et al. 2014, Sperduto and Nichols 2011); “black oak – chestnut oak / huckleberry forest” (Metzler and Barrett 2006); “dry rich oak forest” (Swain and Kearsley 2001); “black oak / hillside blueberry” (Metzler and Barrett 2006,); dry, rich oak forests” (Swain and Kearsley 2001), “black oak – scarlet oak woodland” (Swain and Kearsley 2001), “mixed pine-red oak woodland” (Sperduto and Nichols 2011); “pitch pine – oak woodlands” (Swain and Kearsley 2001, Edinger et al. 2014, Sperduto and Nichols 2011, Enser et al 2011), “white pine - oak forest” (Swain and Kearsley 2001, Enser et al 2011); and red cedar woodlands (Metzler and Barrett 2006, Swain and Kearsley 2001, Enser et al 2011,). Other plant communities with more open cover include barrens, heathlands and grasslands, e.g., “scrub oak barrens” (Metzler and Barrett 2006, Swain and Kearsley 2001, (bearberry – low bush blueberry barrens” (Metzler and Barrett 2006), “sandplain heathlands” (Swain and Kearsley 2001), “little bluestem – poverty grass grasslands” (Metzler and Barrett 2006), “sandplain grasslands” (Swain and Kearsley 2001), and “inland sandbarrens” (Enser et al 2011).

These dry sandy sites are subject to many disturbances including conversion by agricultural cropping, plantations, development, burning, cutting from occasional tree harvests, and invasive species such as tree-of-heaven and black locust.

State and transition model

Custom diagram

Standard diagram

Figure 5. STM_144AY023_Well-Drained_Outwash

Figure 6. STM_144AY023_Well-Drained_Outwash

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models

Supporting information

Other references

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.

Enser, R., Gregg, D., Sparks, C., August, P., Jordan, P., Coit, J., Raithel, C., Tefft, B., Payton, B., Brown, C. and LaBash, C., 2011. Rhode Island ecological communities classification. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI.

Enser, R. and Lundgren, J.A., 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston (RI).

Gawler, S.C. and Cutko, A., 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: a guide to natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation.

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.

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.

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:

Download reference sheet