Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F144AY028MA

Wet Outwash

Last updated: 10/04/2024
Accessed: 11/13/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 144A / Ecological site F144AY028MA

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 hills, drumlins, and bedrock-controlled uplands with a mantle of till. It is dissected by narrow glacio-fluvial valleys. The southernmost boundary of the area marks the farthest southward extent of Wisconsinian 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 eastern and southeastern New York, Devonian- to Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, shale, and limestone are dominant. Carbonate rocks, primarily dolomite and limestone, are the dominant kinds of bedrock in the part of this MLRA in northwestern Connecticut.

Classification relationships

HIERARCHICAL CLASSIFICATION RELATIONSHIPS
USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144A— New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part.

USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007)
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221A - Lower New England
Subsection: 221Aa – Boston Basin
221Ac – Narragansett-Bristol Lowland and Islands
221Ad – Southern New England Coastal Lowland
221Ae – Hudson Highlands
221Ag - Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains
221Ah - Worcester-Monadnock Plateau
221Ai – Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain
221Ak - Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland
Section: 221B – Hudson Valley
Subsection: 221Ba – Hudson Limestone Valley
221Bb - Miami – Taconic Foothills
221Bc – Hudson Glacial Lake Plains

Ecological site concept

The Wet Outwash ecological site consists of very deep, poorly drained sandy to loamy soils formed in outwash and stratified drift. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils in low-lying positions on terraces and plains. Representative soils include Walpole, Wareham, Raypol, Mashpee, Massasoit.
The plant community is highly variable. Representative plant communities are typically dominated by red maple and or blackgum with a dense shrub layer. Other community-types include Atlantic white cedar. and red spruce swamps.

Associated sites

F144AY027MA	Moist Sandy Outwash
F144AY031MA	Very Wet Outwash

F144AY027MA

Moist Sandy Outwash

F144AY031MA

Very Wet Outwash

Similar sites

F144AY017NH	Well Drained Lake Plain
R144AY046RI	Subaqueous Freshwater Organic Deposits

F144AY017NH

Well Drained Lake Plain

R144AY046RI

Subaqueous Freshwater Organic Deposits

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Acer rubrum (2) Nyssa sylvatica
Shrub	(1) Vaccinium corymbosum
Herbaceous	Not specified

Download full description

Physiographic features

This site occurs across a variety of landforms in plains and is not subject to flooding.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Coastal plain > Delta (2) Lake plain > Depression (3) Outwash plain > Terrace (4) Drainageway (5) Ground moraine (6) Marine terrace (7) Outwash plain (8) Outwash terrace
Runoff class	Negligible to very high
Flooding frequency	None
Ponding frequency	None to frequent
Elevation	1,000 ft
Slope	8%
Water table depth	2 – 12 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The Koppen-Geiger climate classification of the area in which this MLRA occurs varies between Dfb (Warm-summer humid continental) in the North, and Dfa (Hot-summer humid continental) in the southern portion of the MLRA. Precipitation is usually uniformly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, however, it is slightly lower in summer. Precipitation is slightly higher in spring and fall in inland areas. Rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during the summer. During the winter, most of the precipitation occurs as moderate-intensity storms (northeasters) that produce large amounts of rain or snow. The freeze-free period increases in length to the south.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	126-142 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	148-188 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	44-48 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	116-159 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	146-203 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	41-49 in
Frost-free period (average)	136 days
Freeze-free period (average)	170 days
Precipitation total (average)	46 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) ORANGE MUNI AP [USW00054756], Orange, MA
(2) RUTLAND [USC00436995], Rutland, VT
(3) GLOVERSVILLE [USC00303319], Gloversville, NY
(4) MILLBROOK 3 W [USW00064756], Millbrook, NY
(5) BELVIDERE BRG [USC00280734], Bangor, NJ
(6) GROTON NEW LONDON AP [USW00014707], Groton, CT
(7) PLYMOUTH MUNI AP [USW00054769], Carver, MA
(8) DURHAM 2 SSW [USW00054795], Durham, NH

Influencing water features

Poorly drained
Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow depth. Free water at shallow depth is common. The water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, nearly continuous rainfall, or a combination of these.

Wetland description

National Wetland Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979):

Palustrine, class variable, leaf morphology variable, water regime variable, chemistry modifier variable.

Soil features

This site consists of shallow to very deep, poorly drained soils formed from wind or water deposited materials. Representative soils are Walpole, Mashpee, Massasoit, Raypol, and Wareham.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Eolian deposits – granite and gneiss (2) Glaciofluvial deposits – igneous and sedimentary rock (3) Lacustrine deposits – schist (4) Glaciolacustrine deposits (5) Glaciomarine deposits (6) Outwash
Surface texture	(1) Sand (2) Silt loam (3) Loamy sand (4) Fine sandy loam (5) Very fine sandy loam (6) Loamy fine sand
Family particle size	(1) Coarse-loamy (2) Coarse-loamy over clayey (3) Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal (4) Sandy
Drainage class	Poorly drained
Permeability class	Slow to rapid
Depth to restrictive layer	13 – 72 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	2%
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	1 – 7 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	3.5 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	30%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	6%

Ecological dynamics

The Wet Outwash ecological site is characteristic of the North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp system (CES202.604). Representative plant communities are typically dominated by red maple and or blackgum with a dense shrub layer. Other community types in Atlantic white cedar swamps, and red spruce swamps. Natural disturbances include climate extremes such as, excessive droughts, or storm activity ranging from windthrows to downbursts to ice-storms. Other agents-of-change include land conversions and fragmentation by agricultural, development and logging. Where they occur, Altlantic White cedar swamps are considered a successional community. Invasive plants include reedgrass (Phragmites australis ssp. australis ), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and Norway spruce (Picea abies).

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)

The reference state includes: • Acer rubrum - Nyssa sylvatica - Betula alleghaniensis / Sphagnum spp. Swamp Forest Translated Name: Red Maple - Blackgum - Yellow Birch / Peatmoss species Swamp Forest Common Name: Red Maple - Blackgum Basin Swamp Forest (CEGL006014) Other forested communities may include: • Acer rubrum / Rhododendron viscosum - Clethra alnifolia Swamp Forest Translated Name: Red Maple / Swamp Azalea - Coastal Sweet-pepperbush Swamp Forest Common Name: Lower New England Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL006156) • Picea rubens - Acer rubrum / Ilex mucronata Swamp Forest Translated Name: Red Spruce - Red Maple / Catberry Swamp Forest Common Name: Red Spruce - Red Maple Acidic Swamp Forest (CEGL006198) • Pinus rigida / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Sphagnum spp. Swamp Woodland Translated Name: Pitch Pine / Leatherleaf / Peatmoss species Swamp Woodland Common Name: Pitch Pine Bog (CEGL006194) • Pinus rigida / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Sphagnum spp. Swamp Woodland Translated Name: Pitch Pine / Leatherleaf / Peatmoss species Swamp Woodland Common Name: Pitch Pine Bog (CEGL006194) Along the coast, a successional community may include: • Chamaecyparis thyoides / Ilex glabra - Rhododendron viscosum Swamp Forest Translated Name: Atlantic White-cedar / Inkberry - Swamp Azalea Swamp Forest Common Name: Coastal Plain Atlantic White-cedar Swamp Forest (CEGL006188) • Chamaecyparis thyoides / Rhododendron maximum Swamp Forest (Atlantic White-cedar / Great Laurel Swamp Forest) Common name: Atlantic White-cedar / Great Laurel Swamp Forest (CEGL006355)

Community 1.1
: Red Maple - Blackgum - Yellow Birch / Peatmoss species Swamp Forest (CEGL006014)

Acer rubrum - Nyssa sylvatica - Betula alleghaniensis / Sphagnum spp. Swamp Forest Translated Name: Red Maple - Blackgum - Yellow Birch / Peatmoss species Swamp Forest Common Name: Red Maple - Blackgum Basin Swamp Forest (CEGL006014) The dominant trees are red maple (Acer rubrum)and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus), and to the north red spruce (Picea rubens) may be minor canopy associates. The most abundant shrubs are common winterberry (Ilex verticillata) and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum); associated shrub species include, mountain holly (Ilex mucronata [= Nemopanthus mucronatus]), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata), maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina), white meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia [= Spiraea latifolia]), and common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) is the characteristic dominant in the herb layer, with royal fern (Osmunda regalis), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica), rattlesnake manna grass (Glyceria canadensis), threelef goldthread (Coptis trifolia [= C. groenlandica]), prickly bog sedge (Carex atlantica), three-seeded sedge (Carex trisperma), northern long sedge (Carex folliculate), greater bladder sedge (Carex intumescens), water arum (Calla palustris), Virginia marsh-St.-John’s-wort (Triadenum virginicum), and possibly skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus). Mosses are primarily Sphagnum spp.. (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]). Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political State): CT: Red maple / common winterberry – highbush blueberry Swamp (Metzler and Barrett, 2006) MA: Red maple - black gum Swamp (Swain and Kearsley, 2001) NH: Black gum - red maple Swamp (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011) NY: Red maple – deciduous shrub Swamp (Edinger et al., 2014) RI: Red maple – black gum Swamp (Enser and Lundgren, 2006)

Dominant plant species

red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tree
highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), shrub
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), other herbaceous

Community 1.2
Ruderal Forest/Woodland

Community 1.3
Abandoned Field/Meadow

Pathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Disturbance, early successional habitat development

Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3

Disturbance, early successional habitat development

Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Abandonment, succession

Pathway P1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3

Disturbance, early successional habitat development

Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.2

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 trees/shrubs/herbs(?)

Community 2.2
Invasive Plants

Pathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Disturbance, invasive species management

Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Invasive species control, forest management

State 3
Cultural State

The Cultural State would expect the ecological site to be very strongly conditioned by land management conversion, by transformation to Cultivated/Pasture/Plantation.

Community 3.1
Cultivated

Community 3.2
Pasture

Community 3.3
Plantation

Pathway P3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.1

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.2

Changing agricultural phases

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Forest management, disturbance

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Disturbance/cutting/clearing, brush removal

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Restoration and management, forest stand improvement, early successional habitat development, upland wildlife management, invasive species control, plant establishment

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

Disturbance/cutting/clearing, brush removal

Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1

Restoration and management, forest stand improvement, early successional habitat development, upland wildlife management, invasive species control, plant establishment

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

Abandonment, plant establishment, forest management

Additional community tables

Supporting information

Inventory data references

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

REFERENCES

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.

Enser, R.W. and Lundgren, J.A. 2006. Natural Communities of Rhode Island. A joint project of the Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island. Web published by R.I. Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI. www.rinhs.org.

FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..

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.

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 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.

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. (vegetation)

Approval

Greg Schmidt, 10/04/2024

Acknowledgments

Michael Margo and tech team provided earlier drafts. Josh Hibit made compliance updates w/ 2021 Checklist V.2

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	10/06/2024
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 F144AY028MA

Wet Outwash

Last updated: 10/04/2024 Accessed: 11/13/2024

General information

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

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: 10/04/2024
Accessed: 11/13/2024