Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri

97° 96° 95° 94° 93° 92° 91° 90° 89° M

i 47 s 51 Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type,

s r i e Sioux s v 52 quality, and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a i MINNESOTA s Falls R i

p

x spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of

u p o 52

i i ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in

S R 46 g i iv the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by

B e r its probable response to disturbance (Bryce et al., 1999). These general purpose W

e s Decorah 53 regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management A t

T Madison O F o Prairie strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment K Spencer rk Mason City du Chien 43 43° A D 47b ° organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same D e

s

47a M geographical areas (Omernik et al., 2000). H o T r e in U v i r e 52b O R e s v The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological S i d R y R o i M l x ve regions can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the i F u r s souri io R S Storm composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in

iv 47d e Lake e tl 47c r it ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These L phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, Fort C WISCONSIN ed Dubuque Dodge ar wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from Sioux Waterloo R ILLINOIS iv City e r one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological 47d regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions (Commission for r e Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At level III, the continental iv R Cedar Denison Marshalltown 42° United States contains 104 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 84 42° r Ames Rapids e Iow ecoregions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2000). y a R Bo iver Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the Clinton methods used to define the USEPA’s ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), 47m Omernik and others (2000), Griffith and others (1994), and Gallant and others 47f (1989). Iowa City Des Moines This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and Davenport 27 depicts revisions and subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were 72d Muscatine originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA 2000, Omernik 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between the USEPA Region VII, the Omaha Lake Council Bluffs 47e Redrock USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory (Corvallis, Sku 47 nk Oregon), the Iowa Department of Natural Resources - Environmental Protection Ri ve r Division and the Geological Survey, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources - Environmental Services Program, University of Missouri Columbia - 41 41° ° Geography Department, Missouri Department of Conservation, the U.S. Ottumwa Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service Lincoln Creston T D (NRCS), and the U.S. Department of Interior - U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - h Rathbun e o s Burlington m Moi Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. The portion of the p Lake ne s s o R Peoria n i work covering Iowa was adapted from Griffith and others (1994) and the part v R er i v covering Missouri was adapted in part from Schroeder and others (1999). e r IOWA MISSOURI This project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common 54 framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Reaching that 40a objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and Maryville mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, as well as the different purposes of these frameworks, including Kirksville those developed by the USFS (Bailey and others, 1994), the USEPA (Omernik 47d 1987, 1995), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources 27 M NEBRASKA 40° 40° i Conservation Service (NRCS) (USDA-Soil Conservation Service, 1981). Regional

s r s

e i collaborative projects such as in Missouri and Iowa can be a step toward reaching

v s i

s

R i consensus across the entire nation. However, unlike most of the collaborative state n p o p t i i and regional projects to refine and subdivide ecoregions where consensus has been r Springfield

a h Thomas Hill achieved among the major resource management agencies [e.g. Nebraska and Gr C Reservior Hannibal St. Joseph and R iver R Kansas (Chapman and others, 2001) and North and South Dakota (Bryce and i Salt R v 72 others, 1998)], complete agreement on the hierarchical structure of ecoregions in iv er er Missouri was not reached among participants from the EPA, NRCS, and USFS.

r

e v To attain consensus among all participants in these state-level projects while at the i R e same time maintaining consistency in mapping approaches and objectives from tt 40e la P Richmond one state to another is often difficult and sometimes impossible. This is to be s River Kansa River 47d expected given that regional, state, and local experts have different backgrounds issouri M Mexico and perceptions of the relative importance of particular characteristics for Kansas mapping ecological regions, and because of the understandably strong loyalties to 47f 39° City 39° existing frameworks that often were developed to serve slightly different Topeka Columbia objectives. Nonetheless, as each of the federal agency frameworks are refined and subdivided their differences are becoming less discernible. 72d 72e 72f Warrensburg M Literature Cited: 40c Jefferson is S s ouri r 72 Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United A City e St. Louis States (map) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and S R i v

N Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. r A 39k e

K v 39e i Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., and Larsen, D.P., 1999, Ecoregions: a geographic framework to guide risk R e characterization and ecosystem management, Environmental Practice v. 1, no. 3, p. 141-155. a d 28 on Lake r c Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Pater, D.E., Ulmer, M., Schaar, J., Freeouf, J.A., Johnson, R., Kuck, P., and e s iv a Azevedo, S.H., 1998, Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota (color poster with map, descriptive of the R G ge text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale Ozarks sa Harry S. O er 1:1,500,000). iv R Truman c Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America - 40 Reservior e m toward a common perspective: Montreal, Quebec, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. a r 38° 38° e Chapman, S.S., Omernik, J.M., Freeouf, J.A., Huggins, D.G., McCauley, J.R., Freeman, C.C., Steinauer, M G., Angelo, R.T., and Schlepp, R.L., 2001, Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map Rolla scale 1:1,950,000). Nevada 39i 72e 39g Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Farmington 40d EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. 72f Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for water quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of 39d 39f Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. Stockton McMahon, G., Gregonis, S.M., Waltman, S.W., Omernik, J.M., Thorson, T.D., Freeouf, J.A., Rorick, A.H., Lake and Keys, J.E. 2001. Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the 39h Cape conterminous United States, Environmental Management, v. 28, no. 3, p. 293-346. Girardeau Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Cu io Rive Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. rre h r O Springfield nt R Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a spatial framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Eminence iv er 72f Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria - tools for water resource planning and decision 39j making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. 39a B Joplin la 37° ck 37° Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: R iv Transactions of the Wisconsin Acadeny of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103 OKLAHOMA er 74a Schroeder, W. A., Nigh, T.A., Schanta M., and Richards, L. 1999, Ecological Sections, Subsections, and Landtype Associations of Missouri (First Approximation). Map scale 1:600,000. Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP), Columbia, Missouri. Poplar 29 Table Bluff 73a U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land ive resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. Rock e R r 39c it West 73b Lake h U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States W Plains New Madrid (revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National KENTUCKY 39b Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map M-1, various scales. Lake ESSEE

r TENN Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land

e

O' The v 40 i Beaver ARKANSAS Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. Cherokees 39a 73 R Lake Bull Norfork Shoals Lake 73

Lake i PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation),

39 p Tulsa p i James M. Omernik (USEPA), Glenn E. Griffith (NRCS), Walter A. s 74 s 39 74 i s Schroeder (University of Missouri - Columbia), Tim A. Nigh (Missouri s i 36° 36° Fayetteville M Department of Conservation), and Thomas F. Wilton (Iowa DNR). 38 38 65 COLLABORATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: Randy Sarver (Missouri 96° 95° 94° 93° 92° 91° 90° INTERIOR—G EOLOG ICAL S U RVEY, RES TON, VIRG INIA—2002 DNR-Environmental Services Program), Dennis Potter (NRCS), John 89° Olson (Iowa DNR-Environmental Protection Division), Cheryl Seeger (Missouri DNR - Division of Geology and Land Survey), Terry Barney 39 Ozark Highlands 40 Central Irregular Plains 52 Driftless Area (NRCS), Larry Shepard (USEPA - Region VII), Gary Welker (USEPA - 39a Springfield Plateau 40a Loess Flats and Till Plains 52b Paleozoic Plateau/Coulee Section Level III boundary Region VII), Dennis Meinert (Missouri DNR - Soil and Water Conservation Program), Jeffrey A. Comstock (INDUS Corporation). 39b Elk River Hills 40c Wooded Osage Plains Level IV boundary 39c White River Hills 40d Cherokee Plains 72 Interior River Valleys and Hills State boundary REVIEWERS: Jerry Vineyard (Retired, Missouri DNR - Division of 39d Central Plateau 40e Claypan Prairie 72d Upper Mississippi Alluvial Plain County boundary Geology and Land Survey), Blane Heumann (The Nature Conservancy), 72e Middle Mississippi Alluvial Plain Jean Prior and James Giglierano (Iowa DNR - Geologic Survey Bureau). 39e Osage/Gasconade Hills 47 Western Corn Belt Plains 72f River Hills 39f St. Francois Knobs and Basins 47a Northwest Iowa Loess Prairies CITING THIS POSTER: Chapman, S.S., Omernik, J.M., Griffith, G.E., SCALE 1:1 800 000 Schroeder, W.A., Nigh, T.A., and Wilton, T.F., 2002, Ecoregions of Iowa 39g Meramec River Hills 47b Des Moines Lobe 73 Mississippi Alluvial Plain 20 10 0 30 60 mi and Missouri (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and 39h Current River Hills 47c Iowan Surface 73a Holocene Meander Belts photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 39i Eastern Ozark Border 47d Missouri Alluvial Plain 73b Pleistocene Valley Trains 40 30 20 10 0 60 120 km 1:1,800,000). 39j Black River Hills Border 47e Steeply Rolling Loess Prairies 74 Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Albers equal area projection This project was partially supported by funds from the U.S. Environmental 39k Prairie Ozark Border 47f Rolling Loess Prairies Standard parallels 37° N and 43° N Protection Agency’s Office of Water, Biological Criteria Program. 47m Western Loess Hills 74a Bluff Hills