sign in sign up
<<
Home , Indiana, Ohio

Ecoregions of and Ecoregions denote areas of similarity in ecosystems and in the type, This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000; it Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Alan J. Woods (Dynamac quality, and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a depicts revisions and subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United Corporation), James M. Omernik (USEPA), C. Scott Brockman spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA 1997; Omernik 1987). The poster States (map) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, (ODNR - of Geological Survey), Timothy D. Gerber ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are directly applicable to the is part of a collaborative project primarily between the USEPA Region V, the R.G.): , D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. (ODNR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation), William D. immediate needs of state agencies including the development of biological USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool Hosteter (NRCS), and Sandra H. Azevedo (OAO Corporation) criteria and water quality standards as well as the establishment of management Corvallis, , the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/3- goals for nonpoint-source pollution. They are also relevant to integrated (IDEM), the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), the Ohio 89/060, 152 p. COLLABORATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: Thomas P. ecosystem management, an ultimate goal of most federal and state resource Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), the Department of Simon (USEPA), Chris O. Yoder (Ohio EPA), Patrick Merchant Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of - a management agencies. Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), the United States Department of Agriculture framework for water quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. (USFS), Thomas R. Loveland (USGS), C. Lee Bridges (IDEM - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. - Office of Water - Biological Studies Section), Gary L. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological Service), and the United States Department of the Interior - U.S. Geological Overmier (NRCS), Kelly Capuzzi (Ohio EPA), Steven A. regions can be identified through the analysis of the patterns and the composition Survey (USGS) - Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. Newhouse (IDEM - Office of Water - Biological Studies of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem Section), Tom ( - Cuyahoga quality and integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). These phenomena This project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, National Recreation Area), James R. Gammon (Professor include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and framework of ecological regions. Reaching that objective requires recognition of T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria - tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, , Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. Emeritus of Zoology, ), Barbara K. Andreas hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies that have (Professor of Biology, Cuyahoga Community ), and ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman been used to develop the most commonly used existing ecoregion-type U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land John Harrington (Professor, Department of Geography, numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological frameworks, including those developed by the USFS (Bailey and others, 1994), the resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. State University) regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of regions, with level II dividing the continent into 52 regions. At level III, the Soil Conservation Service, 1981). As each of these frameworks is further Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Health and This project was partially supported by funds from the USEPA - continental United States contains 99 regions (United States Environmental developed, the differences between them lessen. Regional collaborative projects Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map M-1, various scales. Office of Research and Development - Regional Applied Protection Agency [USEPA], 1997). Level IV is a further subdivision of level III such as this one in Indiana and Ohio, where agreement can be reached among Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of : Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Research Effort (RARE) program. ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define the USEPA’s ecoregions multiple resource management agencies, is a step in the direction of attaining Series no. 19, 26 p. are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith and others (1994), and Gallant and others commonality and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. (1989).

88° 87° 86° 85° 84° 83° 82° 81° 54 Central Plains

42° S 54a /Indiana E 42°

56 A T A D A I 54b Lake Plain A T N N A

Lake 56 S V 54c Kankakee Marsh

A O I Chicago 55 C D L

E H

57 T Y 54d Kankakee Sand Area S I O MICHIGAN N ie N U r N r 56d INDIANA MICHIGAN E 55 Eastern Corn Belt Plains

E e P

South Bend v 61b Gary i OHIO Toledo e P 55a Clayey, High Lime Till Plains k R

a 61d y L d m Pymatuning

57b n a 55b Loamy, High Lime Till Plains 54b 57b a Lake t r 56b u n R G 55c Mad River Interlobate Area n i ri n g g a h C 61 55d Pre-Wisconsinan Drift Plains 61a C r C e 54a u e 54c r y k ve a 55e Darby Plains 56a i 61d h r 57c R o e g ve M m e 57a 57d i au a 55f Whitewater Interlobate Area R kee R K ka . an 56 /Northern 54d r Fort e Akron Indiana Drift Plains v Wayne 41° i Youngstown R 41° 56a Lake Country e 61e o 56c 61c an 56b Elkhart Till Plains ec p ip T 56c Middle Tippecanoe Plains River ky 61c Wooster Canton us 56d Michigan Lake Plain W nd a a 54 ba S sh 55a 57 Huron/Erie Lake Plains R 70c 54a i 55a ver 57a Maumee Lake Plains

er 57b Oak Openings iv R A h N Grand 57c Paulding Plains S

s O A

I

a I b A Lake N

I

O

a H

A 57d Marblehead Drift/ Plain

D N W

O

I 70e

I

N

D

L

I

L N

I I 61 Erie/ Drift and Lake Plain B ig 61a Erie Lake Plain D a r rb r ive White y e 61b Mosquito Creek/Pymatuning Lowlands R R C v iver i ar ree

R g r u 55c k

S e 61c Low Lime Drift Plain o 40° i 55b v i h 40° R O 61d Erie Gorges d a Columbus 61e Summit Interlobate Area M r tina Cre e M Cap ek v i r 55b u 70 Western e s R v 55f Ri k r i 55e i 70b e am n t 55b i 70a Permian Hills g a M e u Dayton l P w tt m

e i a t 70b Monongahela Transition Zone L 70a i i r n R h e t i v v i R e 70c Low Plateau W i r R v r i e e v

r i am 70d Lower Scioto Dissected Plateau i R M o at t 70e Unglaciated Upper Basin o re i Marietta G c S 70f Ohio/ Carboniferous Plateau 71 Interior Plateau 71a Crawford Uplands Bloomington 70f L 71d e 71b Plain 72b 71c a d 70d in 39° 55d g 71c Norman Upland Monroe C 39° re Lake 55d e r 71d Northern Bluegrass k e v i R

r o 72 Interior River Lowland ve i i h R O e 72a Wabash Bottomlands t i

h

W 70 72b Glaciated Wabash Lowlands 71d IO H KY 72c Southern Wabash Lowlands O UC T N 72a E er K iv 71b A R I Level III ecoregion O h I N s I a 71a H 72 b O G Level IV ecoregion a IR W V boundary WEST 72c State boundary 71 International boundary Louisville 69

A 70 38° N Y A K Evansville I C 38° D U SCALE 1:1 500 000 T N

I 72a N O E 15 10 5 0 30 60 mi h K io R iv er 30 20 10 0 60 120 km 67 Albers equal projection standard parallels 38° 40' N and 41° 20' N 88° 87° 86° 85° 84° 83° 82° INTERIOR—G EOLOG ICAL S U RVEY, RES TON, VIRG INIA—1998 81°