Ecoregions of Oregon

124° 123° 122° 121° 120° 119° 118° 117° 1 15 Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity Astoria 2 of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, Pasco 10 1a Richland assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By Longview Kennewick 10 recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions 46° 1d Walla Walla 11 stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). 1f 10 11 46° iver Ecoregions are directly applicable to the immediate needs of state agencies, including the R em development of biological criteria and water quality standards and the establishment of 1b al 1f h Milton- e 4 10e management goals for nonpoint-source pollution (Omernik and Griffith, 1991; Hughes and N 10g Freewater 11c 1d Saint 9 Umatilla others, 1990; Whittier and others, 1988). They are also relevant to integrated ecosystem Helens management, an ultimate goal of many federal and state resource management agencies.

Hermiston 11l 11f

n Um r 3 a e The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be

1a 1f t

r il 10i W v e 10e i a N l O a iv a a 11f identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic

T bi R Pendleton G l R IN Hood Colum River l ow phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986;

H a e Vancouver S A River 11l R Imnaha W i e Omernik, 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, 3a ve c Portland r k soils, land use, wildlife distributions, and hydrology. The relative importance of each Tillamook Hillsboro 3c The 11k a 1d Gresham 4b Dalles n characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A 1a Beaverton S 10c Enterprise r O 11g e v Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Moro i Hells R 1b Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides

Canyon Heppner 11l hon Rive 1d 4d R de r 10c NRA the continent into 52 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group,

3c Oregon 9c e 1b d 3d n 9b 10k a 11f 10n 1997). At level III, the continental United States contains 104 ecoregions and the conterminous City C r La Grande 11l l M a ac G ka Condon 11l in h United States has 84 ecoregions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], c 3d m a a McMinnville a 11k m n 1g 3d s 4b 10c 11c R 11m 2003). Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used i 10k i m v r I e 11o R to define the USEPA’s ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Omernik and others (2000), f 11l 3c i 45° 1b v 10k e 11l Griffith and others (1994), and Gallant and others (1989). i 11l Lincoln r 4c 11o 45° City c 11b 11e Oregon is ecologically diverse. The west side of the state has a marine-influenced climate and Dallas 11d Salem P Fossil o receives plentiful precipitation three seasons of the year. In contrast, eastern Oregon lies in the a 11b r w e d rain shadow of the Cascades and is much drier. The climatic gradient is evident in the state's Si v 11a er le i R t R 3d 11m iv P z 4b 11k er Halfway landscapes: forested mountains, glaciated peaks, shrub- and grass-covered plains, agricultural Santiam River 11d 1b rth ay No R Detroit D 11l valleys, beaches, desert playas, and wetlands. There are 9 level III ecoregions and 65 level IV iver hn Lake r 9d Jo 11m Baker City ecoregions in Oregon and many continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states (Bryce S e Newport o 11a 11d u 11o Albany t v and others, 2003; McGrath and others, 2002; Pater and others, 1998). h 4d i 11 r 11b S 4b e 11d a3c R n v Madras nt i ur R 11d This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. The western part was Corvallis t Lake 11o B iv Lebenon i R 11l 11l a e r m s Billy e originally published as part of Pater and others (1998). The level IV lines in the Columbia Plateau u i 1d R 4b Chinook k 3c l 11l and Blue Mountains were originally published in Clarke and Bryce (1997). Ecoregion boundaries

W i 3c v o a Als r e t 11d ea e i r e 9b n in the remainder of Oregon depict revisions and subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that v l i D 11l

l John Day 11l S R Green M a e m were originally compiled at a coarser scale (Omernik, 1987; USEPA, 2003). Peter Lake s 1d c e h 11l t 4c Crooked 11o t 3b u 11l e Prineville This poster is the product of a collaborative effort primarily between the USEPA Region X, the t

e Sisters

s 11b R

1d 4d 11m USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), the

i R

1g v R Redmond Weiser i

e i 11i

v Oregon Natural Heritage Program, the United States Department of Agriculture–Forest Service

v 12j r

3c 4a e e enzi r 11n r 11o cK e Riv r (USFS), the United States Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service M e Prineville 11o Payette 44 1a Sius 12a (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), and the United States Department of the ° 1b l Reservoir Florence a Eugene Bend w Fern 44° Interior–Geological Survey (USGS)–Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center.

11b Ontario Ridge Reservior

Ri The Oregon ecoregion project is part of an interagency effort to develop a common framework of ver r 12j ecological regions for the United States. Reaching that objective requires recognition of the ve 3d s Ri 12 1b 11h ie 11o differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most v Crane Prairie l Waldo i ver common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USFS (Bailey and others, Reedsport Reservoir S i Oakridge Lake R

80d 1994), the USEPA (Omernik, 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil 80d Ump r qua Hills 4c Caldwell 1b u Conservation Service, 1981). As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are Creek e h l becoming less discernible. Regional collaborative projects, such as this one in Oregon, where Res. a R Wickiup LaPine M i agreement has been reached among multiple resource management agencies, are a step toward v Reservoir e 4b Burns

r attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. 1a 4d 80j Lake 1b 80f Owyhee 9f 80e Coos Bay Literature Cited:

I 80d D 1b 4d A Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United 78c R Malheur 80f H No h Um iv rt a e 80j O p qu r Lake States (map) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and 80d 1b Roseburg Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., USFS, scale 1:7,500,000. 9e Christmas 80d

Coquille D 4d Valley Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., and Larsen, D.P., 1999, Ecoregions – a geographic framework to guide risk o

n characterization and ecosystem management: Environmental Practice, v. 1, no. 3, p. 141-155.

80g n 1a 4b 80e e r Bryce, S.A., Woods A.J., Morefield, J.D., Omernik, J.M., McKay, T.R., Brackley, G.K., Hall, R.K., Higgins, 1b r 43° e 80m iv R D.K., McMorran, D.C., Vargas, K.E., Petersen, E.B., Zamudio, D.C., and Comstock, J.A., 2003,

a 43° u q p 4e a Jordan Valley Ecoregions of Nevada: Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, map scale 1:1,350,000.

m Crater n S 80g d

ou U 80e

th Lake Clarke, S.E., and Bryce, S.A., eds., 1997, Hierarchical subdivisions of the Columbia Plateau and Blue

80m

Mountains Ecoregions, Oregon and Washington: Portland, Oregon, USFS, Pacific Northwest Research

1h 9f 4f

Crater Lake NP Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-395. 4d r ve 78e i R 80f Burns O B wy 9f Summer he Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America – l Junction e R 78d 4d i i t v Lake z er toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. n e 80 o Frenchglen n Rogue s

R Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a m i R a Warner 80k v Lake i i tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, e l 80e v l Lakes e r a Abert i Spr gu r EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. e 80a W R 9g iv 80d 78b e Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa – a 1b Grants 4d Chiloquin r 78b Pass 80m 80j framework for water quality assessment and management: Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. I 80j 80e llin 78a 80f 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. Gold oi 9g 80j s 78a 9g Beach Basque 80l 78d Hughes, R.M., Whittier, T.R., Rohm, C.M., and Larsen, D.P., 1990, A regional framework for establishing R Medford 4d 80l i 78b Upper 1a ve 9h recovery criteria: Environmental Management, v. 14, no. 5, p. 673-683. 78f r Klamath 78b Lake McGrath, C.L., Woods A.J., Omernik, J.M., Bryce, S.A., Edmondson, M., Nesser, J.A., Shelden, J., 9g 9h Ashland 80d Crawford, R.C., Comstock, J.A., and Plocher, M.D., 2002, Ecoregions of Idaho: Reston, Virginia, U.S. 78d Klamath Falls 9g Lakeview Fields Geological Survey, map scale 1:1,350,000. v Brookings 78a Ri er Oregon Caves NM th 9g 9g Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the 1h 9i a 42° m 9j 80j 1i a Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 78d 78g l 9j 80j 42° K 80l Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions – a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, 1 CALIFORNIA Goose 80d NEVADA T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: 78 9 Lake 80 Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. 124° 123° 122° 121° 120° 119° 118° INTERIOR—G EOLOG ICAL S U RVEY, RES TON, VIRG INIA—2003 117° Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M. and Griffith, G.E., 1991, Ecological regions vs. hydrologic units: frameworks for managing water quality: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 46, no. 5, p. 334-340. 1 Coast Range 9 Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills 11 Blue Mountains 78 Klamath Mountains Pater, D.E., Bryce, S.A., Thorson, T.D., Kagan, J., Chappell, C., Omernik, J.M., Azevedo, S.H., and Woods, A.J., 1998, Ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon: Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, 1a Coastal Lowlands 9b Grand Fir Mixed Forest 11a John Day/Clarno Uplands 78a Rogue/Illinois Valleys map scale 1:1,350,000. 1b Coastal Uplands 9c Oak/Conifer Foothills 11b John Day/Clarno Highlands 78b Oak Savanna Foothills U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land 1d Volcanics 9d Ponderosa Pine/Bitterbrush Woodland 11c Maritime-Influenced Zone 78c Umpqua Interior Foothills resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. 11d Melange U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision 1f Willapa Hills 9e Pumice Plateau 78d Serpentine Siskiyous of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, USEPA – National Health and Environmental Effects Research 1g Mid-Coastal Sedimentary 9f Pumice Plateau Basins 11e Wallowas/Seven Devils Mountains 78e Inland Siskiyous Laboratory, Map M-1, various scales. 1h Southern Oregon Coastal Mountains 9g Klamath/Goose Lake Basins 11f Canyons and Dissected Highlands 78f Coastal Siskiyous Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land 1i Redwood Zone 9h Fremont Pine/Fir Forest 11g Canyons and Dissected Uplands 78g Klamath River Ridges Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. Whittier, T.R., Hughes, R.M., and Larsen, D.P., 1988, Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial 9i Southern Cascades Slope 11h Continental Zone Highlands 3 Willamette Valley patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 45, p. 9j Klamath Juniper Woodland 11i Continental Zone Foothills 1264-1278. 3a Portland/Vancouver Basin 80 Northern Basin and Range 11k Blue Mountain Basins 3b Willamette River and Tributaries Gallery Forest 80a Dissected High Lava Plateau 11l Mesic Forest Zone 3c Prairie Terraces 80d Pluvial Lake Basins PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Thor D. Thorson (NRCS), Sandra A. Bryce (Dynamac Corporation), 11m Subalpine–Alpine Zone Duane A. Lammers (USFS), Alan J. Woods (Dynamac Corporation), James M. Omernik 3d Valley Foothills 10 Columbia Plateau 80e High Desert Wetlands 11n Deschutes River Valley (USEPA, retired), Jimmy Kagan (Oregon Natural Heritage Program), David E. Pater (Water 10c Umatilla Plateau 80f Owyhee Uplands and Canyons 4 Cascades 11o Cold Basins Quality Program, Washington Department of Ecology), and Jeffrey A. Comstock (Indus 10e Pleistocene Lake Basins 80g High Lava Plains Corporation). 4a Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys 10g Yakima Folds 80j Semiarid Uplands 4b Western Cascades Montane Highlands COLLABORATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: Thomas Atzet (USFS), Hugh Barrett (U.S. 10i Deep Loess Foothills 12 Snake River Plain 80k Partly Forested Mountains Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management), Rick Hafele (Oregon Department of 4c Cascade Crest Montane Forest 10k Deschutes/John Day Canyons 12a Treasure Valley 80l Salt Shrub Valleys Environmental Quality), Charles Johnson (USFS), Thomas Loveland (USGS), Robert Meurisse 4d Cascade Subalpine/Alpine 10n Umatilla Dissected Uplands 12j Unwooded Alkaline Foothills 80m Barren Playas (USFS, retired), Chad L. McGrath (NRCS), and Robert Ottersberg (Cordilleran Services, Inc.). 4e High Southern Cascades Montane Forest REVIEWERS: Sharon E. Clarke (Oregon State University), Robert M. Hughes (Dynamac 4f Southern Cascades Corporation), and Michael A. Bollman (Dynamac Corporation). CITING THIS POSTER: Thorson, T.D., Bryce, S.A., Lammers, D.A., Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Kagan, J., Pater, D.E., and Comstock, J.A., 2003. Ecoregions of Oregon (color poster with SCALE 1:1 500 000 map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000). 15 10 5 0 30 60 mi Level III ecoregion County boundary This project was partially supported by funds from the USEPA–Office of Research and Level IV ecoregion State boundary Development's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program through contract 68-C6-005 30 20 10 0 60 120 km to Dynamac Corporation. Partial funding was also provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Albers Equal Area Projection Standard parallels 43 N and 45 N Digital information can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ecoregions.htm.