Ecoregions of North Dakota and

104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

49° Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in SASK 49° ATCHEWAN MANITOBA CANADA ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of R environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a UNITED STATES r e e d S iv R 49 42b 46h o 46b bina R spatial framework for the research, assessment, u Pem i r v is 46g 46a 48b e management, and monitoring of ecosystems and 46g r R Belcourt iv ecosystem components. Ecoregions are directly applicable e 46g 42 42d r 46d to the immediate needs of state agencies, including the 46g 46c development of biological criteria and water quality standards, and the establishment of management goals for D es nonpoint-source pollution. They are also relevant to La cs 42i R 46d ark River integrated ecosystem management, an ultimate goal of ive P r 46d 46c 46c most federal and state resource management agencies.

r e v Rugby 48a i er R iv The approach used to compile this map is based on the 42c Minot is R r st Williston 43c u Fore premise that ecological regions can be identified through So 46d M the analysis of the patterns of biotic and abiotic iss 46f our 46f phenomena that reflect differences in ecosystem quality 48° i Rive Devils iver 48° r R and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These Lake le rt u phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, 42b 46f T 48c Grand Forks climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The Watford City relative importance of each characteristic varies from one 43c 48b 48 43a ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical 46i Shey r 46f en level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been e n v Lake 46j i 46f e R adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I Sakakawea R e n i o v and level II divide the North American continent into 15 t e s 42b 46f r w and 51 regions, respectively. At level III, the continental o ll e r e M United States contains 98 regions (United States Y v 48b i i s 42a R s 43b o Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 1996). Level i u 48a

r 42c r

u i IV regions are more detailed ecoregions for state-level o R

s i

s v i Knife 43c e applications; and level V are the most detailed ecoregions A R r

M iv 42b 46f e

N r

e

l for landscape-level or local level projects. However,

A t

t i

T L depending on the objectives of a particular project,

N

O 46f 51 ecoregions may be aggregated within levels of the 47° M 47° hierarchy for data analysis and interpretation. Medora 42a Explanations of the methods used to define the USEPA's Dickinson Jamestown Valley City Fargo ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith and 42a 42b others (1994), Gallant and others (1989), and Bryce and H Mandan ear Clarke (1996). t Ri ver Bismarck

R This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a e d

46j R scale of 1:250,000; it depicts revisions and subdivisions of

i C J v a a e earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at nn m r on 43c 42a e ba 43a s a smaller scale (USEPA, 1996; Omernik, 1987). This ll R R iv iv 48b er e poster is the product of a collaborative effort primarily r 46j between the USEPA Region VIII, the USEPA National O tter T Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Wahpeton ail River B 43 o (Corvallis, Oregon), North Dakota State Department of i s

43c d Health - Division of Water Quality, South Dakota State 42c e

46e S Department of Environment and Natural Resources i

o

46° 42b u x 46° (SDDENR), South Dakota State University (SDSU) -

Hettinger

R i

v Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, the United

NORTH DAKOTA 46d e 43d r States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), 43d SOUTH DAKOTA 46e the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the 43d G 43a ra Soil Conservation Service), and the United States nd R 43e iver Department of the Interior - U.S. Geological Survey Buffalo 42a Sisseton (USGS) - Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) 43d Mobridge Data Center.

43d 43a This project is associated with an interagency effort to 43d Aberdeen M develop a common frame-work of ecological regions. 46o inn 43c eso Reaching that objective requires recognition of the 43j R ta iver differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping er Milbank M eau Riv 46l Mor 46c I methodologies that have been used to develop the most

N

N commonly used existing ecoregion-type frameworks,

E

42f S 45° 45° including those developed by the USFS (Bailey and others,

O

T 1994), the USEPA (Omernik, 1987, 1995), and the NRCS Watertown A (United States Department of Agriculture - Soil 43f 46i Conservation Service, 1981). As each of these frameworks 43k 46k Belle B is further developed, the differences between them lessen. i g 46 Fourche S Regional collaborative projects such as this one in North i o 43a u x Dakota and South Dakota, where agreement can be B Lake R e l 43c iv reached among multiple resource management agencies, is le Oahe 46k e r F r a step in the direction of attaining commonality and o ive 17a u R r ne 46m c en consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. h hey e C Literature Cited: R Deadwood iv er Brookings Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, 17 Pierre Huron Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) 43c 42f (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited 43f by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Rapid City Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. 17c 43g Lake 43c Madison 44° Philip 42f 44° Bryce, S.A. and Clarke, S.E., 1996, Landscape-level ecological regions: Sharpe

G Linking state-level ecoregion frameworks with stream habitat

N

I r classifications: Environmental Management, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 297- Bad Rive M 311. O Custer Y J a m 47a Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, W e 43c Chamberlain s R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental 17b r White Rive Mitchell R 46n iv resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection e 43h r Agency EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. Sioux Falls 42e Griffith, G.E, Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for water quality r Hot Springs e 43f assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of iv 47 R e Winner Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. it h W Lake Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States 43i k r I o Francis O (map supplement): Annals of the Association of American F 25a Case W h 43e t Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. A u 42h o 46k S 42g 42f Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental 43° 47a 43° management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological 44a 42h assessment and criteria - tools for water resource planning and Yankton decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. Mis sou 43 43 ri R Vermillion U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, ive 47d Niobrara r Lewis and River Clark Lake Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United 42 States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. 25 44 46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Level III ecoregions of Sioux City the continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map M-1, various scales. 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° INTERIOR—G EOLOG ICAL S U RVEY, RES TON, VIRG INIA—1998 97° Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment 17 Middle Rockies 43 Northwestern Great Plains 46 Northern Glaciated Plains 47 Western Corn Belt Plains Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. 17a Foothills 43a Missouri Plateau 46a Pembina Escarpment 47a Loess Prairies 43b Little Missouri Badlands 46b Turtle Mountains 47d Missouri Alluvial Plain PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Sandra A. Bryce (Dynamac Corporation), 17b Black Hills Plateau James M. Omernik (USEPA), David E. Pater (Dynamac Corporation), 17c Black Hills Core Highlands 43c River Breaks 46c Glacial Lake Basins 48 Lake Agassiz Plain Michael Ulmer, Jerome Schaar (USDA, NRCS), Jerry Freeouf (USFS), 43d Forested Buttes 46d Glacial Lake Deltas Rex Johnson (SDSU), Pat Kuck (DENR/NRSC Liaison), and Sandra H. 25 Western High Plains 48a Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin Azevedo (OAO Corporation). 43e Sagebrush Steppe 46e Tewaukon Dead Ice Moraine 25a Pine Ridge Escarpment 48b Sand Deltas and Beach Ridges COLLABORATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: Lewis M. Cowardin 43f Subhumid Pierre Shale Plains 46f End Moraine Complex 48c Saline Area (USGS, Biological Resources Division), Michael Ell (ND State 42 Northwestern Glaciated Plains 43g Semiarid Pierre Shale Plains 46g Northern Black Prairie Department of Health - Division of Water Quality), Harold Kantrud 42a Missouri Coteau (USGS, Biological Resources Division), Kenneth Lindskov (USGS), 43h White River Badlands 46h Northern Dark Brown Prairie Level III boundary County boundary Thomas R. Loveland (USGS), David J. Ode (SD Game, Fish and 42b Collapsed Glacial Outwash 43i Keya Paha Tablelands 46i Drift Plains Level IV boundary State boundary Parks), J. Foster Sawyer (SDDENR, Geological Survey), David 42c Missouri Coteau Slope 43j Moreau Prairie 46j Glacial Outwash International boundary Schmidt (USDA, NRCS), Anthony Selle (USEPA), Jeffery D. Stoner (USGS), and William Stewart (SDDENR). 42d Northern Missouri Coteau 43k Dense Clay Prairie 46k Prairie Coteau 42e Southern Missouri Coteau SCALE 1:1 500 000 This project was partially supported by funds from the Environmental 44 Nebraska Sand Hills 46l Prairie Coteau Escarpment Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development, Regional 42f Southern Missouri Coteau Slope 15 10 5 0 30 60 mi Applied Research Effort (RARE) program. 44a Nebraska Sand Hills 46m Big Sioux Basin 42g Ponca Plains 46n James River Lowland 30 20 10 0 60 120 km 42h Southern River Breaks 46o Minnesota River Prairie Albers equal area projection 42i Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie Standard parallels 44° N and 48° N