Ecoregions of Tennessee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ecoregions of Tennessee 90° 89° 88° 87° 86° 85° 84° 83° 82° 70 Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental 71 68 69 67 resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring KENTUCKY of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are directly applicable to the immediate needs of state 74 VIRGINIA agencies, such as the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), for selecting regional stream 67i reference sites and identifying high-quality waters, developing ecoregion-specific chemical and biological water Lake 68c ver KY 71g Ri 67h iver quality criteria and standards, and augmenting TDEC’s watershed management approach. Ecoregion frameworks are Barkley 71e ll R ver 66f e ch Ri Clarksville w in n Dale Hollow o l to also relevant to integrated ecosystem management, an ultimate goal of most federal and state resource management P C ls 67g Reelfoot Lake o agencies. H h Lake 7h 7 66f Kentucky 69d 67f 6 6 74a Lake The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the Old Hickory r Norris Johnson analysis of the patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in Lake ive d R Lake City C rlan ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, umb mbe 67f Riv er erla Cu physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each bion nd O R i Cherokee characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral ve 66d r Lake er v hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing 71h i 66e r R ive ky North America into 15 ecological regions, with level II dividing the continent into 52 regions. At level III, the i R c p 68c hu p ic continental United States contains 99 regions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1997). Level i 67i l s Nashville o s 74a N i s IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define USEPA’s ecoregions s 36° i 67g ° MISSOURI M Center Hill 36 are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith et al. (1994, 1997), and Gallant et al. (1989). r Midd Oak ARKANSAS 73a ive le Lake 66d r R F Ridge Dee o J Percy 68a 67g 67g Douglas ed r This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000; it depicts revisions and subdivisions of Fork k Priest Lake 66g F Knoxville earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA 1996; Omernik 1987). The poster o Lake Crossville 73 r Sparta k e 71f is part of a collaborative project primarily between the USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research d er R Fort Loudoun 66e De iv h e Lake 67 Laboratory - Corvallis, OR., and TDEC’s Division of Water Pollution Control. Collaboration and consultation also 74b r 74a Murfreesboro occurred with the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the So 66e u United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), USEPA Region IV, and with other State of th 65e F 71i Tennessee agencies. o 71g F 74a rk F L r orke i d t e D t l n e McMinnville Watts Bar e er River 67f c This project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common framework of ecological regions. Reaching Du Lake T 66f h ck e B Ri n that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies that Jackson ve n r r e o s a have been used to develop the most commonly used existing ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed r s d Columbia e r e iv ve e by the USFS (Bailey et al. 1994), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture i R R R Ri e v i 66 e v e e r 66g i ss e 1981). As each of these frameworks is further developed, the differences between them lessen. Regional h e r 74a tc n 71h a n collaborative projects such as this one in Tennessee, where some agreement can be reached among multiple resource River u e Fontana alo q T Buff e management agencies, is a step in the direction of attaining commonality and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for H S Lake a tc 67h the entire nation. hie 67i R i i er v 7 Riv e 6 Literature Cited: oosahatchie r Lit L tle T 68b en Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) Chickamauga ne r s e Tims Ford Lake s NORTH CAROLINA (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. v Lawrenceburg e W i Lake e o R H SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. l iwa R f e 67g sse i e v e River R s Memphis iv e e s r 67f r Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing e Elk River 67h n environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. n 66e e T 65j 45 65b Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for water 35° 65a Pickwick g 35° Lake 7 quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. 6 MISSISSIPPI 65i 68c Chattanooga 68c Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S.H., 1997, Ecoregions of Tennessee: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental GIA ALABAMA GEOR Protection Agency EPA/600R-97/022, 51 p. 74 65 71 66 68 67 Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of American 68 Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 90° 89° 88° 87° 86° 85° 84° 83° INTERIOR—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA—1998 82° Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria - tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States 1 Coast Range 27 Central Great Plains 54 Central Corn Belt Plains 2 Puget Lowland 28 Flint Hills 55 Eastern Corn Belt Plains U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the 77 3 Willamette Valley 29 Central Oklahoma/Texas Plains 1 2 56 Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. 41 4 Cascades 30 Edwards Plateau Drift Plains 42 65 Southeastern Plains 67 Ridge and Valley 69 Central Appalachians 73 Mississippi Alluvial Plain SCALE 1:940 000 10 5 Sierra Nevada 31 Southern Texas Plains 48 49 58 57 Huron/Erie Lake Plains 3 16 6 Southern and Central California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987): 1 15 32 Texas Blackland Prairies 58 Northeastern Highlands 65a Blackland Prairie 67f Southern Limestone/Dolomite 69d Cumberland Mountains 73a Northern Mississippi Alluvial Plain 10 0 20 40 mi Chaparral and Oak Woodlands 11 33 East Central Texas Plains 59 Northeastern Coastal Zone Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map 16 43 50 7 Central California Valley 4 15 16 58 34 Western Gulf Coastal Plain 60 Northern Appalachian Plateau 65b Flatwoods/Alluvial Prairie Margins Valleys and Low Rolling Hills 17 17 51 51 50 8 Southern California Mountains M-1, various scales. 9 12 46 35 South Central Plains and Uplands 200 40 80 km 17 9 Eastern Cascades Slopes and 36 Ouachita Mountains 78 57 60 62 59 61 Erie/Ontario Drift and Lake Plains 65e Southeastern Plains and Hills 67g Southern Shale Valleys 52 53 Foothills 37 Arkansas Valley 71 Interior Plateau 74 Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Albers equal area projection Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. 56 62 62 North Central Appalachians 18 10 Columbia Plateau 38 Boston Mountains 65i Fall Line Hills 67h Southern Sandstone Ridges 44 47 57 61 67 63 Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 71e Western Pennyroyal Karst 74a Bluff Hills Standard parallels 35° 20' N and 36° 15' N 13 19 64 63 11 Blue Mountains 39 Ozark Highlands 5 54 64 Northern Piedmont 25 55 70 65j Transition Hills 67i Southern Dissected Ridges and 1 12 Snake River Basin/High Desert 40 Central Irregular Plains 65 Southeastern Plains 7 71f Western Highland Rim 74b Loess Plains 21 27 13 Northern Basin and Range 41 Canadian Rockies* 66 Blue Ridge Mountains 20 40 Knobs 8 28 69 14 Southern Basin and Range 42 Northwestern Glaciated Plains 67 Ridge and Valley 71g Eastern Highland Rim 6 72 15 Northern Rockies 43 Northwestern Great Plains PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Glenn Griffith (USEPA), James Omernik (USEPA) and 39 71 68 Southwestern Appalachians 8 16 Montana Valley and Foothill 66 Blue Ridge Mountains 22 67 45 44 Nebraska Sand Hills 69 Central Appalachians 71h Outer Nashville Basin 14 26 Prairies Sandra Azevedo (OAO Corporation).