DOCSLIB.ORG

ECOREGIONS of TEXAS 25B 26A 25E 25B 26A 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ECOREGIONS of TEXAS 25B 26A 25E 25B 26A 2010 ECOREGIONS OF TEXAS 25b 26a 25e 25b 26a 2010 26d BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY 26a 27h SCOTT W. TINKER, DIRECTOR AMARILLO 26c JACKSON SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 27h University Station, Box X 26b 25i Austin, Texas 78713-8924 (512) 471-1534 25j 27h 35g WICHITA 35g FALLS 35a 26b 29b 35c LUBBOCK 26c 29d 33d TEXARKANA 27i SHERMAN 35a DENTON 33d 35c 25j 33f 0 60 120 mi 32a 35b 25j 26b 0 120 240 km FORT DALLAS 33f 35a 29f WORTH 35b Albers equal area projection 27h 26b 33a 35b ABILENE 32c 29b TYLER 24c 29c 23a 26c 30d 35a MIDLAND 24a 23b EL PASO ODESSA 35b 24a 24b 27j 33f NACOGDOCHES 25k WACO 24d PECOS 25j 29e SAN ANGELO 32c 24c 33b 35e 24a 35b 24d 24d 24e TEMPLE 30d 33f 33C 35e 35b 24d 30b 32a 35f 24d 24d 24e 30a 33c 35f 35b AUSTIN 33b 24b 35f 35b 24d 32b 34a 24b 32c 33e 32c 24c 24a 34a 34a 24d 24b 30c 33f HOUSTON 34g 24c 32b 34a 31b SAN ANTONIO GALVESTON DEL RIO 34a 31a 34c 31d 34c 33b VICTORIA 34a 34h 34a A fuller version of this map exists as a free, downloadable poster from the U.S. Environmen- 34h tal Protection Agency (EPA) at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm. We thank 31c 34b the many compilers of that information, including Principal Investigator James M. Omernik 34c 34h and his colleagues at the EPA and elsewhere, as cited herein. We also thank Anne Rogers of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for her assistance. Conversion 31d CORPUS CHRISTI from digital to print format was accomplished by Bureau of Economic Geology Media 34b Services staff John T. Ames and Jamie H. Coggin. Text editing was by Lana Dieterich. LAREDO 34i GULF OF MEXICO 34d 23. Arizona/New Mexico Mountains Level III ecoregion 23a. Chihuahuan Desert slopes Level IV ecoregion 31d 23b. Montane woodlands 34e County boundary 34i 24. Chihuahuan Deserts 34f State boundary 24a. Chihuahuan basins and playas BROWNSVILLE 24b. Chihuahuan Desert grasslands 24c. Low mountains and bajadas 24d. Chihuahuan montane woodlands 24e. Stockton Plateau 25. High Plains 25b. Rolling sand plains 30. Edwards Plateau 25e. Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 30a. Edwards Plateau woodland 30b. Llano Uplift 25i. Llano Estacado 34. Western Gulf Coastal Plain 25j. Shinnery Sands 30c. Balcones Canyonlands 30d. Semiarid Edwards Plateau 34a. Northern humid gulf coastal prairies 25k. Arid Llano Estacado 34b. Southern subhumid gulf coastal prairies 26. Southwestern Tablelands 31. Southern Texas Plains 34c. Floodplains and low terraces 26a. Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 31a. Northern Nueces alluvial plains 34d. Coastal sand plain 26b. Flat tablelands and valleys 31b. Semiarid Edwards bajada 34e. Lower Rio Grande valley 26c. Caprock Canyons, Badlands, 31c. Texas–Tamaulipan thornscrub 34f. Lower Rio Grande alluvial floodplain and Breaks 31d. Rio Grande floodplain and terraces 34g. Texas–Louisiana coastal marshes 26d. Semiarid Canadian Breaks 32. Texas Blackland Prairies 34h. Midcoast barrier islands and 27. Central Great Plains 32a. Northern Blackland Prairie coastal marshes 27h. Red prairie 32b. Southern Blackland/Fayette Prairie 34i. Laguna Madre barrier islands and 27i. Broken red plains 32c. Floodplains and low terraces coastal marshes 27j. Limestone plains 33. East Central Texas Plains 35. South Central Plains 29. Cross Timbers 33a. Northern post oak savanna 35a. Tertiary uplands 29b. Eastern cross timbers 33b. Southern post oak savanna 35b. Floodplains and low terraces 29c. Western cross timbers 33c. San Antonio prairie 35c. Pleistocene fluvial terraces 29d. Grand Prairie 33d. Northern prairie outliers 35e. Southern Tertiary uplands 29e. Limestone cut plain 33e. Bastrop Lost Pines 35f. Flatwoods 29f. Carbonate cross timbers 33f. Floodplains and low terraces 35g. Red River bottomlands QAd7842 Ecoregions of Texas Ecoregions denote areas of general Texas, and most continue into ecologically and the conterminous United States similarity in ecosystems and in type, similar parts of adjacent states in the has 84 ecoregions (U.S. Environmental quality, and quantity of environmental U.S. or Mexico. Protection Agency, 2003). Level IV, resources. They are designed to be a depicted here for Texas, is a further This map is based on the premise that spatial framework for research, assess- refinement of level III ecoregions. ecological regions are hierarchical and can ment, management, and monitoring of Explanations of the methods used to be identified through analysis of spatial ecosystems and ecosystem components. define the U.S. Environmental Protection patterns and the composition of biotic and Ecoregions stratify the environment by its Agency’s (EPA) ecoregions are given in abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect probable response to disturbance (Bryce Omernik (1995), Omernik and others differences in ecosystem quality and and others, 1999). These general-purpose (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik 1987, regions are critical to the structuring and 1995). These phenomena include geology, implementation of ecosystem management This map is modified from a collab- physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, strategies across Federal agencies, State orative project between EPA Region VI, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The rela- agencies, and nongovernmental organi- EPA National Health and Environmental tive importance of each characteristic var- zations responsible for different types of Effects Research Laboratory (Corval- ies from one ecological region to another. resources within the same geographical lis, Oregon), the Texas Commission on areas (Omernik and others, 2000). A hierarchical scheme indicates different Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the levels of ecological regions. Level I U.S. Department of Agriculture—Nat- Ecological and biological diversity of divides North America into 15 ecological ural Resources Conservation Service Texas is enormous. The state encompasses regions. Level II divides the continent (NRCS). Collaboration and consultation barrier islands and coastal lowlands, large into 52 regions (Commission for also occurred with the U.S. Geological river floodplain forests, rolling plains and Environmental Cooperation Working Survey (USGS)—Earth Resources plateaus, forested hills, deserts, and a variety Group, 1997). At level III, the continental Observation Systems Data Center. of aquatic habitats. There are 12 level III United States contains 104 ecoregions, ecoregions and 56 level IV ecoregions in Literature Cited Acknowledgments Bryce, S. A., Omernik, J. M., and Larsen, D. P., 1995, Ecoregions—a spatial framework The BEG acknowledges James M. Omernik, 1999, Ecoregions—a geographic framework to guide for environmental management, in Davis, Principal Investigator, EPA, and Anne Rogers, risk characterization and ecosystem management: W. S., and Simon, T. P., eds., Biological assessment Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Environmental Practice, v. 1, no. 3, p. 141–155. and criteria—tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis for assistance and permission to reproduce this map. Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Publishers, p. 49–62. Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America— MANAGING EDITOR: Peter Eichhubl toward a common perspective: Montreal, Quebec, Omernik, J. M., Chapman, S. S., Lillie, R. A., and MEDIA MANAGER: Cathy J. Brown Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Dumke, R. T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: GRAPHICS: John T. Ames and Jamie H. Coggin Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T. R., Larsen, D. P., Omernik, Arts and Letters, v. 88, no. 2000, p. 77–103. J. M., and Hughes, R. M., 1989, Regionalization as A fuller version of this map exists as a a tool for managing environmental resources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, free, color, downloadable poster from the Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Level III ecoregions of the continental United States U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. (revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency— AUTHORS: Glenn E. Griffith (Dynamac Corporation), Omernik, J. M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous National Health and Environmental Effects Sandra A. Bryce (Dynamac Corporation), United States (map supplement): Annals of the Research Laboratory, Map M-1, various scales. Association of American Geographers, v. 77, James M. Omernik (USGS), Jeffrey A. Comstock Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: (Indus Corporation), Anne C. Rogers (TCEQ), no. 1, p. 118–125, scale 1:7,500,000. Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Bill Harrison (TCEQ), Stephen L. Hatch Classification Series No. 19, 26 p. (Texas A&M University), and David Bezanson (Natural Area Preservation Association). Bureau of Economic Geology The Bureau of Economic Geology, established in 1909, is the oldest research unit at The University of Texas at Austin. The Bureau functions as the state geological survey of Texas, and Director Scott W. Tinker is the State Geologist. The Bureau conducts basic and applied research programs in energy resources and economics, coastal and environmental studies, land resources and use, geologic and mineral mapping, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and subsurface nanotechnology. The University of Texas at Austin • University Station, Box X • Austin, Texas 78713-8924 • 512-471-1534 http://www.beg.utexas.edu • Bookstore: 512-471-7144; order online at http://begstore.beg.utexas.edu/store/.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kansas Fishing Regulations Summary
    2 Kansas Fishing 0 Regulations 0 5 Summary The new Community Fisheries Assistance Program (CFAP) promises to increase opportunities for anglers to fish close to home. For detailed information, see Page 16. PURCHASE FISHING LICENSES AND VIEW WEEKLY FISHING REPORTS ONLINE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS' WEBSITE, WWW.KDWP.STATE.KS.US TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildlife and Parks Offices, e-mail . Zebra Mussel, White Perch Alerts . State Record Fish . Lawful Fishing . Reservoirs, Lakes, and River Access . Are Fish Safe To Eat? . Definitions . Fish Identification . Urban Fishing, Trout, Fishing Clinics . License Information and Fees . Special Event Permits, Boats . FISH Access . Length and Creel Limits . Community Fisheries Assistance . Becoming An Outdoors-Woman (BOW) . Common Concerns, Missouri River Rules . Master Angler Award . State Park Fees . WILDLIFE & PARKS OFFICES KANSAS WILDLIFE & Maps and area brochures are available through offices listed on this page and from the PARKS COMMISSION department website, www.kdwp.state.ks.us. As a cabinet-level agency, the Kansas Office of the Secretary AREA & STATE PARK OFFICES Department of Wildlife and Parks is adminis- 1020 S Kansas Ave., Rm 200 tered by a secretary of Wildlife and Parks Topeka, KS 66612-1327.....(785) 296-2281 Cedar Bluff SP....................(785) 726-3212 and is advised by a seven-member Wildlife Cheney SP .........................(316) 542-3664 and Parks Commission. All positions are Pratt Operations Office Cheyenne Bottoms WA ......(620) 793-7730 appointed by the governor with the commis- 512 SE 25th Ave. Clinton SP ..........................(785) 842-8562 sioners serving staggered four-year terms. Pratt, KS 67124-8174 ........(620) 672-5911 Council Grove WA..............(620) 767-5900 Serving as a regulatory body for the depart- Crawford SP .......................(620) 362-3671 ment, the commission is a non-partisan Region 1 Office Cross Timbers SP ..............(620) 637-2213 board, made up of no more than four mem- 1426 Hwy 183 Alt., P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan April2006 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND Wll...DLIFE SERVICE P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 In Reply Refer To: R2/NWRS-PLN JUN 0 5 2006 Dear Reader: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proud to present to you the enclosed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This CCP and its supporting documents outline a vision for the future of the Refuge and specifies how this unique area can be maintained to conserve indigenous wildlife and their habitats for the enjoyment of the public for generations to come. Active community participation is vitally important to manage the Refuge successfully. By reviewing this CCP and visiting the Refuge, you will have opportunities to learn more about its purpose and prospects. We invite you to become involved in its future. The Service would like to thank all the people who participated in the planning and public involvement process. Comments you submitted helped us prepare a better CCP for the future of this unique place. Sincerely, Tom Baca Chief, Division of Planning Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Sherman, Texas Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Planning Region 2 500 Gold SW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • F.3 References for Appendix F
    F-1 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F-2 F-3 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F.1 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ECOREGIONS Ecoregions delineate areas that have a general similarity in their ecosystems and in the types, qualities, and quantities of their environmental resources. They are based on unique combinations of geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2004). Ecoregions are defined as areas having relative homogeneity in their ecological systems and their components. Factors associated with spatial differences in the quality and quantity of ecosystem components (including soils, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography) are relatively homogeneous within an ecoregion. A number of individuals and organizations have characterized North America on the basis of ecoregions (e.g., Omernik 1987; CEC 1997; Bailey 1997). The intent of such ecoregion classifications has been to provide a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. The ecoregion discussions presented in this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) follow the Level III ecoregion classification based on Omernik (1987) and refined through collaborations among U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional offices, state resource management agencies, and other federal agencies (EPA 2004). The following sections provide brief descriptions of each of the Level III ecoregions that have been identified for the 11 western states in which potential wind energy development may occur on BLM-administered lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
    92° 91° 90° 89° 88° Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cape Girardeau 73cc 72 io Ri Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts revisions and Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Oh ver environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map Barbara A. Kleiss (USACE, ERDC -Waterways Experiment Station), James M. ILLINOIS assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing 2003, Omernik, 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between USEPA Region Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, Omernik, (USEPA, retired), Thomas L. Foti (Arkansas Natural Heritage p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 71 the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the VII, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H., and Commission), and Elizabeth O. Murray (Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Planning Team). 37° environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of the Cross Timbers Region
    Characteristics of the Cross Timbers Region Once a rural area thriving on agricultural practices such as cotton, peach, corn farming, and cattle ranching, the Cross Timbers Region is an area that was thickly wooded with Post and Blackjack Oaks and a mixture of prairies. This area covers portions of Kansas, Oklahoma and north central Texas. It also served as a north-south travel corridor for Native Americans so that they could remain hidden on their journey. For settlers, the Cross Timbers Region was a landmark that signaled the beginnings of Indian Territories and the western frontier. Ecologically, the Cross Timbers Region serves as habitat for large populations of mammals and birds. Much of this can be attributed to the area’s combination of ecological characteristics provided by heavily forested areas and prairies. One of the largest and most common of all wildlife living in the Cross Timbers Region is the white tail deer. Deer sustain large populations due to the abundant food sources associated with oak forests and prairie habitats. The area continues to provide wildlife with an adequate water supply through creeks and streams. The availability of water has been enhanced by the development of constructed lakes, ponds, and stock tanks for watering cattle, and agricultural uses. The Town of Flower Mound is located in the southeastern finger of the Cross Timbers Region. This area is typically dominated by Post (Quercus stellata) and Blackjack Oaks (Quercus marilandica). These two species of trees are drought- tolerant, low in stature, wind sculptured, slow growing, and poorly suited for urbanized areas. Originally, these trees were found in areas affiliated with tall grass prairies, however, over time much of the prairie areas have been sodded with Bermuda grass and seeded with Bahalia grass for grazing purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F. PART 213—ADMINISTRATION of LANDS
    NATIONAL GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT A PRIMER Appendix F Friday, June 24, 1960 FEDERAL REGISTER Title 36—PARKS, FORESTS, AND §213.1 Designation, administration, and MEMORIALS1 development of National Grasslands. (a) The land utilization projects administered Chapter II—Forest Service, Department of by Department of Agriculture designated in Agriculture paragraph (e) of this section hereafter shall be named and referred to as “National Grasslands”. PART 211—ADMINISTRATION (b) The National Grasslands shall be a part of the national-forest system and permanently held PART 213—ADMINISTRATION OF LANDS by the Department of Agriculture for UNDER TITLE III OF THE BANKHEAD- administration under the provisions of Title III of JONES FARM TENANT ACT BY THE the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, subject to FOREST SERVICE such exchanges of lands thereunder as will promote effective and economical administration National Grasslands or otherwise serve the public interest. (c) The National Grasslands shall be 1.In Part 211, §211.21 is revoked. administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, 2.A new Part 213 is added to read as follows: watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. (d) The Chief of the Forest Service is hereby Sec. directed to develop and administer the renewable 213.1 Designation, administration, and resources of the National Grasslands to the fullest development of National Grasslands. extent practicable for multiple use and sustained 213.2 Authority for Chief, Forest Service, to yield of the several products and services obtained group and name National Grasslands. therefrom. In the administration of the National 213.3 Protection, occupancy, use and Grasslands, due consideration shall be given to the administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Characterization of the IWJV Landscape Principal Author: Patrick Donnelly
    Chapter Two Characterization of the IWJV Landscape Principal Author: Patrick Donnelly Photo by Patrick Donnelly Inside this Chapter Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2.2 Ecological Setting ................................................................................................................ 2.3 • Northwestern Forested Mountains Ecological Region (162.2 million acres) ......................... 2.3 • North American Deserts Ecological Region (278.9 million acres) ........................................ 2.4 • Temperate Sierras Ecological Region (19.9 million acres) .................................................. 2.7 Defining an Ecological Framework ....................................................................................... 2.9 • Global/Intercontinental Scale (Level I Ecoregions) ............................................................. 2.9 • National/Sub-continental Scale (Level II Ecoregions) ....................................................... 2.10 • Regional Scale (Level III Ecoregions) .............................................................................. 2.12 • Local Scale (Level IV Ecoregions) ................................................................................... 2.14 Conservation Estate & Landownership Patterns ................................................................ 2.15 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Structure, Composition, and Regeneration of Cross Timbers Forest Fragments in Different Land Use Contexts
    STRUCTURE, COMPOSITION, AND REGENERATION OF CROSS TIMBERS FOREST FRAGMENTS IN DIFFERENT LAND USE CONTEXTS Ingrid Dunn Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2015 APPROVED: Alexandra Ponette-González, Major Professor Mathew Fry, Committee Member C. Reid Ferring, Committee Member Paul Hudak, Chair of the Department of Geography Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Dunn, Ingrid. Structure, Composition, and Regeneration of Cross Timbers Forest Fragments in Different Land Use Contexts. Master of Science (Applied Geography), May 2015, 85 pp., 17 tables, 12 figures, references, 120 titles. Throughout its current range, the Cross Timbers forest ecosystem is vulnerable to land- use change. In this study, we examined the surrounding land use matrix on the vegetation structure, composition and regeneration of six Cross Timbers forest fragments in Denton County, Texas (north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex). Two fragments adjacent to agricultural land, two to residential neighborhoods, and two formally protected forest sites were selected. In summer 2015, five 100 m2 plots were randomly established in each fragment at least 200 meters from the edge. In each plot, all live and dead trees ≥ 3 cm diameter were identified and their height and diameter at breast height (DBH at 1.3 m aboveground) measured. Evidence of dumping (presence of trash) was recorded as an index of human frequentation. Differences in vegetation structure among the forest fragments were found. Most notably, fragments adjacent to agriculture contained 25% to 50% fewer trees per hectare than all other sites (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.02), especially trees <10 cm DBH.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Texas
    Ecoregions of Texas 23 Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 26 Southwestern Tablelands 30 Edwards Plateau 23a Chihuahuan Desert Slopes 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 30a Edwards Plateau Woodland 23b Montane Woodlands 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 30b Llano Uplift 24 Chihuahuan Deserts 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks 30c Balcones Canyonlands 24a Chihuahuan Basins and Playas 26d Semiarid Canadian Breaks 30d Semiarid Edwards Plateau 24b Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands 27 Central Great Plains 31 Southern Texas Plains 24c Low Mountains and Bajadas 27h Red Prairie 31a Northern Nueces Alluvial Plains 24d Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands 27i Broken Red Plains 31b Semiarid Edwards Bajada 24e Stockton Plateau 27j Limestone Plains 31c Texas-Tamaulipan Thornscrub 25 High Plains 29 Cross Timbers 31d Rio Grande Floodplain and Terraces 25b Rolling Sand Plains 29b Eastern Cross Timbers 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 29c Western Cross Timbers 25i Llano Estacado 29d Grand Prairie 25j Shinnery Sands 29e Limestone Cut Plain 25k Arid Llano Estacado 29f Carbonate Cross Timbers 25b 26a 26a 25b 25e Level III ecoregion 26d 300 60 120 mi Level IV ecoregion 26a Amarillo 27h 60 0 120 240 km County boundary 26c State boundary Albers equal area projection 27h 25i 26b 25j 27h 35g 35g 26b Wichita 29b 35a 35c Lubbock 26c Falls 33d 27i 29d Sherman 35a 25j Denton 33d 35c 32a 33f 35b 25j 26b Dallas 33f 35a 35b 27h 29f Fort 35b Worth 33a 26b Abilene 32c Tyler 29b 24c 29c 35b 23a Midland 26c 30d 35a El Paso 24a 23b Odessa 35b 24a 24b 25k 27j 33f Nacogdoches 24d Waco Pecos 25j
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • East Central Plains (Post Oak Savanna)
    TEXAS CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN East Central Texas Plains (Post Oak Savanna) ECOREGION HANDBOOK August 2012 Citing this document: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2012. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012 – 2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Editor, Wendy Connally, Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas. Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 HOW TO GET INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 RARE SPECIES and COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 13 PRIORITY HABITATS ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 CONSERVATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 28 ECOREGION HANDBOOK FIGURES Figure 1. ECPL Ecoregion with County Boundaries ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]