Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas

104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96° 95° 25 er Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, te iv 43 Mis 43 25 hi R 42 so J uth Fork W u r am So i Ri r and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial ve es R 46 43° r e i v

v i 43° e

r R framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems 44 SOUTH DAKOTA x r Lewis and u e o and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are directly applicable to the immediate needs 43g iv i R 43h 44d Clark Lake S e r 42g it Rive g 43h h rara 43i 42g i of state agencies, including the development of biological criteria and water quality W iob Valentine B Chadron N 42h 43r 44a standards, and the establishment of management goals for nonpoint-source pollution. 44d They are also relevant to integrated ecosystem management, an ultimate goal of most 25a federal and state resource management agencies. El kh 42p South or n RiverO'Neill Sioux City 47d The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions N 47k M

G o can be identified through the analysis of the patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena 44d i N r s I 44c 25g 44d C t s h o

M a F u that reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 25d l lkh r O 44b a k E or o m or n r i Y F k u E R s So t h i 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, W u Ri lk v Alliance ve h e r 47l o r r 42° soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic n 42° Norfolk Thedford varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A N or Scottsbluff t h Loup Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of R N i Calamus Dism E or al Riv ve th er r Reservoir l 47 ecological regions. Level I and level II divide the North American continent into 15 25f Pl 25f k at h te o 47d Ri r and 52 regions, respectively (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working ver n Rive Mi r Group 1997). At level III, the continental United States contains 104 regions (United ddle Lou 44a p R i 25h v N 47j States Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA], 2000). However, depending on e o r r Fremont 25f th Columbus the objectives of a particular project, ecoregions may be aggregated within levels of L ou S p r the hierarchy for data analysis and interpretation. Explanations of the methods used to o R ive ut i p R Lake h L v ou ou 27e er L define the US EPA’s ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith and others McConaughy p R Omaha iv Loup 25d er (1994), and Gallant and others (1989). Sidney North Platte City 25c iver 27g e R 41° Pl tt This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a 1:250,000-scale; it depicts 41° 25h a Grand revisions and subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled Island 47h 25d 44a at a smaller scale (US EPA, 2000; Omernik, 1987). This poster is the product of a

Pla er collaborative effort primarily between the US EPA Region VII, the US EPA National tt Riv er e R rk B e Lincoln Nebraska City iv iv st Fo ig B lu L R 25b er Kearney We it Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), the e tle IOWA tt la B Ne i m Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), the Nebraska Game and g a P h MISSOURI h a ut B Hastings l N R o u Parks Commission (NGPC), the Kansas Biological Survey (KBS), the Kansas S or iv e th er F R or 27f i k Geological Survey (KGS), the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, v B e ig r N Division of Environment (KDHE), Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Beatrice e publican m Re Rive a (KDWP), the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources r ha 25b McCook 47i River Falls 25c City Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), and the 40° 25d emaha River United States Department of the Interior - U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - Earth N 40° NEBRASKA g i Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. B

KANSAS k

F 25d S This project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common framework 25d of ecological regions. Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences 25 ver in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies that have been used to mon Ri Atchison Fork Solo 40 North develop the most commonly used existing ecoregion-type frameworks, including r ve those developed by the USFS (United States Forest Service) (Bailey and others, Ri mon Rive O olo r rk Republican uth Fork S Leavenworth o D So 1994), the US EPA (Omernik, 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (United States Department h F t A Goodland 27a ou M S R i r of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981). As each of these frameworks is O 25d ssour ve L i Ri S Manhattan O 27b o Kansas further developed, the differences between them lessen. Regional collaborative

C l o S m City ali K projects such as this one in Nebraska and Kansas, where agreement can be reached ne Ri o a ver n ns as iver 39° R Topeka R among multiple resource management agencies, is a step in the direction of attaining 39° 25c iver Lawrence commonality and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. 25d Hays Salina

Sm oky Hill River gnes R Literature Cited: des Cy iver is a Ma r Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, Cheyenne 40b Bottoms W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 25d Emporia 1:7,500,000. 40c Great McPherson Bend 28 Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America - toward a common perspective: Montreal, Quebec, Commission for Environmental

L i Cooperation, 71 p. t 38 t ° l 38 e er ° A v r Hutchinson i e r Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as Garden City v k R i a 25c R 27c n s s a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection a a Fort Scott s s

n R 25c a N Agency EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. k i 26 r v t e e El Dorado 25b A u o Dodge City r ln s a V h Griffith, G.E, Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa W e o R Pratt rd i Wichita ig ve - a framework for water quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of r r i s Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. 25d N R r inn i e esc v iv ah e R r R i Omernik, J.M, 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the n 27d ve o r r r r Me ve Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. a di Medicine 40d i m ci R i ne L Lodge Independence rk C 25e odg N o 26b e R Omernik, J.M, 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and ort h F iv 26b 29a 25b er Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria - tools for water resource planning and decision 25b 26b 26a 39a 26a making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. g 37° n 25b Liberal 25b i 37° 26b r 39

26b p U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major 25c 25b S NEW MEXICO C 40 imarron River C r AHOMA 28 21 im ve 26 OKL 27 29 land resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. arron Ri 27 98 97 96 INTERIOR—G EOLOG ICAL S U RVEY, RES TON, VIRG INIA—2001 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° ° ° ° 95° U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Level III ecoregions of 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. Wiken, E, 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land 25 Western High Plains 27 Central Great Plains 39 Ozark Highlands 44 Nebraska Sand Hills Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. 25a Pine Ridge Escarpment 27a Smoky Hills 39a Springfield Plateau 44a Sand Hills 25b Rolling Sand Plains 27b Rolling Plains and Breaks 44b Alkaline Lakes Area PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), James M. Omernik 25c Moderate Relief Rangeland 27c Great Bend Sand Prairie 40 Central Irregular Plains 44c Wet Meadow and Marsh Plain (US EPA), Jerry A. Freeouf (USFS), Donald G. Huggins (KBS), James R. McCauley (KGS), 25d Flat to Rolling Cropland 27d Wellington-McPherson Lowland 40b Osage Cuestas 44d Lakes Area Craig C. Freeman (KBS), Gerry Steinauer (NGPC), Robert T. Angelo (KDHE), and Richard L. Schlepp (USDA, NRCS). 25e Rolling Cropland and Range 27e Central Nebraska Loess Plains 40c Wooded Osage Plains 25f Scotts Bluff and Wildcat Hills 27f Rainwater Basin Plains 40d Cherokee Plains 47 Western Corn Belt Plains COLLABORATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: Steven R. Walker (NDEQ), Kenneth R. 25g Sandy and Silty Tablelands 27g Platte River Valley 47d Missouri Alluvial Plain Bazata (NDEQ), Sharon W. Waltman (USDA, NRCS-National Soil Survey Center [NSSC]), 25h North and South Platte Valley 42 Northwestern Glaciated Plains 47h Nebraska/Kansas Loess Hills William J. Waltman (USDA, NRCS-NSSC), Roger Kanable (USDA, NRCS), Steven C. and Terraces 28 Flint Hills 42g Ponca Plains 47i Loess and Glacial Drift Hills Schainost (NGPC), Craig Engelhard (USDA, NRCS), James W. Merchant (Center for 28 Flint Hills 42h Southern River Breaks 47j Lower Platte Alluvial Plain Advanced Land Management Information Technologies [CALMIT], University of Nebraska, 26 Southwestern Tablelands 42p Holt Tablelands 47k Northeastern Nebraska Loess Hills Lincoln [UNL]), Virginia L. McGuire (USGS), Chris Mammoliti (KDWP), James L. Stubbendieck (UNL), David A. Mortensen (UNL), Thomas Wardle (Nebraska Forest Service), 26a Cimarron Breaks 29 Central Oklahoma/Texas Plains 47l Transitional Sandy Plain David T. Lewis (UNL), Robert F. Diffendal Jr. (Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division- 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 29a Cross Timbers 43 Northwestern Great Plains Nebraska Geological Survey) and Jeffrey A. Comstock (OAO Corporation). 43g Semiarid Pierre Shale Plains 43h White River Badlands This project was partially supported by funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection SCALE 1:1 950 000 43i Keya Paha Tablelands Agency’s Office of Water, Biological Criteria Program. 43r Niobrara River Breaks 20 10 0 40 80 mi Level III ecoregion County boundary CITING THIS POSTER: Chapman, Shannen S., Omernik, James M., Freeouf, Jerry A., 40 30 20 10 0 80 160 km Level IV ecoregion State boundary Huggins, Donald G., McCauley, James R., Freeman, Craig C., Steinauer, Gerry, Angelo, Albers equal area projection Robert T., and Schlepp, Richard L., 2001, Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas (color poster Standard parallels 38° N and 42° N with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,950,000).