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 also relevant to integrated ecosystem management, an ultimate goal of most federal and state resource management Dale Hollow o l to P C ls 67g Reelfoot Lake Ho agencies. Lake 67h 67h 66f Kentucky 69d 67f The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the 74a Lake Old Hickory analysis of the patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in r Norris Johnson Lake ive d R Lake City ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, Cu rlan mb 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 hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing 71h iv 66e r R North America into 15 ecological regions, with level II dividing the continent into 52 regions. At level III, the ive ky i R uc p 68c h continental United States contains 99 regions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1997). Level p c i 67i li s Nashville o s 74a N i IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define USEPA’s ecoregions s s 36° i 67g ° MISSOURI M Center Hill 36 are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith et al. (1994, 1997), and Gallant et al. (1989). Midd Oak ARKANSAS 73a iver le 66d r R F Lake ee o J Percy 68a Ridge 67g Douglas This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000; it depicts revisions and subdivisions of d D r 67g e k Fork 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 is part of a collaborative project primarily between the USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research e 71f d er R Fort Loudoun 66e De iv Laboratory - Corvallis, OR., and TDEC’s Division of Water Pollution Control. Collaboration and consultation also e Lake 74b r 67h 74a Murfreesboro occurred with the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the So 66e United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), USEPA Region IV, and with other State of u th 65e F 71i Tennessee agencies. o 71g F 74a rk F L r orke i d t e D t l n This project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common framework of ecological regions. Reaching e McMinnville Watts Bar e er River 67f c Du Lake T 66f h ck e that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies that Ri n B Jackson ve n r r e o have been used to develop the most commonly used existing ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed s a r s d Columbia e r e by the USFS (Bailey et al. 1994), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture iv ve e i R R R Ri 66 e v i 1981). As each of these frameworks is further developed, the differences between them lessen. Regional e v e se r 66g i s er h e collaborative projects such as this one in Tennessee, where some agreement can be reached among multiple resource 74a tc n 71h a n lo River u e Fontana management agencies, is a step in the direction of attaining commonality and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for Buffa eq T H S Lake a the entire nation. tc 67h hie 67i r Ri ve v ahatchie R i e 67i L Literature Cited: oos r it 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 (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. e Tims Ford Lake s NORTH CAROLINA v Lawrenceburg e W i Lake e R H SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. o R lf iwa e 67g ssee iv e Rive r Memphis Riv s e s Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing e r 67f r 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 Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for water 35° 65b 65a Pickwick 35° Lake quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. 67g MISSISSIPPI 65i 68c Chattanooga 68c Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S.H., 1997, Ecoregions of Tennessee: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental ALABAMA GEORGIA 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 Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological 82° 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 1 2 29 Central Oklahoma/Texas Plains 56 Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. 41 4 Cascades 30 Edwards Plateau Drift Plains 42 5 Sierra Nevada 65 Southeastern Plains 67 Ridge and Valley 69 Central Appalachians 73 Mississippi Alluvial Plain SCALE 1:940 000 10 49 58 31 Southern Texas Plains 57 Huron/Erie Lake Plains U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987): 3 16 48 6 Southern and Central California 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 Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map 11 33 East Central Texas Plains 59 Northeastern Coastal Zone 16 43 4 15 16 50 58 7 Central California Valley 34 Western Gulf Coastal Plain 60 Northern Appalachian Plateau 65b Flatwoods/Alluvial Prairie Margins Valleys and Low Rolling Hills M-1, various scales. 17 17 51 51 50 8 Southern California Mountains 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 Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. 52 53 Foothills 37 Arkansas Valley 71 Interior Plateau 74 Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Albers equal area projection 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 44 Nebraska Sand Hills 66 Blue Ridge Mountains 22 67 45 69 Central Appalachians 71h Outer Nashville Basin Sandra Azevedo (OAO Corporation).