DOCSLIB.ORG

Woods, AJ, JM Omernik, and DD Brown. 2003. Map of Level III And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Woods, AJ, JM Omernik, and DD Brown. 2003. Map of Level III And Level III and IV Ecoregions of EPA Region 3 Literature Cited: Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of The level III and IV ecoregion map on this map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts 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, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, revisions. It revises and subdivides earlier level III ecoregions that were compiled at a smaller assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions scale (USEPA 1998; Omernik 1987). It includes previously published level IV ecoregions (Woods Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America - toward a common perspective: Montreal, Quebec, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. are directly applicable to the immediate needs of state agencies, including the development of and Omernik, 1996; Woods and others, 1996). It expands level IV coverage to include, for the first biological criteria and water quality standards and the establishment of management goals for time, western West Virginia and the Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Delaware, Maryland, and Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. nonpoint-source pollution. They are also relevant to integrated ecosystem management, an ultimate Virginia. Compilation of this map was part of a collaborative project with the United States goal of most federal and state resource management agencies. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III Environmental Services Division, the EPA Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, and S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Tennessee. (Map poster). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), and state Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for water quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be environmental resource management agencies from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and West identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic Virginia. Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118- 125, scale 1:7,500,000. phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, 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 For additional information, contact James M. Omernik, U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62. land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one Effects Laboratory (NHEERL), 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 (phone: 541-754-4458). U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical 296, 156 p. scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Alan J. Woods (Dynamac Corp.), James M. Omernik (USEPA), and Environmental Protection Agency-National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map M-1, various scales. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group 1997). At level III, the continental Douglas D. Brown (US Forest Service). Map preparation and development of digital files were Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. Woods, A.J., and Omernik, United States contains 104 regions (United States Environmental Protection Agency provided by Jeffrey A. Comstock, Sandra H. Azevedo, M. Frances Faure, and Suzanne M. Pierson J.M., 1996, Ecoregions of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Geographer, v. XXXIV, no. 2, p. 3-37. [USEPA],1998). Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the (OAO Corp.). Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Brown, D.D., and Kiilsgaard, C.W., 1996, Level III and IV Ecoregions of Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Ridge methods used to define the USEPA’s ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith and others and Valley, and the Central Appalachians of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health (1994), and Gallant and others (1989). and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA/600R-96/077, 50 p. Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, C.S. Brockman, T.D. Gerber, W.D. Hosteter, and S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio. (Map poster). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 83° 82° 81° 80° 79° 78° 77° 76° 75° 56 83 55 Binghamton Erie 58 56 60 Elmira 42° Lake Erie 61 42° 62 83a Jamestown 60a NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA 60a 60b 62e 57 A AD ATES 61c 62 CAN Warren Allegheny Montrose 61b Reservior Smethport 61c MICHIGAN UNITED ST Monticello OHIO Toledo 57a 62c Meadville 60a 57b Pymatuning 61d Lake 61b 62d Emporium Tionesta Laporte Scranton Cleveland Sandusky Ridgway 62c 62b 83a Franklin 67c 67e 62d 62d 57a 57d 61c Williamsport Wilkes-Barre 67a 61d 67d 67 62a 67a 67a Lock Haven 67b 41° Akron Youngstown 41° 67a Stroudsburg New Castle 67e 61e 67a 67c 61c 67c ANIA V 58 70c Sunbury OHIO Butler 61c r 67b e iv State Canton PENNSYL R 55a 67c Susquehanna River y College Easton n e h 69b 67e g 61c le l 67a Beaver A 67a 67c 67b D 70c 67a Allentown e Marion Indiana la w O 67a Lewistown 67b a h 64b 67b r i e o 67b R R i iv 67b v 64 er e New Cumberland 67d 58h r Co Huntingdon Pittsburgh ne Altoona maugh River 67d NEW JERSEY 64a PENNSYL 67a 67d 64b 64d 67b Lebanon Steubenville Reading V 67a 58h 64a ANIA 70e 67c Trenton Johnstown Harrisburg 70b Raystown 67a 64b Lake Sch 67c 64b uy ki 64b 64a ll 69a R iv Norristown er 63a 67b Carlisle 64a 69b 64d Washington 67a 64c 55c 40° Newark Wheeling 67a 64c Lancaster 40° 67d 64a Philadelphia Somerset 67c 66b Springfield Cambridge Columbus 70b Chambersburg York 69a 67b Moundsville 67b Uniontown 67a 64a 55b 70b Gettysburg Susquehanna River ANIA Wilmington V 64d 55e VIRGINIA 70a 67b 67a PENNSYLVANIA 67c YLAND PENNSYL MAR WEST 84 55b 70a 64a 64c Cumberland Hagerstown New Martinsville Elkton 67b 67c Morgantown Westminster Aberdeen 67c 66b 67d 69b Vineland OHIO 67b VIRGINIA Fairmont 67c 64d 67b Martinsburg 63b WEST 67c Towson Marietta Kingwood D 69b e la Keyser Frederick w a Chillicothe YLAND re Athens Baltimore R MAR VIRGINIA iv 63 e Grafton 67b Charles 63a r Clarksburg WEST Romney Parkersburg Town Chestertown Dover 70d Harrisville Winchester 55d 67c 67d Gaithersburg 63b Philippi 67c 67a Rockville 67c 39° 67c NEW JERSEY 66b DELA DELA 39° MAR Weston 67b Annapolis 64b W YLAND ARE Buckhannon W 67c Washington D.C. Denton ARE Front 70f Elkins Royal Arlington 63b Point 67b 67d 63f Pleasant 63b Easton Ripley 67a Fairfax 70b 64c 64b Georgetown 71d Portsmouth 67d Manassas 67c Warrenton OH 65n IO 66b 64a KEN T U Franklin Maysville C K Y St. Charles 63d Ohio R 67d Cambridge iv 69a e r 67c 63b P Culpeper o t Ohio River Harrisonburg o m Salisbury 67a a c 67b 71 Huntington R iv er Fredericksburg Charleston 70 67a Summersville 67c 67b Marlinton 63b Morehead 67c 63b Staunton Lake 38° Madison Anna Bowling Green Louisa 38° Greenbrier River 67a Warm 67b Charlottesville Springs YLAND MAR 66b 66a Tappahannock VIRGINIA R a p 67c p ah an New Riv no er Lewisburg ck 69d Covington R Beckley iv Chesapeake Lexington er 66a Bay Williamson Hinton J 67f am 67g es 67f R Bluestone iver 69a 67c Lake 66a Buckingham Richmond 65m Pikeville 67g Fincastle 63b 69 New Castle Welch Y 69c 67g 45g o 67f rk Princeton 67h R iv Lynchburg e 45g r Williamsburg Hazard New R i v Roanoke Bedford e r Farmville VIRGINIA KENTUCKY 67i WEST Petersburg VIRGINIA VIRGINIA 67h Smith 67g 66e 63e 66e Mountain 67f Lake J Atlantic 66d Dinwiddie am es 63b 37° 67f Christiansburg R i 67h 67h Pulaski Leesville ve 37° r 67g Lake 69e Ocean 67i Lunenburg Wytheville o R ano Sussex ke R 67i 45g i Virginia Beach 67i ve Norfolk 66e 67g r Marion 45e 45f 63e 67i 66c 45c 63d 67h 67f 67f 66e 67f 63b Abingdon Jonesville 63c 69e Martinsville 67f 67g 67i Emporia VIRGINIA 66f 66d TENNESSEE John H Kerr 67f Bristol 67g Lake 66d Danville Reservoir 67h 67i Gaston VIRGINIA Kingsport 67i 67i 67f 67i 66e NORTH CAROLINA 67f 66f 66 Mount Airy 63
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge, Final Comprehensive Conservation
    Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2000 Prepared For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 134 Union Blvd., Suite 350 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Prepared by: Research Management Consultants, Inc. 1746 Cole Blvd., Suite 300 Golden, Colorado 80401 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 3 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 4 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 7 Vision .............................................................................................................. 10 Introduction Regional Setting ........................................................................................ 11 Refuge Purpose Statements .................................................................... 12 Planning Perspectives and Considerations Purpose of and Need for the Plan ........................................................... 15 Planning Process ....................................................................................... 16 Planning Perspectives ............................................................................... 17 Expected Planning Outcomes .................................................................. 17 The Ecosystem Approach to Management ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Oklahoma
    Ecoregions of Oklahoma 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96° 95° 27 Medicine Lodge Independence 25 26 27 28 29 40 26 Winfield Joplin ° 25c 37 COLORADO Liberal A O 25b 25b r 25b k 37° IC 25c 26a an X 25b KANSAS sas N r R 26 E ve eo Ri 25b i s arron v h Picher M 26f Cim ma 25e Ci rron 26b 26a e o C r W R R iver h ive 39a E 25c 27d i r N k 39 a 40b Miami 25e 25b s k 27l i Boise City 25e Alva a 40d r R Rive 27p iv Bartlesville er 27q e 39b av r Kaw e 25c B Guymon 26a Ponca City Lake 28a 25b Optima Great Salt 25e S C Grand Lake O’ 25 Lake Plains Lake a a 25e lt F iver n The Cherokees 26a ork Arkansas R e 27q y 25e 25e 25e R 39a MISSOURI i TEXAS C v Oologah 27d e im 29a Lake ARKANSAS r 39a ar Woodward ron Perryton R Stratford N i ver 39a 25 25 25 o 27l Enid r 27n Lake 39 th Pawnee Pryor Hudson 39b 103° 102° 101° C 27l T Claremore a u n r Perry Keystone 40b a k d e Lake ia y . n R R C 39a 39a V o 25 High Plains 33 East Central Texas Plains iv r e e e Tulsa r h r Canton Lake e d s r k i o e 26 Stillwater g e iv 25b Rolling Sand Plains 33a Northern Post Oak Savanna ver r R i i n R N Fort Gibson is 27o arro s o im Broken Arrow R Lake 39a in i l 39a C l 39b ° v 36 25c Moderate Relief Plains 27l I ° e 35 South Central Plains 36 r Sapulpa 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains Cushing Tahlequah 35b Floodplains and Low Terraces 27l C Guthrie a 26 Southwestern Tablelands 35c Pleistocene Fluvial Terraces na 27l River S d r sas ian ive an 39a 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks A R Ark 35d Cretaceous Dissected Uplands 27q TEX Muskogee 38 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 35g Red River Bottomlands W a s 27d Okmulgee 40b 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, hi Tenkiller 35h Blackland Prairie ta Dee Ferry 38b R N p Fork iv o Lake er r and Breaks El Reno th 29a 27h Clinton C 37b Sallisaw 36 Ouachita Mountains Weatherford an 26f Mesa de Maya/Black Mesa ad ia 36a Athens Plateau 27 Ca Oklahoma City n Elk City nad R ian iv Fort 27 Central Great Plains River e 37b Smith 36b Central Mountain Ranges r Shawnee Robert S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of New Mexico
    Ecoregions of New Mexico 20 Colorado Plateaus 20b Shale Deserts and Sedimentary Basins 22 20c Semiarid Benchlands and Canyonlands iver 20 R r 26 Mancos e 21 UTAH v i 20d Arid Canyonlands 21d 21 21j R COLORADO 20 26f a 21d t 21e 21g 21j on er 20b a 22b rr Riv l 21a a OKLAHOM r 21h 21d P 21j im 20d e 22a C 21 Southern Rockies a iv 20c Navajo 21g Dry 26f 26 L R Reservoir 21f 21d 21h 21c 21b 21e Raton 21a Alpine Zone 21b 21b as Capulin m Aztec 21f 21b 21a Shiprock Farmington ni Tierra 21g 21j 21f Volcano NM 21b Crystalline Subalpine Forests S A 21f Heron an Jua Amarilla n Res. 21b 21h 26h 21c Crystalline Mid-Elevation Forests Morgan River 21f 21d A Lake 21f 21g 25c El Vado 21e 21c 21a 21b 21d Foothill Woodlands and Shrublands 21f Reservoir 21b 26h 21h 21d 26l 21j 22f 21c 21a 21e Sedimentary Subalpine Forests e 21f 21c R d C 21d 21c Clayton i n o 21b h a 21e 21c 21f Sedimentary Mid-Elevation Forests r a 21b C 25e c 21f G 21f C o a 21c Taos n 21g Volcanic Subalpine Forests h 21e a a 21f R d m i 22n a i v o 21g a 21h Volcanic Mid-Elevation Forests CHU e 22i i n r R 21h 21f S 25b 21c N 21h 25 21j Grassland Parks 21f R 23 SKA Abiquiu T sh 21b i a 22h M v in W 21b e De-Na-Z Reservoir r O 21e MTNS T 23e IS R 21e C 21h 22 Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 21b21f E Chaco Culture NHP D 25c 21e 21e 22g E 21f 22a San Luis Shrublands and Hills 21c R 21g G 23c Ch N 21a Mora 22b San Luis Alluvial Flats and Wetlands aco A 26h W 21g S ash IDE 21g 21b 21e 22f Taos Plateau 21h 21g 21j 25e Los Alamos Mora River 22g Rio Grande Floodplain AL DIV 21c 21g 21a 26m 22h North
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Fine Sediment Impairment Determination
    Guidance for Implementation of Colorado’s Narrative Sediment Standard Regulation #31, Section 31.11(1)(a)(i) Policy 98-1 Adopted: November 10, 2014 Expires: December 31, 2017 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S, Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-3463 www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc John W. Hickenlooper, Governor | Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer this page intentionally left blank 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S, Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-3463 www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc John W. Hickenlooper, Governor | Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 II. HISTORY .......................................................................................... 2 A. Initial Policy Development ................................................................ 2 B. First Major Revision: May 2005 ........................................................... 2 C. Second Major Revision: November 2014 ................................................. 4 III. CENTRAL CONCEPTS ............................................................................ 4 A. Beneficial Uses versus Classified Uses ................................................... 4 B. Expected Condition as a Concept ........................................................ 5 C. General Framework for Attainment Decisions .......................................... 5 IV. AQUATIC LIFE USE IMPACTS - ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Tennessee
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Eco Region Level
    Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States 1. Coast Range (Revised December 2011) 2. Puget Lowland National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 3. Willamette Valley U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4. Cascades 77 77 5. Sierra Nevada 1 Seattle 6. Central California Foothills 2 Olympia and Coastal Mountains 15 41 7. Central California Valley 42 8. Southern California Mountains 10 Portland 49 9. Eastern Cascades Slopes and 48 Foothills Salem 82 1 10 Helena 17 17 10. Columbia Plateau 3 11. Blue Mountains Bismarck Augusta 4 11 17 12. Snake River Plain Montpelier 16 17 13. Central Basin and Range 43 50 58 14. Mojave Basin and Range 17 58 Concord 51 Boise Saint 15. Northern Rockies Minneapolis Paul 50 9 46 51 58 59 Boston 16. Idaho Batholith 17 Albany Pierre Rochester83 59 17. Middle Rockies Providence 78 12 17 Buffalo 84 18. Wyoming Basin 80 53 57 60 Hartford 19. Wasatch and Uinta Mountains 52 58 42 Madison Lansing 20. Colorado Plateaus 4 Milwaukee Detroit 62 84 21. Southern Rockies 62 New York 22. Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 18 56 Newark Toledo Cleveland 61 Trenton 57. Huron/Erie Lake Plains 23. Arizona/New Mexico Mountains Salt 44 47 Chicago Lake 57 Harrisburg City Des Moines Akron Philadelphia 58. Northeastern Highlands 24. Chihuahuan Deserts Carson Cheyenne City 19 Pittsburgh 69 64 25. High Plains Sacramento Omaha 84 59. Northeastern Coastal Zone 13 Lincoln 54 55 Baltimore Dover 60. Northern Allegheny Plateau 26. Southwestern Tablelands San Columbus Francisco 5 Annapolis 61. Erie Drift Plain 27. Central Great Plains Indianapolis 70 Washington DC 63 San Denver 25 40 Springfield 62.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft State-Wide Forest Legacy
    COLORADO STATE-WIDE FOREST LEGACY ASSESSMENT OF NEED Colorado State Forest Service Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6010 Cooperatively Funded By: western environment and ecology, inc. 2217 West Powers Avenue Littleton, Colorado 80120 Phone 303-730-3452 Fax 303-730-3461 www.westernenvironment.com 2020 COLORADO STATE-WIDE FOREST LEGACY ASSESSMENT OF NEED Presented to: Colorado State Forest Service Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6010 July 9th, 2020 Assessment of Need Prepared By: Taylor Shook western environment and ecology, inc. 2217 West Powers Avenue Littleton, Colorado 80120 Phone 303-730-3452 Fax 303-730-3461 www.westernenvironment.com Acknowledgements The producers of this AON would like to acknowledge the following agencies and organizations for their guidance and help in gathering information in the preparation of this document and for supporting the Forest Legacy Program in Colorado. Members of the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee and Stakeholders that participated in the ranking of criteria and/or submittal of data for consideration of use in this report Colorado State Forest Service Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust Colorado Open Lands USDA Forest Service, Region 2 The Nature Conservancy The Conservation Fund Colorado Parks and Wildlife Introduction The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) authorizes the USDA Forest Service, State Forestry Agencies, or state governments to purchase permanent conservation easements on private forest lands to prevent those lands from being converted to non-forest uses. The forest lands in the program contain important scenic, cultural, and recreation resources, fish and wildlife habitats, water resources, and other ecological values that will support continued traditional forest uses receive priority.
    [Show full text]