Ecoregions of Tennessee Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental poster is part of a collaborative project primarily between the USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Wilton, T.F., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of Iowa - a framework for resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and Research Laboratory - Corvallis, OR., and TDEC’s Division of Water Pollution Control. Collaboration and water quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. water quality assessment and management: The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, v. 101, no. 1, p. 5-13. consultation also occurred with the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are directly applicable to the immediate needs Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S.H., 1997, Ecoregions of Tennessee: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S.H., 1997, Ecoregions of Tennessee: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental of state agencies, such as the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), for selecting Service (NRCS), the United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), USEPA Region IV, and Protection Agency EPA/600R-97/022, 51 p. Protection Agency EPA/600R-97/022, 51 p. regional stream reference sites and identifying high-quality waters, developing ecoregion-specific chemical and with other State of Tennessee agencies. biological water quality criteria and standards, and augmenting TDEC’s watershed management approach. Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of This project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common framework of ecological regions. American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. Ecoregion frameworks are also relevant to integrated ecosystem management, an ultimate goal of most federal and Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping state resource management agencies. methodologies that have been used to develop the most commonly used existing ecoregion-type frameworks, Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., 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 Biological assessment and criteria - tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis including those developed by the USFS (Bailey et al. 1994), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through Publishers, p. 49-62. Publishers, p. 49-62. the analysis of the patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). As each of these frameworks is further developed, the differences ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, between them lessen. Regional collaborative projects such as this one in Tennessee, where some agreement can U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each be reached among multiple resource management agencies, is a step in the direction of attaining commonality and United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, Literature Cited: 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Health and Environmental Effects Research 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Health and Environmental Effects Research dividing North America into 15 ecological regions, with level II dividing the continent into 52 regions. At level Laboratory Map M-1, various scales. Laboratory Map M-1, various scales. III, the continental United States contains 99 regions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 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., Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, 1997). Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. 26 p.of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of 26 p. USEPA’s ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Griffith et al. (1994, 1997), and Gallant et al. (1989). Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000; it depicts revisions and subdivisions of environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA 1996; Omernik 1987). The environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/3-89/060, 152 p. 90° 89° 88° 87° 86° 85° 84° 83° 82° 70 71 68 69 67 KENTUCKY IRGINIA 74 V i 68c r h 67 Lake ive 67 r KY 71g R ive Barkley 71e ll R ver 66f e ch Ri Clarksville w n n g o li o 7 Dale Hollow P C st 6 Lake ol Reelfoot H h f Lake 7h 7 66 Kentucky 69d 67f 6 6 74a Lake Old Hickory Lake er Norris Johnson Riv Lake City and Cum berl 67f berl Cum ion Riv er an Ob d R Cherokee iv e r r Lake e 66d 71h iv 66e r R ive ky i R i c p 68c 7 hu p c i 6 li s Nashville o s 74a N i s s 36 i 67g ° MISSOURI M Center Hill 36° er Midd Oak A 73a iv le 66d RKANSAS r R F Lake g g ee o 68a Ridge 7 7 D J Percy 6 6 Douglas rked rk 66g Fo Priest Lake F Knoxville o Lake r Sparta Crossville 73 k e 71f Fort Loudoun d Deer Ri 66e ve 7h 74b r Lake 6 74a Murfreesboro So 66e u th 65e F 71i o 71g F 74a rk F L r ork i e t d e D t l n e McMinnville Watts Bar e er Rive 67f c r D T 66f h uc Lake k e R B iv n Jackson r er n e o r s a e s d Columbia v er e i iv e R R Ri R 66 e v i e e er 66g v i s s e h e 74a tc n r 71h a n iver u e Fontana R lo T Buffa eq H S Lake a 7h t 6 ch ie 67i R i r i 7 ve v i e ahatchie R 6 L oos r it L b tle 8 T 6 en Chickamauga ne r Tims Ford Lake ss NORTH CAROLINA e Lawrenceburg e v e W i Lake o R H SOUTH CAROLINA l iwas R e f 67g see i R v e iver h Memphis R s iv e s er 67f 7 r e Elk River 6 e n 6 n 6 e T 65j 45 65b 35° 65a Pickwick g 35° Lake 7 6 MISSISSIPPI 65i 68c Chattanooga 68c ALABAMA GEORGIA 74 65 71 66 68 67 68 90° 89° 88° 87° 86° 85° 84° 83° INTERIOR—G EOLOG ICAL S U RVEY, RES TON, VIRG INIA—1998 82° 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 77 3 Willamette Valley 1 2 29 Central Oklahoma/Texas Plains 56 Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana 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 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 16 4 15 16 43 50 7 Central California Valley 34 Western Gulf Coastal Plain