Kentucky Level III and IV Ecoregions

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 104 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Data Download: https://app.fw.ky.gov/kfwis/kygeonet/ecoregion2012.zip  Literature cited: Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map): Washington, D.C., USFS, scale 1:7,500,000. Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., and Larsen, D.P., 1999, Ecoregions—a geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management: Environmental Practice, v. 1, no. 3, p. 141-155. Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. 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, 152p. Griffith, G., Omernik, J., Azevedo, S., 1998, Ecoregions of Tennessee (text, map, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, map scale 1:940,000. McMahon, G., Gregonis, S.M., Waltman, S.W., Omernik, J.M., Thorson, T.D., Freeouf, J.A., Rorick, A.H., and Keys, J.E., 2001, Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United States: Environmental Management, v. 28, no. 3, p. 293-316. Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 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 Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 198, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, USEPA–National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Map M-1, various scales. Wiken, E., 1986, Terrestrial ecozones of Canada: Ottawa, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series no. 19, 26 p. Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Brockman, C.S., Gerber, T.D., Hosteter, W.D., and Azevedo, S.H., 1998, Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio: Reston, USGS, map scale 1:500,000 Comments and questions regarding the Level III and IV Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, USGS, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov This was first downloaded by KDFWR in 2005 for the State Wildlife Action Plan and then updated in 2012 again to reflect an updated national shapefile. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources downloaded first the Kentucky Data set https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-4#pane-15 , but saw that the boundary did match well the Kentucky state boundary maintained by KY Geonet. We then downloaded the national data set obtained from https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-statesand intersected to the KY DGI state boundary, For those slivers assigned to unexpected ecoregions (55d Pre-Wisconsinan Drift Plains, 67h Southern Sandstone Ridges, 71m Northern Shawnee Hills, 71n Southern Shawnee Hills, 73c St. Francis Lowlands) we merged to the geographically nearest polygon so that the ecoregions found in this dataset match that in the poster Ecoregions of Kentucky.