Ecoregions of California

Introductory text
Literature cited
Authors

Downloads

(NOTE: maps and GIS files may differ. To make sure you are using the most current ecoregion data, download shapefiles of ecoregions)

GIS data (shapefiles, metadata and symbology):
Ecoregions of California--poster front side

Map (available in PDF format):

Ecoregions of California--poster back side

Map (available in PDF format):

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. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). 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 (Omernik and others, 2000).

The California ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale (Omernik, 1987; USEPA 2013). The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level.

A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of 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, map revised 2006). At level III, the continental United States contains 104 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions (USEPA, 2013). Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define these ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Omernik and Griffith (2014).

California has great ecological and biological diversity. The State contains offshore islands and coastal lowlands, large alluvial valleys, forested mountain ranges, deserts, and various aquatic habitats. There are 13 level III ecoregions and 177 level IV ecoregions in California and most continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent States of the United States or Mexico (Bryce and others, 2003; Thorson and others, 2003; Griffith and others, 2014).

This poster is a collaborative project between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), USEPA Region IX, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other State of California agencies and universities. The project is associated with interagency efforts to develop a common national framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA - Forest Service (Bailey and others, 1994; Miles and Goudy, 1997; Cleland and others, 2007), the USEPA (Omernik, 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1981; U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Regional collaborative projects such as this one in California, where some agreement has been reached among multiple resource-management agencies, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

Suggested Citation:

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Smith, D.W., Cook, T.D., Tallyn, E., Moseley, K., and Johnson, C.B., 2016, Ecoregions of California (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2016–1021, with map, scale 1:1,100,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161021.

Literature Cited:

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., 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.

Cleland, D.T., Freeouf, J.A., Keys, J.E., Jr., Nowacki, G.J., Carpenter, C., and McNab, W.H., 2007, Ecological subregions–sections and subsections of the conterminous United States: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-76, scale 1:3,500,000.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America – toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p.

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Johnson, C.B., and Turner, D.S., 2014, Ecoregions of Arizona (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1141, with map, scale 1:1,325,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141141.

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.

Miles, S.R., and Goudy, C.B., compilers, 1997, Ecological subregions of California: San Francisco, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, R5-EM-TP-005, and http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/ecoregions.

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.

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., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38.

Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103.

Omernik, J.M., and Griffith, G.E., 2014, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States—Evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework: Environmental Management, v.54, no. 6, p. 1249–1266.

Thorson, T.D., Bryce, S.A., Lammers, D.A., Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Kagan, J., Pater, D.E., and Comstock, J.A., 2003, Ecoregions of Oregon (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).

U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, Agriculture Handbook 296, 669 p. + map.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States: Agriculture Handbook 296, 156 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, 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.

PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Glenn E. Griffith (USGS), James M. Omernik (USGS), David W. Smith (NRCS), Terry D. Cook (NRCS-retired), Ed Tallyn (NRCS), Kendra Mosely (NRCS), and Colleen B. Johnson (Raytheon/SRA).

COLLABORATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: John Rogers (NRCS–retired), Sandra A. Bryce (Dynamac Corporation), James Weigand (Bureau of Land Management), Todd Keeler-Wolf (DFW), Thor Thorson (NRCS), Ben Sleeter (USGS), Julie Evens (California Native Plant Society), Robert K. Hall (USEPA), Hazel Gordon (USFS), James M. Harrington (DFW), Peter Ode (DFW), James Calzia (USGS), Randy Southard (University of California–Davis), Toby O’Geen (UC-Davis), Dick McCleery (NRCS), Greg Suba (California Native Plant Society), Hugh Safford (USFS), Joseph Furnish (USFS), Alan J. Woods (Oregon State University), Tad Larsen (Raytheon/SRA), and Thomas R. Loveland (USGS).

REVIEWERS: Earl B. Alexander (Soils and Geoecology), and John A. Hutchinson (USGS).

CITING THIS POSTER: Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Smith, D.W., Cook, T.D., Tallyn, E., Moseley, K., and Johnson, C.B., 2016, Ecoregions of California (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1021, with map, scale 1:1,100,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161021.


Ecoregion Links
Ecoregion Home  |  Level I  |  Level IILevel III  |  Level IV  |  Publications  |  Download Site  |  Links  |  Contacts