Description: Many agencies in the Commonwealth of Kentucky use river mile points in various regulatory programs. This data set was built to provide these agencies with a consistent and more precise source of river miles.
Copyright Text: Kentucky Division of Water and US Geological Survey
Description: Vector data set consisting of lines representing streams in Kentucky. Each line segment is attributed with the number of square miles of drainage area, and the peak flow values for 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 year intervals at that point on the stream. Peak flow values were calculated using the equations in the USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4180 "Estimating the Magnitude of Peak Flows for Streams in Kentucky for Selected Recurrence Intervals." The data also has attributes indicating when the peak flow values should not be used because the drainage area is out of the size range for the equation, the drainage area is greater than 10 percent impervious, or the stream segment is in a lake or pond.
Copyright Text: USGS Kentucky Water Science Center
Description: Kentucky has a diverse topography, and analysis of the similarity among biological assemblages across geographic scales can help clarify the inherent biological differences in the state. An a posterioriregional classification scheme based on river basins, physiographic regions and ecoregions has been developed (Pond et al., 2003; Pond and McMurray, 2002; Pond et al., 2000). Bioregions were established to incorporate ecoregion and river basin differences within the state and typically correspond to Level III Ecoregion boundaries (Woods et al., 2002). Due to the strong affinity between fish and river basins, bioregions for fish communities (also called Ichthyoregions) include some finer subdivisions than for macroinvertebrates, algae, and physical habitat (Compton et al., 2003). The bioregions are Mountains (MT; includes Ichthyoregion subdivision Cumberland River above Cumberland Falls, CA), Bluegrass (BG), Mississippi Valley-Interior River (MVIR), and Pennyroyal (PR; includes Ichthyoregion subdivision Upper Green River, GR). Generalized bioregion boundaries are described below. Note that in most cases bioregion boundaries do not follow stream and river networks, so these boundaries should not be considered to be precise in terms of assigning a particular stream segment location. Areas near bioregion boundaries should be examined closely to determine the appropriate classification. A description of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of bioregions, as well as guidance for classifying sites in transitional areas can be found in KDOW’s SOP, Bioregions of Kentucky for Water Quality Assessments of Biological Integrity.Mountains (MT) and Cumberland above the Falls (CA)The Mountains bioregion includes all river systems (Big Sandy, Cumberland, Kentucky, Licking, Little Sandy and minor tributaries of the Ohio River) within the boundaries of the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion (70) and Central and Southwestern Appalachian ecoregions (69 and 68). Portions of the Central and Southwestern Appalachian ecoregions that are within the Cumberland River system and upstream of Cumberland Falls are categorized as a separate bioregion with respect to fish, Cumberland Above the Falls (CA).Bluegrass (BG) The Bluegrass bioregion includes all river systems (Kentucky, Licking, Salt and minor tributaries of the Ohio River) that lie within sub-ecoregions (Level IV ecoregions) 71d, 71k, and 71l of the Interior Plateau ecoregion (71).Pennyroyal (PR) and Upper Green River (GR)Includes all river systems (Cumberland, Green, Kentucky, Salt, Tradewater, Tennessee and the minor tributaries of the Ohio River) that lie within sub-ecoregions (71a, b, c, e, f, g, and h) of the Interior Plateau (71). The portion of the Green River system that falls within sub-ecoregion (Level IV ecoregion) 71g of the Interior Plateau ecoregion (71) is categorized as a separate bioregion with respect to fish, Upper Green River (GR).Mississippi Valley-Interior River (MVIR) Includes all river systems (lower Cumberland, Green, Tradewater, Tennessee, minor tributaries of the Mississippi River and minor tributaries of the Ohio River) within the boundaries of the Interior River Valleys and Hills (72), Mississippi Alluvial Plain (73), and Mississippi Valley Loess Plain (74).Transitional Areas (TR)Most boundaries between bioregions are not distinct. Watersheds or individual sites near boundaries may exhibit characteristics of more than one bioregion in these zones, or portions of these areas may be classifiable to one or another bioregion. HUC12s are marked as “Transitional” on this map where more than one bioregion is spanned by the HUC12 unit. Additionally, some HUC12 units in far western areas of the Pennyroyal bioregion, in sub-ecoregions 71a and 71f, have been marked as Transitional even though they are wholly within the Pennyroyal. These areas have been observed by KDOW to have varied stream types and some streams here are more similar to the neighboring MVIR bioregion. Assignment of watersheds or sites to bioregions in Transitional areas must be made based on examination of local features. KDOW personnel familiar with the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of bioregions make these assignments following the SOP “Bioregions of Kentucky for Water Quality Assessments of Biological Integrity “. The column “BioregDesc” in the attributes table indicates which specific bioregions are pertinent in Transitional HUC12 units.CitationsCompton, M.C., G.J. Pond, and J.F. Brumley. 2003. Development and application of the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI). Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.Pond, G.J., and S.E. McMurray. 2002. A macroinvertebrate bioassessment index for headwater streams of the Eastern Coalfield Region, Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Kentucky Division of Water. Frankfort, KY.Pond, G.J., J.F. Brumley, and R.E. Houp. 2000. Preliminary ordination of stream organisms in Kentucky. Abstract in Bull. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 17(1):448.Pond, G.J., S.M. Call, J.F. Brumley, and M.C. Compton. 2003. The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index: derivation of regional narrative ratings for assessing wadeable and headwater streams. Kentucky Dept. for Env. Prot., Kentucky Div. of Water, Frankfort, KY.Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, W. H. Martin, G. J. Pond, W.M Andrews, S. M. Call, J.A Comstock, and D. D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (2-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).
Description: Kentucky has a diverse topography, and analysis of the similarity among biological assemblages across geographic scales can help clarify the inherent biological differences in the state. An a posterioriregional classification scheme based on river basins, physiographic regions and ecoregions has been developed (Pond et al., 2003; Pond and McMurray, 2002; Pond et al., 2000). Bioregions were established to incorporate ecoregion and river basin differences within the state and typically correspond to Level III Ecoregion boundaries (Woods et al., 2002). Due to the strong affinity between fish and river basins, bioregions for fish communities (also called Ichthyoregions) include some finer subdivisions than for macroinvertebrates, algae, and physical habitat (Compton et al., 2003). The bioregions are Mountains (MT; includes Ichthyoregion subdivision Cumberland River above Cumberland Falls, CA), Bluegrass (BG), Mississippi Valley-Interior River (MVIR), and Pennyroyal (PR; includes Ichthyoregion subdivision Upper Green River, GR). Generalized bioregion boundaries are described below. Note that in most cases bioregion boundaries do not follow stream and river networks, so these boundaries should not be considered to be precise in terms of assigning a particular stream segment location. Areas near bioregion boundaries should be examined closely to determine the appropriate classification. A description of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of bioregions, as well as guidance for classifying sites in transitional areas can be found in KDOW’s SOP, Bioregions of Kentucky for Water Quality Assessments of Biological Integrity.Mountains (MT) and Cumberland above the Falls (CA)The Mountains bioregion includes all river systems (Big Sandy, Cumberland, Kentucky, Licking, Little Sandy and minor tributaries of the Ohio River) within the boundaries of the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion (70) and Central and Southwestern Appalachian ecoregions (69 and 68). Portions of the Central and Southwestern Appalachian ecoregions that are within the Cumberland River system and upstream of Cumberland Falls are categorized as a separate bioregion with respect to fish, Cumberland Above the Falls (CA).Bluegrass (BG) The Bluegrass bioregion includes all river systems (Kentucky, Licking, Salt and minor tributaries of the Ohio River) that lie within sub-ecoregions (Level IV ecoregions) 71d, 71k, and 71l of the Interior Plateau ecoregion (71).Pennyroyal (PR) and Upper Green River (GR)Includes all river systems (Cumberland, Green, Kentucky, Salt, Tradewater, Tennessee and the minor tributaries of the Ohio River) that lie within sub-ecoregions (71a, b, c, e, f, g, and h) of the Interior Plateau (71). The portion of the Green River system that falls within sub-ecoregion (Level IV ecoregion) 71g of the Interior Plateau ecoregion (71) is categorized as a separate bioregion with respect to fish, Upper Green River (GR).Mississippi Valley-Interior River (MVIR) Includes all river systems (lower Cumberland, Green, Tradewater, Tennessee, minor tributaries of the Mississippi River and minor tributaries of the Ohio River) within the boundaries of the Interior River Valleys and Hills (72), Mississippi Alluvial Plain (73), and Mississippi Valley Loess Plain (74).Transitional Areas (TR)Most boundaries between bioregions are not distinct. Watersheds or individual sites near boundaries may exhibit characteristics of more than one bioregion in these zones, or portions of these areas may be classifiable to one or another bioregion. HUC12s are marked as “Transitional” on this map where more than one bioregion is spanned by the HUC12 unit. Additionally, some HUC12 units in far western areas of the Pennyroyal bioregion, in sub-ecoregions 71a and 71f, have been marked as Transitional even though they are wholly within the Pennyroyal. These areas have been observed by KDOW to have varied stream types and some streams here are more similar to the neighboring MVIR bioregion. Assignment of watersheds or sites to bioregions in Transitional areas must be made based on examination of local features. KDOW personnel familiar with the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of bioregions make these assignments following the SOP “Bioregions of Kentucky for Water Quality Assessments of Biological Integrity “. The column “BioregDesc” in the attributes table indicates which specific bioregions are pertinent in Transitional HUC12 units.CitationsCompton, M.C., G.J. Pond, and J.F. Brumley. 2003. Development and application of the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI). Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.Pond, G.J., and S.E. McMurray. 2002. A macroinvertebrate bioassessment index for headwater streams of the Eastern Coalfield Region, Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Kentucky Division of Water. Frankfort, KY.Pond, G.J., J.F. Brumley, and R.E. Houp. 2000. Preliminary ordination of stream organisms in Kentucky. Abstract in Bull. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 17(1):448.Pond, G.J., S.M. Call, J.F. Brumley, and M.C. Compton. 2003. The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index: derivation of regional narrative ratings for assessing wadeable and headwater streams. Kentucky Dept. for Env. Prot., Kentucky Div. of Water, Frankfort, KY.Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, W. H. Martin, G. J. Pond, W.M Andrews, S. M. Call, J.A Comstock, and D. D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (2-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).
Description: The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" “Standard” (http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. This dataset represents the hydrologic unit boundaries to the 12-digit (6th level) for the entire United States. Some areas may also include additional subdivisions representing the 14- and 16-digit hydrologic unit (HU). At a minimum, the HUs are delineated at 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000-scale in Hawaii, Pacific basin and the Caribbean, and 1:63,360-scale in Alaska, meeting the National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Higher resolution boundaries are being developed where partners and data exist and will be incorporated back into the WBD. WBD data are delivered as a dataset of polygons and corresponding lines that define the boundary of the polygon. WBD polygon attributes include hydrologic unit codes (HUC), size (in the form of acres and square kilometers), name, downstream hydrologic unit code, type of watershed, non-contributing areas, and flow modifications. The HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. WBD line attributes contain the highest level of hydrologic unit for each boundary, line source information and flow modifications.
Copyright Text: Funding for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) was provided by the USDA-NRCS, USGS and EPA along with other federal, state and local agenciesies. Representatives from many agencies contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the WBD Standards. Acknowledgment of the originating agencies would be appreciated in products derived from these data. See dataset specific metadata for further information
Description: The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" “Standard” (http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. This dataset represents the hydrologic unit boundaries to the 12-digit (6th level) for the entire United States. Some areas may also include additional subdivisions representing the 14- and 16-digit hydrologic unit (HU). At a minimum, the HUs are delineated at 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000-scale in Hawaii, Pacific basin and the Caribbean, and 1:63,360-scale in Alaska, meeting the National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Higher resolution boundaries are being developed where partners and data exist and will be incorporated back into the WBD. WBD data are delivered as a dataset of polygons and corresponding lines that define the boundary of the polygon. WBD polygon attributes include hydrologic unit codes (HUC), size (in the form of acres and square kilometers), name, downstream hydrologic unit code, type of watershed, non-contributing areas, and flow modifications. The HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. WBD line attributes contain the highest level of hydrologic unit for each boundary, line source information and flow modifications.
Copyright Text: Funding for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) was provided by the USDA-NRCS, USGS and EPA along with other federal, state and local agenciesies. Representatives from many agencies contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the WBD Standards. Acknowledgment of the originating agencies would be appreciated in products derived from these data. See dataset specific metadata for further information
Description: Physiographic regions of Kentucky. Adapted from Armin Kohl Lobeck's physiographic diagram of Kentucky in 'The Midland Trail in Kentucy': a physiographic and geologic guide book to US Highway 60. KGS Report Series 6, pamphlet 23, Frankfort, 1930.
Color: [255, 255, 115, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: 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). 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 1:500,000Comments 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.govThis 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.
Copyright Text: Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Martin, W.H., Pond, G.J., Andrews, W.M., Call, S.M., Comstock, J.A., Taylor, D.D.. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): (map scale 1:1,000,000). 2002. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey.
Description: 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). 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 1:500,000Comments 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.govThis 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.
Copyright Text: Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Martin, W.H., Pond, G.J., Andrews, W.M., Call, S.M., Comstock, J.A., Taylor, D.D.. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): (map scale 1:1,000,000). 2002. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey.
Description: This dataset contains County Boundary Polygons for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. State boundary along Ohio River has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court Case regarding a boundary dispute between Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio in 1980 (Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U.S. 335 (1980)).
Copyright Text: Original dataset digitized from USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Planning. Data maintained by Division of Geographic Information.