FWS/03S- 72feo Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-78/80 MARCH 1979 PHYSICAL REGIONALIZATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES WHOI DOCUMENT Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on key environmental issues that impact fish and wildlife resources and their supporting ecosystems. The mission of the program is as follows: • To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary source of information on national fish and wild- life resources, particularly in respect to environmental Impact assessment. • To gather, analyze, and present Information that will aid decisionmakers in the identification and resolution of problems associated with major changes in land and water use. • To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is Intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues a determination of the decisionmakers involved and their information needs, and an evaluation of the state of the art to identify information gaps and to determine priorities. This is a strategy that will ensure that the products produced and disseminated are timely and useful. Projects have been initiated in the following areas: coal extraction and conversion; power plants; geothermal , mineral and oil shale develop- ment; water resource analysis, including stream alterations and western water allocation; coastal ecosystems and Outer Continental Shelf develop- ment; and systems inventory, including National Wetland Inventory, habitat classification and analysis, and information transfer. The Biological Services Program consists of the Office of Biological Services in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for overall planning and management; National Teams, which provide the Program's central scientific and technical expertise and arrange for contracting biological services studies with states, universities, consulting firms, and others; Regional Staff, who provide a link to problems at the operating level; and staff at certain Fish and Wildlife Service research facilities, who conduct inhouse research studies. Cover photo is from a Synchronous Meteorological Satellite (SMS-2) located at the equator and 135°W. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 024-010-0051 1-1 FWS/OBS-78/80 March 1979 PHYSICAL REGIONALIZATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES by Terry T. Terrell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services Western Energy and Land Use Team National Habitat Assessment Group 2625 Redwing Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Project Officer James B. Johnston National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Space Technology Laboratories NSTL Station, Mississippi 39529 This study was conducted in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Biological Services Program Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE This report presents a hierarchical regional classification scheme for coastal ecosystems of the United States and its territories based on physical characteristics of those areas. It is designed to answer the question, "How can the coastline of the United States be partitioned to best separate eco- systems?" The purpose for defining these ecosystems is to make predictions about how specific types of perturbations in specific geographical areas will affect the ecosystems hydrologically, structurally, functionally, and bio- logically. Funding for this study was provided through the Interagency Energy/ Environment Research and Development Program, which is planned and co- ordinated by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry within the En- vironmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development. In- augurated in FY 1975, this program brings together the coordinated efforts of 77 Federal agencies and departments. The goal of the program is to ensure that both environmental data and technology are available to support the rapid development of domestic energy resources in a manner which is most compatible with the protection of the environment. Comments are solicited. Any suggestions or questions regarding this publication should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Space Technology Laboratories NSTL Station, Mississippi 39529 This report should be cited as follows: Terrell, T. T. 1979. Physical regionalization of coastal ecosystems of the United States and its territories. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-78/80. 30 pp. in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to acknowledge the assistance and advice of those persons listed in the Appendix, and personnel from State Coastal Zone Management programs; State planning and natural resources management agencies; Bureau of Land Management Outer Continental Shelf Office; National Marine Fisheries Service; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Re- gional, Area, and Field Offices. Several members of the staff of the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, especially Dr. James Johnston, deserve special thanks for the many suggestions offered. The author is responsible for any errors or misstatements of fact contained in this work. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES vi INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES 1 REVIEW OF EXISTING COASTAL CLASSIFICATIONS 1 METHODS 4 RESULTS 5 OPTIONS FOR LANDWARD AND OFFSHORE BOUNDARIES 5 Landward Boundary Options 5 Offshore Boundary Options . .• 7 LEVEL I AND II DESCRIPTIONS 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 SUMMARY 12 LITERATURE CITED 13 GLOSSARY 15 APPENDIX 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Great Lakes and Atlantic coast of United States showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions 22 2 Gulf coast of United States showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions 23 3 Atlantic outlying areas showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions 24 4 Pacific coast of United States showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions 25 5 Pacific outlying areas showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions 26 6 Alaska coast showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions 27 vi PHYSICAL REGIONALIZATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES The objective of this project is to formulate a hierarchical regional classification scheme for partitioning coastal ecosystems of the United States and its territories, based on the physical (mainly hydrological and geological) charac- teristics of those areas. The geographical area covered by this classification is the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and all other United States claimed, governed, and adminis- tered territories and areas. The classification is based on physical criteria rather than biotic criteria because the objective is to define whole ecosystems, which are constrained by their physi- cal components, rather than to define the distri- bution of one or a few species. (See the discussion of the differences between biogeographical and physical regional classifications in the following subsection, Review of Existing Coastal Classifica- tions). This classification should serve two purposes. It should first provide a data collection structure for organizing the storage of data and for demon- strating areas where additional data should be collected. Second, and perhaps more important, it should delineate geographical zones about which predictions on the structure and function- ing of ecosystems within these zones may be made at various levels of resolution. These geo- graphical areas are analogous to the ecological land and ecological water units of the Wildland Planning Glossary (Schwartz et al. 1976) and should be regarded as operational definitions of the boundaries of ecosystems or clusters of similarly functioning ecosystems. Thus, predic- tions within any given division* of the regional classification should be more reliable than predic- tions spanning divisions (ecosystems or clusters of ecosystems). The term division is used in the same sense as the word taxonomy; i.e., any one of the categories such as Level I, Level II, etc., into which coastal ecosystems are classified. This classification system should be useful to a broad range of users for the above reasons. Two primary users are the National Coastal Eco- systems Team and Ecological Services, both within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), for the delineation of study boundaries of their Ecological Characterization Studies, and Profiles (see Glossary). REVIEW OF EXISTING COASTAL CLASSIFI- CATIONS It is appropriate to review several existing coastal classifications, and to explain why these were not suitable to answer the stated objective of this work. It should be noted, however, that numerous ideas and pieces of information used in this classification were borrowed from many of those classifications reviewed. There are a number of existing classifications of coastal areas, each serving a different purpose. They fall into three categories: structural, func- tional, and regional (geographical). While these may not be totally mutually exclusive types of classification, each has very specific characteris- tics. Following are descriptions of each category of classification, and several examples of each. Structural classification schemes classify the coastline on the basis of the structural compo- nents of the area; for example, geological struc- ture (rocky beach, sandy beach) or surface cover or structure (seagrass beds, kelp beds). Examples of this type of classification are the main body of the Cowardin et al. (1977) wetlands classifi- cation system (exclusive of the regional por- tion), as it applies to estuarine and marine sys- tems, Ray's (1975) classification by habitat, and Hedgpeth's (1957) discussion of classifica- tions. The Cowardin et al. (1977) system is a structural classification because it classifies sub- strate type, bottom cover, and/or surface cover. An example of a unit in this classification would be a marine, subtidal bedrock bottom dominated by Strongylocentrotus. Ray's (1975) classifica- tion deals mainly with geological structure. An example of a unit in this classification would be a coastal area with exposed rocky shore with a slightly or noncalcarcous substrate. Functional classifications separate systems on the basis of functional processes such as energy inputs, stratification and circulation patterns, or geological processes forming the coastline. Ex- amples of functional classifications are those by Shepard (1937), Hansen and Rattray (1966), Glenne (1967), Inman and Nordstrom (1971), and Odum et al. (1974). Shepard 's (1937) classifi- cation and that of Inman and Nordstrom (1971) are geological ones addressing the processes which form the shoreline. An example of a unit in Shepard's classification would be a glacially deposited coast with partially drowned drum- lins. Inman and Nordstrom use first order effects of plate tectonics and coastal morphology as criteria for separating units in their classification. An example unit in their classification would be an island arc collision coast with mountains. Hansen and Rattray's (1966) classification addresses mixing and stratification in estuaries. A unit in this classification would be a mathe- matical description of the salinity and circula- tion within the estuary. Glenne (1967) also addresses mixing and stratification in estuaries from a mathematical perspective. An example of a unit in his classification would be a mathe- matical description of the tidal effects, frictional effects, choking effects, stratification effects, and other effects in the estuary itself. Odum et al. (1974) address in their classification the stresses and energy sources of systems; e.g., turbid out- wash fjords in natural Arctic ecosystems with ice stress. A regional classification system is one based primarily on geography. Areas which are con- tiguous may be in the same region, but those some distance apart, though they may be quite similar structurally or functionally, cannot be classified together regionally. Secondary attri- butes used in the classification may be biotic or physical, and thus a biogcographic (or zoogeo- graphic or phytogeographic) regionalization or a physical regionalization would be produced. Examples of zoogcographic regionalizations an- Ekman (1953), Briggs (1974), Ray (1975), and Smith (1976). Ekman (1953), Briggs (1974), and Ray (1975) all use the distribution of both vertebrates and invertebrates to fashion their zoogcographic regionalizations. Ray's is adapted directly from Ekman, and an example unit in both regionalizations would be Indo-West-Pacific. An example unit in Brigg's classification would be Northern Hemisphere Warm-Temperate Regions. Smith (1976) uses fish distribution in his regionali- zation of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and an ex- ample unit in his classification would be North- eastern Gulf of Mexico. Examples of phytogeographic regionalizations are Earle (1969) and Humm (1969). Earle (1969) uses distribution of the Phaeophyta to separate regions in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. An ex- ample of a unit in her regionalization would be Subregion E, Cape Romano to Florida Bay. Humm (1969) uses distribution of algae to re- gionalize the Atlantic coast. An example of a unit in his classification would be a distributional group of species extending from Arctic waters south to Cape Cod. Examples of regionalizations which include some physical factors, but which are chiefly biotic regionalizations, are Ketchum (1972), Cronin (1974), Ray (1975), and the coastal re- gionalization of wetlands in Cowardin et al. (1977). Ketchum (1972), Cronin (1974), and Ray (1975) use the distribution of biota, circulation, and geology to separate units in their classifications. Both Ray's and Cronin's classifi- cations are adopted from Ketchum's, and the units are identical. An example unit would be West Indian. The Cowardin et al. (1977) classi- fication which relates to marine and estuarine systems is based mainly on distribution of biota, but also on coastal geology and tides. The names of the units arc the same as those used by Ketchum (1972), Cronin (1974), and Ray (1975). West Indian would also be an example of a unit in the Cowardin et al. (1977) regionalization. Examples of regionalizations which include some biotic factors, but which are chiefly re- gionalizations based on physical parameters, are Wastlcr and de Guerrero (1968), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1970), U.S. Senate (1970), and Lynch et al. (1976). Wastlcr and de Guerrero (1968) use water pollution and resource manage- ment aspects to separate units in their classifica- tion; e.g., the South Central Coastal Region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1970) classi- fication is one using both biotic and physical factors though the criteria used to separate units are not expressed. The criteria appear to be coastal geology, tidal information, water chemis- try, climate, water input, sediment input, and the biota present. An example unit would be the North Atlantic Estuarine Zone. The U.S. Senate 289-605 0-19-2 classification (1970:83) separates categories by "combinations of environmental conditions characteristic of various parts of the coastline." An example unit is the Pacific Southwest. Lynch et al. (1976) do not explicitly describe the cri- teria they use to separate units, but the criteria appear to be geological history, tidal amplitude, weather, currents, latitude, and estuarine en- vironments. An example of a unit in the Lynch et al. classification would be the Columbia-North Pacific Region. An excellent example of classification of coastal areas on purely physical (chemical, geo- logical, etc.) attributes is Dolan et al. (1972). They use atmospheric and marine climates (cur- rents) as well as coastal materials and configura- tion to separate units. An example of a unit in the Dolan et al. (1972) classification would be Regime VII: Subdominant-Maritime Polar-Marine- Divergent /Convergent. Each of the above types of classification may be put to a number of uses, and each is well suited to answering certain types of questions. However, information obtained by applying one type of classification may be useless in trying to solve problems best addressed by application of another type of classification system. A few ex- amples will clarify this. If all coastal areas of the United States were classified according to Odum et al. (1974), then the question, "What is the mixing pattern of estuary X?", could not be answered because their classification only con- sidered energy inputs. If all coastal areas of the United States were classified according to Inman and Nordstrom (1971), then the question, "How many surface hectares of coastline are covered by kelp beds?", also could not be answered because Inman and Nordstrom only considered geologi- cal processes. The information collected for either classification would not be incorrect, but would be inappropriate to answer the types of questions being asked. Thus it is obviously necessary to select a classification which best answers the question or questions being asked. The objective of this project is to formulate a hierarchical regional classification scheme for coastal ecosystems of the United States and its territories, based on the physical characteristics of those areas. The question the classification is designed to address is the following: "How can the coastline of the United States be partitioned to best separate ecosystems, when the purpose of defining these ecosystems is to understand and subsequently to make predictions about how specific types of perturbations in specific geo- graphical areas will affect those ecosystems hydrologically, structurally, functionally, and biologically?" Structural and functional classi- fications do not adequately address the above stated problem because they are not geograph- ically oriented. The geographic orientation is essential to making predictions about a specific estuarine or marine system. Thus, a regionaliza- tion is necessary. Since delineation of ecosystems is the primary interest, a regionalization based on physical parameters is more appropriate than a biogeo- graphical regionalization. Although the argument is frequently made that the biota integrate all the physical attributes of their environment, two factors argue against a biotic regionalization for answering the objective of the study. The first is historical accident of distribution and/or extinction. For example, a group of organisms might be absent from an area which they could inhabit simply because they were never dis- tributed there or had become extinct in that area because of environmental or man-induced pertur- bations. Regionalization with respect to ecosys- tems should not be determined by historical accident. The second factor supporting an argument against biogeographical regionalization is the difficulty of selecting the group or groups to represent the whole ecosystem. Questions have to be answered if benthic or motile forms, plants or animals, vertebrates or invertebrates, or vascu- lar or nonvascular plants are the appropriate organisms to consider. A regional scheme based on physical parameters eliminates these problems since physical factors constrain the distribution of ecosystems. Thus a regionalization is most appro- priate to answer the originally stated objective. The above argument should not be construed to mean that the distribution of biota should not reflect the distribution of coastal ecosys- tems. If the theory that biota integrate their physical environment is correct, then they should reflect, though perhaps imperfectly by their own distribution, the distribution of coastal ecosys- tems. In fact, the distribution of biota would provide an excellent method for testing a region- alization based on physical parameters. The classification proposed by Dolan et al. (1972) is extremely well done and well docu- mented. It was not used to satisfy the objective of this study because the elemental units in some- cases are of inconvenient size for the purpose of characterization. A great deal of information ob- tained from Dolan et al. (1972) was used in preparing this document. A limitation of classification of coastal areas which should be briefly mentioned is the restric- tion to that which specifically is being classified. Classifications have addressed only beaches (Shepard 1937), estuaries (Hansen and Rattray 1966), coastal waters including or excluding estuaries (Lynch et al. 1976), coastal ecosystems (Odum et al. 1974), or coastal and estuarine spe- cies associations (Briggs 1974). Only one example of each is cited for the sake of brevity, although many more exist. As mentioned previously, the classification presented in this paper is concerned with coastal ecosystems in estuarine and coastal waters and associated wetlands. The major problem with this proposed scheme or any other classification scheme is that of draw- ing boundaries somewhere along what is all too frequently a continuum. All natural ecosystems are "open ended" and have no fixed boundaries. Where there may be a distinct boundary between geological units along a coast, climate may well be continuous. When geology intergrades, climate may fall into distinct units. No clear boundary may be definable. Compounding this problem are those of shifting current, rainfall, and tem- perature patterns during the year, and the very nature of the coastal zone itself as an ecotone between the land and sea. Thus, while some of the different divisions specified may represent fairly distinctive ecosystems or clusters of similar ecosystems, others may be less distinctive. Some divisions may be different from other divisions only because they are intermediate. This paper presents an attempt to regionalize and separate into similarly functioning ecosystems the coastal areas of the United States, using the available ecological information and the expert opinion of numerous resource managers who work along the coast. METHODS In order to formulate a hierarchical regional classification scheme for coastal ecosystems, cri- teria were established which allow inspection of the characteristics of coastal ecosystems or clus- ters of ecosystems at various levels of resolu- tion. Those criteria are: Level I: These divisions are the largest in geographical area and represent clusters of similarly functioning ecosystems. The main criteria for separating the different divisions of Level I arc ocean or lake systems upon which the coastline abuts, or the major ocean current or currents which wash the shore, or major differences in climate. Ocean currents and climate are the main forcing functions of ecosystems along the coastline and arc appro- priate criteria for separating these ecosystems. Level II: These divisions are geographically smaller than Level I divisions, and represent a small number of interrelated and similarly functioning ecosystems. They are separated chiefly by geological structural properties of the coast, both above and below the water- line, with consideration given to hydrological, physical, and chemical properties. The struc- tural geology of the coastal area is a major constraining factor on ecosystems and thus is an appropriate second level criterion for separation of these ecosystems. Level III: For the purposes of this study, Level III divisions have not been delineated, but may be required in the future. A detailed study would be required to properly delineate Level III divisions. The following are the recommended methods for determining such divisions. Level III divisions would be the smallest divisions of the classification. Each should represent a logical unit or ecosystem. The primary criterion for separation should be the homogeneity of response, considering the forcing functions and constraints, of the division to perturbation. At the first, most general level, the forcing functions of the systems are the chief criteria. At the second level, the major constraints on the system are the chief criteria. At the third, most specific level, the homogeneity of the response of the system to the forcing functions and constraints is suggested as the criterion for separation. Thus the criteria are: what makes the system work, what determines how the system can work, and how does the system respond. To separate divisions, boundary lines were drawn perpendicular to the coast using the listed criteria and manual overlay of maps exhibiting the necessary information. The units delineated by this study are described under the heading Level I and II Descriptions in the following subsection, Results. The Level I description lists the factor used to separate that unit from others. For ex- ample, unit A (the U.S. North Atlantic Coast) is different from unit B (the U.S. Middle Atlantic Coast) because the former is affected by the Labrador Current, whereas the Middle Atlantic Coast is affected by both the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream. The Level II descriptions list those criteria used to separate Level II units, plus some addi- tional information. For example, Al (the North- ern Gulf of Maine) differs from A2 (the Southern Gulf of Maine) because it is rockier, has fewer sand and/or cobble areas, and has less extensive marshes. The information used in the Level I and II descriptions came mainly from Sverdrup et al. (1942), U.S. Geological Survey (1954), Earle (1969), U.S. Geological Survey (1970), Dolan et al. (1972), Brooks (1973), Joint Federal- State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska (1973), Selkregg (1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1974d, 1974e, 1974f), Adams et al. (1975), Bureau of Land Management (1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 1975d), Great Lakes Basin Commission (1975), Bureau of Land Management (1976a, 1976b, 1976c, 1976d, 1976e), General Land Office of Texas (1976), Weaver et al. (1976), and Bureau of Land Management (1977a, 1977b). Lateral boundary demarcations and descrip- tions were examined critically by the reviewers (see Appendix for list) of the first draft and other staff members in their respective offices. In many cases the opinion of these reviewers was used to modify both boundaries and descrip- tions. Possible options for landward and offshore boundaries are listed in the following subsection. A recommendation is made about which option to select based on both ecological and practical considerations. RESULTS The results of this project are the options for landward and offshore boundaries (below), the coastal regionalization Level I and Level II boundaries (Table 1, page 18), the Level I and II descriptions (page 7), and the figures located at the back of this report. (Maps shown are Albers conical equal area projections; letters and num- bers labeling divisions on the figures correspond to those of Table 1.) The figures are visual de- lineations of the divisions described in Table 1 and in the Level I and II descriptions. The Level II divisions represent what are judged to be, in most cases, units which are individual coastal ecosystems or clusters of closely related coastal ecosystems. A major portion of the ideas and information used for the list of options for landward and off- shore boundaries is derived from papers by Robbins and Hershman (1974) and Mclntire et al. (1975). The information sources used in the Level I and II descriptions are listed in the Methods section. OPTIONS FOR LANDWARD AND OFFSHORE BOUNDARIES Landward Boundary Options 1. Seaward boundary of Bailey's (1977) regionalization. Pro— The regionalization is extant. Many Federal agencies and States are committed to its use. Con— Not at all designed to give indica- tions of coastal areas. No clear indica- tion of seaward boundary. Does not include in coastal ecosystems Cowardin et al.'s (1977) emergent wetland class (marshes, swamps, etc.). Emergent wet- lands would be included in uplands. 2. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) inland boundaries. Pro— Most boundaries extant, informa- tion collected for characterizations would be directly applicable to CZM problems. Con— Not uniform around the country, thus problems of comparability of data. 3. Mean high water mark, high high tide, etc. Pro— Easy to determine. Con— Obviously leaves out a lot of what has traditionally been considered coast- al. 4. One-hundred-year flood and tidal innunda- tion level. Pro— Fairly easy to determine. Con— May include large areas not nor- mally considered coastal or exclude those which are. 5. A fixed distance from some tidal line, such as 300 m from mean high tide. Pro— Easy to determine. Con— May include or exclude inappro- priate areas. 6. Some contour line such as the 10-m con- tour. Pro— Easy to determine. Con— May include or exclude inappro- priate areas. 7. Peak of the coastal mountain range. Pro— Easy to determine. Con— Many coasts do not have moun- tain ranges. 8. Inland boundaries of coastal counties or parishes. Pro— Easy to determine. Con— May include or exclude inappro- priate areas. 9. Man-made structures such as roads, canals, etc. Pro— Easy to determine. Con— May include or exclude inappro- priate areas. 10. Pleistocene/Recent contact. Pro— Some areas recently built are ob- viously coastal, and may be easy to dis- cern. Con— Not appropriate on beaches which are not aggrading. 11. Maximum inland or seaward range of any one species. Pro— Should be fairly easy to determine. Con— No species is distributed along en- tire United States coastline. Historical accidents of distribution can cause er- roneous results. Plasticity of the re- sponse of an organism to its environ- ment and synergisms among environ- mental inputs may allow an organism to occur in a variety of coastal and non- coastal areas. 12. Wetland/nonwetland soils. Pro— Fairly easy to determine. Con— Wetland soils may occur in areas which are no longer wetlands. 13. Wetland/nonwetland vegetation. Pro— Fairly easy to determine. Con— Large number of species needed for coastal delineation of the entire United States. Not appropriate for un- vegetated coast. 14. Salinity intrusion. Pro— Fairly easy to determine. Con— Salinity is not the only factor which determines the inland extent of coastal ecosystems, nor is salinity re- stricted to the seacoast. 15. Tidal influx. Pro— Fairly easy to determine. Con— Tidal influx is not the only factor which determines the inland extent of coastal ecosystems. 1 6. Inland boundaries for marine and estuarine in the Cowardin et al. (1977) system which has been adopted by the National Wetlands Inventory. These boundaries arc based on vegetation, soils, and salinity. Pro— Will be mapped for the entire United States, large amounts of infor- mation already on this framework, will probably be updated regularly. Con— No information yet on how this applies to coastal processes. Updates will certainly change inland boundaries. 17. Determine the major coastal influences and make an inland boundary determina- tion for each Level I, II, or III division based on tin- extent of the influences. Pro— Would most accurately reflect the functioning of coastal ecosystems in area of interest. Con Would not be uniform around the coastline and would cause problems ol comparison of information among divi- sions. Extremely difficult to determine. Offshore Boundary Options 1 . Territorial sea boundary. Pro— Easy to define. The United States controls this area, so management would be simplified. Con —It is an artificial boundary having no demonstrable relationship to coastal ecosystem processes. 2. Two-hundred-mile (322-km) "economic zone." Pro— Easy to define. United States has some management control. Con— Artificial boundary having no demonstrable relationship to coastal ecosystem functioning. 3. Line marking the 30-m (or any) depth con- tour. Pro— Fairly easy to define. Is somewhat more related to functioning of ecosys- tems. Con— Line is still very artificial and data would not always be comparable along the coast. 4. Seaward boundary of the Cowardin et al. (1977) classification scheme, which has been adopted by the National Wetlands Inventory. This is the edge of the conti- nental shelf. Pro— Fairly easy to determine. Much more related to ecosystem processes than above options. Con— May not include all the important processes. Is not completely controlled by the United States. 5. Line demarking the limit of the important processes in ecosystem functioning. Pro— Would best relate to and allow for modeling of coastal ecosystems. Con— Would be very difficult to delimit; this would have to be done for every level I, II, and III division along the coast. Might cause problems of com- parability. LEVEL I AND II DESCRIPTIONS A U.S. North Atlantic Coast. This division is affected by the Labrador Current. Al Northern Gulf of Maine. Rocky, deeply in- cised "drowned" coastline with numerous bays, estuaries, and islands. High tidal range, creating an abundance of intertidal pool communities. Small areas of mudflats and marshes, few shallow areas. A2 Southern Gulf of Maine. Some rocky shores from Cape Elizabeth to Cape Ann, mainly sandy beaches south of Cape Ann. Sandy or cobble beaches with high energy except those sheltered within Cape Cod Bay. Marshes more extensive than those in Al, but smaller than marshes further south; some mudflat areas. B Middle Atlantic Coast. This division is af- fected by both the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream. Bl Southern New England. Fairly irregular coast- line with several large islands, two large bays, and two sounds (Long Island Sound very large, protected). Mainly sandy beaches, some high energy, with marsh areas behind; some barrier islands, some with dune systems. B2 New York Bight. Coastline dominated by wide, sandy, high-energy beaches, often with dune systems on extensively developed barrier islands protecting bays and large areas of marshes. Hudson River estuary included. B3 Delaware Bay. Large embayment semipro- tected from ocean. Extensive marshes on both sides of Bay as far as Philadelphia. Tidal energy twice that of Chesapeake Bay. B4 Delmarva Shore. Dominated by series of bar- rier islands with some dune systems and high- energy, wide, sand beaches. Extensive marsh systems in protected shallow waters behind islands. B5 Chesapeake Bay. Very large, "drowned coast- line" estuary with several riverine subestuary systems. Largely protected from high-energy ocean influence but with pronounced in- fluence by saline waters, marine organisms, etc., on declining gradient northward into Bay. Extensive marsh systems, especially on eastern shore. Some oyster reefs. C South Atlantic Coast. The Florida Current and the Antilles Current fuse to form the Gulf Stream in this division. CI Pamlico Sound Complex. Wide, sandy beaches with extensive marshy areas, but mostly characterized by very extensive outer bank and barrier island system which protects the sound complex. Reasonably high amount of freshwater inflow. C2 North Carolina Coast. Broad white quartz sand beaches, smaller estuary systems than Pamlico Sound Complex, protected by long, narrow barrier islands and numerous smaller ones. Also includes marine systems seaward of barrier islands from Cape Hatteras to Cape Fear. C3 Sea Islands. Barrier islands much smaller and more numerous, coastline less protected, fairly highly dissected coastline with high freshwater inflow, gently sloping, wide quartz sand beaches, and very extensive marshes. C4 East Florida. Low-lying beaches of calcareous sand, extensive marshy areas, some areas of very extensive barrier islands, freshwater in- flow only from coastal plain. D Southern Florida. This division is affected by the main branch of the Florida Current. Dl Biscayne Bay. Extremely low-lying swampy coastline, generally with mangroves (Rhizo- phora mangle L.), hard bottom, marine influence from Atlantic Ocean, freshwater inflow extremely variable. D2 Florida Keys. Low limestone islands with pinnacle rock coasts or very narrow shell beaches bordered with mangroves, extensive shallow areas with soft marl or shell frag- ment bottoms extending out to coral reefs, very extensive seagrass and algal beds. D3 Florida Bay. Coastline part of Everglades Na- tional Park, area of numerous mangrove- covered islands and very extensive swamps covering entire southern tip of Florida. Marine influence from Gulf of Mexico, but area is fairly protected. D4 Ten Thousand Islands. Coastline dominated by a multitude of small mangrove islands and tidal channels, extremely complex, di- rect marine action on the coast. E Atlantic Insular. The Antilles Current affects this division on the east, the Florida Current on the west. El Puerto Rico. Consists of the large, rugged island of Puerto Rico and several smaller islands. Faces both Atlantic and Caribbean but receives much greater wave action from Atlantic. Coastline mostly steep and rocky, but some areas have coral reefs and islands sheltering lagoons, with some mangrove swamp development. E2 Virgin Islands. Numerous islands mostly of volcanic origin, but a few of marine sedi- ments. Areas of steep rocky cliffs, some areas with small sandy bays and rocky headlands, some areas of wide low coastal plain and wide shallow area covered by algae and turtle grass or mangrove swamps. Beaches mainly rocky or composed of calcareous sand. Well devel- oped coral reefs. E3 Navassa Island. Small island of about 2.6 sq km (1 sq mi) located between Jamaica and Haiti in Caribbean Sea. Volcanic origin. E4 Serrana Bank and Roncador Bank. Coral reefs 352 km (220 mi) east of Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea. F Gulf of Mexico. The North and South Equa- torial Currents join to form the Florida cur- rent at the Yucatan Channel. Most of the water goes directly to and out of the Straits of Florida, but a small branch of the Florida current circulates in the Gulf of Mexico and affects this division. Fl Central Barrier Coast. Sandy beaches with a few rocky areas, extensive marshy and swampy areas present, narrow shallows area; Juncus, Spartina, or mangroves characteris- tic, depending on latitude. 8 F2 Big Bend Drowned Karst. Rugged shoreline, rocky bottoms, very wide shallows area, clear water, extensive seagrass beds and marshes, high fish production, extensive oyster bars. F3 Apalachicola Cuspate Delta. Smooth sand beaches, mud-bottomed bays, turbid water, barrier islands present, little or no seagrass. F4 North Central Gulf Coast. White sand beaches, clear water, extensive dune system, and barrier island system. High-energy beaches compared to others of the Gulf Coast. F5 Mississippi Delta. Extensive marsh systems, barrier island system, sediments silty, silt terrigenous, water turbid, very extensive shallows area, extensive influence from Mis- sissippi River. F6 Strandplain-Chenier Plain System. Extensive marsh system, freshwater inflow from several small river systems, but lacking direct influ- ence from Mississippi; cheniers present. F7 Texas Barrier Island System. Extensive lagoon system formed by drowned rivermouths and barrier islands, freshwater inflow regular on upper coast to limited with hypersaline con- dition on lower coast, marshes common along upper coast, submerged grass beds common along lower coast, barrier islands of sand. G U.S. Southwest Pacific Coast. This division is affected by the California Current. Gl Southern California. Fairly smooth coast- line with a few large islands, both low and high-cliffed beaches which are mainly sandy with a few rocky promontories, sporadic seasonal high freshwater inflow, but generally low to no freshwater inflow, extensive algal communities, kelp beds. G2 Central California. High-cliffed beaches, mostly rocky but some sandy with a high frequency of pocket beaches in some areas, moderate freshwater inflow, extensive algal communities, kelp beds. G3 San Francisco Bay. Highly protected from marine influence, some low-cliffed beaches, but mostly low-lying mudflats with a few pocket beaches and marshes, moderate fresh- water influence. H U.S. Northwest Pacific Coast. The branching of the Aleutian Current into the Alaska and California Currents occurs off this portion of the coast. HI Pacific Northwest. High-cliffed beaches mainly with numerous pocket beaches but a few extensive sandy or rocky beaches; in the northern part are lower rocky coastal flats, moderately dissected coastline, cool water temperatures, high freshwater inflow, numer- ous rocky islands, small bays, and estuary systems with mudflats and eelgrass beds. H2 Columbia River Estuary. Separated mainly due to high freshwater inflow generated far inland, extensive inland marsh complex. H3 Puget Sound. Relatively protected from di- rect marine influence by Olympic Peninsula, highly complex coastline with numerous islands, high freshwater inflow. I Pacific Insular. This division is affected by the North and South Equatorial Currents and by the Equatorial Counter Current. II Hawaii. Tropical volcanic islands rising sharply from ocean, coral reefs, high wet islands and low dry islands, several species of endemic fauna and flora. 12 Guam, the Pacific Trust Territories, and Other U.S. Claimed and Administered Is- lands. Tropical islands, some having moun- tains, some with upthrust limestone plateaus, and several with wide sandy beaches and ex- tensive coral reefs, or some combination of the above, all lying north of the equator; includes high wet islands and low dry islands, some of which receive very intense storm activity. 13 American Samoa and Other U.S. Claimed and Administered Islands. Tropical and sub- tropical islands south of the equator, a few with mountains, but most with low sandy beaches with extensive coral reefs; includes high wet islands and low dry islands. J Panama Canal Zone. This division is affected along the Gulf of Panama coast by the Equa- torial Counter Current and on the Caribbean coast mostly by the South Equatorial Cur- rent. Jl Canal Zone, Caribbean. Faces Caribbean Sea, receives high-energy wave action; coastal plain with high relief, cliffed, with sand beaches. J2 Canal Zone, Gulf of Panama. Abuts the Gulf of Panama,- receives lower energy wave action than J 1 ; coastal plain with high relief, mostly composed of recent fluvial and deltaic rocks, and sand beaches. J3 Canal Zone, Gatun Lake. Highly disturbed area due to the Canal itself. Receives fresh- water influence from Gatun and Madden Lakes and marine influence from the Carib- bean Sea and the Gulf of Panama. K Pacific Alaska. This division is affected by the Alaska Current. K.5 Kodiak Island and Protected Coast. Unit contains three types of coastline: that which is wave-beaten by the Pacific, that which faces the Shelikof Strait and has fjords, and that which faces the Shelikof Strait and is protected from direct Pacific wave action but not greatly affected glacially. K6 Wave-Beaten Southwest Alaska Coast. Rug- ged, mountainous coastline of the Alaska Peninsula, little glacial activity, direct wave action from Pacific. Large numbers of small islands and rocks with numerous small areas of protected coast. L Aleutian Islands. This division is affected by the Aleutian Current. LI Aleutian Islands. Island chain receiving di- rect wave action from both Pacific and Bering Oceans; wave action much greater from Pa- cific. M Bering Alaska. This division is affected by a branch of the Aleutian Current which enters the Bering Sea via passes between the Aleu- tian Islands. Kl Alexander Archipelago. Extremely complex shoreline due to glacier-formed fjords. In numerous cases glacial formation of coast- line presently occurring. Shoreline may re- ceive direct wave action from Pacific Ocean or may be protected and facing one of nu- merous straits and passages. K2 Wave-Beaten South Central Alaska Coast. Receives wave action from Pacific Ocean, as well as a large amount of glacial action on shoreline. Much of the shoreline lias exposed sand beaches which receive strong onshore currents and a lot of drift. K3 Prince William Sound. Fjord-type shoreline protected from Pacific Ocean by Montague and Hinchinbrook Islands. Extensive glacial action presently occurring cm coastline. K4 Cook Inlet. Tide-mixed estuary, extensive marshy lowlands, water very salty, little glacial .H tion on shoreline. Tide very domi- nant with tidal bore exceeding 9 m (30 ft) in some places, currents up to 12 knots. Ml South Bristol Bay. Coast may or may not be ice-locked during winter, receives wave action from Bering Sea; beaches of black volcanic sand, interspersed with dune-type headlands, backing onto low-lying wet tundra, flanked by mountainous volcanic terrain. M2 North Bristol Bay. Coast ice-locked in winter and subject to ice-scouring; area adjacent to coast either mountainous or low-lying wet tundra, with black volcanic mud beaches; re- ceives direct wave action from tin- Bering Sea, but more protected than South Bristol Bay. M."> Yukon-kuskokwim Delta. Very extensive marsh systems extending hundreds of miles inland, receiving varying amounts of fresh- water and saltwater influence; coastline ice- locked during winter, water turbid. M4 Norton Sound Coast. Coastline mainly moun- tainous, but a few low -lying areas present; inbound in winter, receives wave action from Bering Sea but somewhat protected. 10 M5 Bering Sea Islands. Volcanic-type islands with pocket beaches, precipitous cliff-type shoreline, backing onto grassy highlands often rising to volcanic peaks of 3,050 m (10,000 ft), but may have extensive areas of marshy lowlands and well-developed barrier islands and spits, receiving wave action on all sides from Bering Sea. Ice-influenced in all cases, islands may be ice-locked up to half the year, with extensive ice-scouring. N Arctic Alaska. This division is affected by the North Atlantic Littoral Current and the Arctic Basin Gyre. Nl Chukchi Coast. Receives wave action from Chukchi Sea, some mountainous coastline, but mostly low-lying, marshy areas, with some areas having extensive barrier islands. Some sounds and inlets protected from wave action. Ice-locked during winter, ice-free during summer, receives extensive ice- scouring. N2 Beaufort Coast. Receives wave action from Beaufort Sea, ice-locked during winter, usu- ally ice-free in summer, very extensive ice- scouring. Coastline very low with extensive marshy areas. Some barrier islands. 0 Great Lakes. This division is a freshwater area not affected by marine currents. Each lake, however, has complex current patterns of its own. 01 Lake Superior. Has the most rugged unin- habited and inaccessible shorelands of all the Great Lakes. The shore type of Lake Superior and the St. Marys River varies from the steep rock cliffs of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Area to the sandy beaches of White Fish Bay, Michigan, to the low-lying clay and gravel bluffs near Duluth, Minne- sota, and in Wisconsin to the marshlands of Munuscong Bay, Michigan. Lake Superior and St. Marys River contain major islands and island groups. 02 Lake Michigan. Large expanse of sand dunes extending almost continuously from the In- diana Dunes National Lakeshore northward to the tip of the Leelanau Peninsula in Mich- igan. They result from the prevailing westerly winds that cause an almost continuous wash- ing and separation of shore soil material by wave action. Wide, sandy beaches are often associated with the dune areas, especially during years of low water levels on the Great Lakes. 03 Lake Huron. Mainly a rock and boulder shore in the northern area with some high bank beaches extending landward into a rolling upland area. From Sand Point in outer Sag- inaw Bay to the most northern part of Huron County, the shore is composed of sandy beaches backed by low dunes and bluffs. This shore type also predominates in Sanilac County. From northern Huron County east and south approximately to the Huron-Sani- lac County line, exposed bedrock and very rocky shorelands replace the sandy shore type. The shorelands of Lake St. Clair are predominantly artificial fill, erodible low plain, and a smaller wetland contingent. 04 Lake Erie. Eastern Lake Erie has glacial till and raft-shale bluffs. The Pennsylvania por- tion comprises shore bluffs of 15 to 30 m (50 to 100 ft). Bluffs are composed of clay, silt, and granular material with shale bedrock occurring about water level. To the east of Erie Harbor, the shale bedrock is frequently 5 to 11 m (15 to 35 ft) above lake level and the upper part of the bluff is composed of silt, clay, and granular material. Sand and gravel beaches up to 46 m (150 ft) wide ex- tend along the toe to the bluffs. The shore- line of western Lake Erie consists mainly of wetlands, low plains, artificial shore types, and low rocky bluffs. Lake Erie is subject to impressive seiches. 05 Lake Ontario. The U.S. shoreline consists generally of bluffs of glacial material ranging from 6 to 18 m (20 to 60 ft) high. Narrow gravel beaches border the bluffs, which are subject to erosion by wave action. The bluffs are broken in several places by low marshes. The shore in the vicinity of Rochester and Irondequoit is marshy, with sand and gravel barrier beaches separating the marshes and open ponds from the lake. The shoreline from Sodus Bay east to Port Ontario is a series of drumlins and dunes separated by marsh areas. North of the Oswega-Jefferson 289-605 O - 79- 3 11 County line for a distance of 16 km (10 mi), the shorelands are composed of dunes and barrier beaches. At this point the shore type changes abruptly to rock outcrop at the water's edge. This rock shore extends north to the St. Lawrence River interrupted only by a few pockets of beaches and marshes at the inner end of the deep bays. RECOMMENDATIONS A list of options for landward and seaward boundaries of Level I, II, and III divisions, along with the pros and cons of adopting each option, was presented in the Results section. The ideal landward and seaward boundaries of divisions would be those which delimit the major coastal processes which occur in each division. This would most accurately reflect functioning of real-world ecosystems. Unfortunately, these are extremely difficult to delimit. In actual practice the land- ward and seaward boundaries described by the Cowardin et al. (1977) classification, as described in Results, are probably as close to these ideal boundaries as can be drawn. The real advantages to adopting the boundaries used by the National Wetlands Inventory are that they are being mapped presently and that a large amount of data are being stored in this format. All other options listed are unacceptable due to the problems inherent in each, as previously described. Concerning lateral (perpendicular to the shore- line) boundaries of Level I and II divisions, those which end at the political boundaries of the United States are obviously artificial. They were delin- eated in that manner due to the scope of the study. It is obvious, however, that the boundaries of coastal ecosystems logically should not resemble political boundaries. Thus Table 2 lists more rational boundaries for Level I and II divisions which abut the political boundaries of the United States and overlap into other countries. In some instances it may be necessary or useful to lump or further subdivide Level II divisions for the purpose of producing Characterizations or Profiles. For example, one might lump the North and South Bristol Bay divisions into a Bristol Bay Characterization. In the case of lumping, it is ad- visable to lump Level II divisions which are within a Level I division, rather than those from two dif- ferent Level I divisions. Level II divisions within a Level I division are by definition more similar and, thus, may have predictions made about them which are more reliable than predictions made about Level II divisions drawn from different Level I divisions. Thus, lumping should occur only within Level I divisions. Criteria for separating Level III divisions are suggested in the Methods section. Because of the detailed information which would be needed to accurately delineate the Level III divisions, it is recommended that such divisions, if they are needed, be products of either a characterization or some special study on a specific Level II division. SUMMARY The objective of this project is to formulate a hierarchical regional classification scheme for coastal ecosystems of the United States and its territories based on the physical characteristics of those areas. The classification is designed to ad- dress the following: "How can the coastline of the United States be partitioned to best separate ecosystems, when the purpose of defining these ecosystems is to make predictions about how spe- cific types of perturbations in specific geographi- cal areas will affect the ecosystems hydrologically, structurally, functionally, and biologically?" Two primary users of this classification are the National Coastal Ecosystems Team and Ecological Services, both within the FWS, who will use the classification for determining locations and boundaries of subject areas for their Characteri- zation Studies, and Profiles (see Glossary). Existing coastal classification schemes were examined to determine if any were suitable for fulfilling the above stated objective. Coastal clas- sifications were found to fall into essentially three types— structural, functional, and regional. Struc- tural and functional classifications do not address geographical problems and are thus not appro- priate; only regional classifications address the question being asked. There are two types of regionalizations— one based on biogeography and one based on physical (chemical, geological, etc.) parameters. Biogeo- graphical regionalizations are based on the actual distribution of one or a few groups of organisms and do not address distribution of coastal ecosys- tems per se; regionalizations based on physical parameters do address ecosystems. The only re- gionalization found which is based on physical parameters (Dolan et al. 1972) was rejected be- cause of the size of its Elemental Units. Thus it was appropriate to develop a classification scheme 12 to answer the question stated. The criteria used for separation of Level I and II divisions are as follows: Level I The forcing functions of the system Level II The major constraints of the system The lateral (i.e., perpendicular to the shore) boundaries of Level I and II divisions, determined by the above criteria, and descriptions of these divisions are given. Level III division separations are not made. If Level III divisions are needed, they should be the products of a special study on a specific Level II division, and the homogeneity of the response by the system should be the chief criterion used for separation. A list of options for landward and seaward boundaries of Level I, II, and III divisions is given with the pros and cons of using each of the options. The most appropriate landward boundaries for Level I, II, and III divisions are either the marine and estuarine landward boundaries, as defined by the National Wetlands Inventory classification scheme (Cowardin et al. 1977), or the landward limit of the major coastal processes which occur in each division. In some cases these two bound- aries are the same. Seaward boundaries should be set as either the edge of the continental shelf (as indicated by Cowardin et al. 1977) or at the seaward boundary of the major coastal processes which are occurring in each division. For landward and seaward bound- aries, the lines delimited by the National Wetlands Inventory classification system (Cowardin et al. 1977) are the more practical option. In some cases the political boundaries of the United States are regarded as boundaries of coastal ecosystems because of the chief use of the region- alization. These boundaries are highly artificial. A list is given of more practical lateral boundaries of coastal ecosystems which do cross political bound- aries of the United States. LITERATURE CITED Adams, J. B., L. C. Gerhard, J. C. Ogden, and J. Bowman. 1975. Potential national natural land- marks, U.S. Virgin Islands. West Indies Lab., Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., for the Natl. Park Serv. 82 pp. Bailey, R. G. 1977. Ecosystems and ecoregions of the United States. Map, Scale 1 -.7,500,000, U.S. Forest Serv. Briggs, J. C. 1974. Marine zoogeography. McGraw- Hill, New York. 475 pp. Brooks, H. K. 1973. Geological oceanography: Historical background and regional relation- ships. Pages IIE-1 to IIE-49 in J.J.Jones, R. Ring, M. Rinkel, and R. Smith, eds. A sum- mary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico: 1973. State Univ. System, Fla. Inst. Oceanogr., St. Petersburg, Florida. Bureau of Land Management. 1975a. Visual gra- phics, offshore southern California, Outer Con- tinental Shelf lease sale 35. . 1975b. Visual graphics, northern Gulf of Alaska, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 39. 1975c. Visual graphics, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 41. . 1975d. Visual graphics, eastern Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 41. . 1976a. Visual graphics, offshore the Mid- Atlantic States, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 40. . 1976b. Visual graphics, Cape Hatteras Planning Unit, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 43. . 1976c. Visual graphics, western and cen- tral Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 47. . 1976d. Visual graphics, lower Cook Inlet, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale. . 1976e. Visual graphics, western Gulf of Alaska, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 46. . 1977a. Visual graphics, offshore the North Atlantic states, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 42. . 1977b. Visual graphics, Blake Plateau Planning Unit, Outer Continental Shelf lease sale 43. 13 Corliss, J. F. 1974. Ecoclass: A method for clas- sifying ecosystems. Pages 264-271 in Foresters in land-use planning. Proc. Natl. Conv. Soc. Am. Foresters, Portland, Oregon. 1973. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1977. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States (an operational draft). U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Office Biol. Serv., Washington, D.C. 100 pp. Cronin, L. E. 1974. Scientific workshop sum- mary. Pages 165-185 in M. P. Lynch, B. L. Laird, and T. F. Smolen, eds. Marine and estuarine sanctuaries. Proc. Natl. Workshop on Sanctuaries. Nov. 1973. Washington, D.C, Va. Instit. Marine Sci., Spec. Sci. Rep. 70. Dolan, R., B. Hayden, G. Hornberger, J. Zieman, and M. Vincent. 1972. Classification of the coastal environments of the world. Part 1. The Americas. U.S. Office Naval Res., Geogr. Pro- grams Tech. Rep. 1 Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv. Dept. Commerce, Springfield, Virginia. 163 pp. Durrenberger, R. W. 1973. Dictionary of the en- vironmental sciences. Natl. Press Books, Palo Alto, California. 282 pp. Earle, S. A. 1969. Phaeophyta of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Phycologia 7 (2): 7 1-254. Ekman, Sven. 1953. Zoogeography of the sea. Sidgwick and Jackson, Ltd., London, England. 417 pp. Ford-Robertson, F. C, cd. 1971. Terminology of forest science, technology, practice and pro- ducts. Soc. Am. Foresters, Washington, D.C. 349 pp. General Land Office of Texas. 1976. Texas coastal management program hearing draft. 114 pp. Glenne, B. 1967. Classification system for estu- aries. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. J. Waterw. Harbors Div. 93:55-59. Gove, P. B., 1963. Webster's third new interna- tional dictionary of the English language. Un- abridged. G. and C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Massachusetts. 2,662 pp. Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1975. Appendix 12: Shore use and erosion. In Great Lakes basin framework study. Public Inf. Office, Great Lakes Basin Comm. , Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hansen, D. V., and M. Rattray, Jr. 1966. New di- mensions in estuary classification. Limnol. Oceanog. 1 1 (3):3 19-326. Hanson, H. C. 1962. Dictionary of ecology. Philos. Libr. New York. 382 pp. Hedgpeth, J. W. 1957. Classification of marine en- vironments. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 67(1 ):1 7-28. Humm, H. J. 1969. Distribution of marine algae along the Atlantic Coast of North America. Phycologia 7(1 ):43-53. Inman, D. L., and C. E. Nordstrom. 1971. On the tectonic and morphologic classification of coasts. J. Geol. 79(1):1-21. Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commis- sion for Alaska. 1973. Major ecosystems of Alaska. Map, Scale 1:2,500,000. Ketchum, B. H., ed. 1972. The water's edge: critical problems of the coastal zone. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 303 pp. Lynch, M. P., B. L. Laird, N. B. Theberge, and J. C. Jones, eds. 1976. An assessment of estuarine and nearshore marine environments. SRAMSOE 93, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Office Biological Serv., Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-76/5. 132 pp. Mclntire, W. G., M. J. Hershman, R. D. Adams, K. D. Midboe, and B. B. Barrett. 1975. A ra- tionale for determining Louisiana's coastal zone. La. State Univ., Cent, for Wetland Re- sour., Baton Rouge. Sea Grant Publ. LSU-Y-75- 006.91 pp. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd cd. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania. 574 pp. Odum, H. T., B.J. Copcland, and E. A. McMahan, eds. 1974. Coastal ecological systems of the U.S. Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 4 vols. 14 Ray, G. C. 1975. A preliminary classification of coastal and marine environments. IUCN Occas. Paper 14, Morges, Switzerland. 26 pp. Reid,J. E. 1972. The resource capability system. Pages 145-152 in Proceedings, symposium on watersheds in transition. Fort Collins, Colorado, 1972. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. and Colo. State Univ., Urbana, Illinois. Robbins.J. M. and M.J. Hershman. 1974. Bound- aries of the coastal zone: A survey of state laws. Coastal Zone Management J. 1(3):305-331. Schwartz, C. F., E. C. Thor, and G. H. Eisner. 1976. Wildland Planning and Range Exp. Stn., General Tech. Rep. PSW-1 3/1976. 252 pp. Selkregg, L. L., ed. 1974a. Alaska regional pro- files: southcentral region, State of Alaska in cooperation with the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Comm. for Alaska, Anchorage. 255 pp. . 1974b. Alaska regional profiles: Arctic region, Vol. II. Univ. Alaska, Arctic Environ. Inf. and Data Cent, for the State of Alaska in cooperation with the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Comm. for Alaska, Anchorage. 218 pp. . 1974c. Alaska regional profiles: South- west region, Vol. III. Univ. Alaska, Arctic En- viron. Inf. and Data Cent, for the State of Alaska in cooperation with the Joint Federal- State Land Use Planning Comm. for Alaska, Anchorage. 313 pp. . 1974d. Alaska regional profiles: South- east region, Vol. IV. Univ. Alaska, Arctic En- viron. Inf. and Data Cent, for the State of Alaska in cooperation with the Joint Federal- State Land Use Planning Comm. for Alaska, Anchorage. 233 pp. . 1974e. Alaska regional profiles: North- west region, Vol. V. Univ. Alaska, Arctic En- viron. Inf. and Data Cent, for the State of Alaska in cooperation with the Joint Federal- State Land Use Planning Comm. for Alaska, Anchorage. 265 pp. . 1974f. Alaska regional profiles: Yukon region, Vol. VI. Univ. Alaska, Arctic Environ. Inf. and Data Cent, for the State of Alaska in cooperation with the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Comm. for Alaska, Anchorage. 346 pp. Shepard, F. P. 1937. Revised classification of ma- rine shorelines. J. Geol. 45(6):602-624. Smith, G. B. 1976. Ecology and distribution of eastern Gulf of Mexico reef fishes. Fla. Marine Res. Publ. 19. 78 pp. Sverdrup, H. U., M. W. Johnson, and R. H. Flem- ing. 1942. The oceans: Their physics, chemis- try, and general biology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, New York. 1,087 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. National es- tuary study. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildl. and Bur. Com- mercial Fisheries, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 7 vols. U.S. Geological Survey. 1954. Alaska, Map E. Map, scale 1:2,500,000. . 1970. The national atlas of the United States of America. 417 pp. U.S. Senate. 1970. The national estuarine pollu- tion study. Rep. of the Sec. of Interior to the U.S. Congr. Pursuant to Public Law 89-753, The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. U.S. Senate Doc. 91-58. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 633 pp. Wastler, T. A., and L. C. deGuerrero. 1968. Na- tional estuarine inventory— Handbook of des- criptors. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fed. Water Pol- lution Control Adm. 77 pp. + A22 pp. Weaver, J. D., B. Beck, G. Drewry, N. Schneider- mann, and R. Woodbury. 1976. Inventory of potential national natural landmarks in Puerto Rico. Geol. Soc. Puerto Rico for Natl. Park Serv. 141 pp. GLOSSARY Biogeographic regionalization— A regional clas- sification based secondarily on the distribution of 15 some group or groups of organisms. Ekman's (1953) zoogeographical regional classification of marine areas is an example. Coastal biotic province— Delineations of associations based on biotic components, water mass characteristics, and coastal geomorphology, with emphasis on the biotic components (Ray 1975). Division— Used in the same sense as the word taxon is used in taxonomy; i.e., any one of the categories such as Level I, Level II, etc., into which coastal ecosystems are classified. Ecological characterization studies— Studies being performed by the National Coastal Ecosys- tem Team of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which provide a description of the important re- sources and processes comprising a coastal ecosys- tem. They also provide an understanding of the functional and dynamic relationships in coastal ecosystems through integration of existing en- vironmental and socioeconomic resource data into an ecological unit. These studies follow a holistic approach (J.Johnston, NCET, pers. comm. ). Ecological land unit (ELU)— 1. "U.S. Forest Service usage. One of the lowest levels of the Eco- class system of classifying ecosystems into sub- divisions for forest description and management. An ELU is a composite of elements from the land subsystem and vegetation subsystem which together define a homogeneous unit (after Corliss 1974)." 2. "U.S. Forest Service Resource Capability Sys- tem (RCS) usage. Units of land having strong uni- formity in slope steepness, aspect, microclimate, rock types and conditions, geomorphology, soil characteristics and productive capabilities, type, density and age of vegetation and ground cover, and drainage characteristics." "The basic physical unit of land that scientific disciplines agree must be delineated and examined as a separate entity (for use-evaluation or manage- ment purposes)." "The basic unit that is used in the anlaysis of on site potentials, capabilities, and limitations. The most significant level of land stratification which best communicates the basic (inherent) capabilities and limitations (Reid 1972)." "Land (or water) units which because of their strong uniformity in physical and biological char- acteristics respond similarly to management activ- ities or other stimuli. Sometimes called response units." (Schwartz et al. 1976:64-65). Ecological water unit (EWU)— "U.S. Forest Ser- vice usage. One of the lowest levels of the Eco- class system of classifying ecosystems into sub- divisions for forest description and management. An EWU is a composite of elements from the land and aquatic subsystems, where aquatic type and adjacent land types together define a homogeneous unit (after Corliss 1974)" (Schwartz et al. 1976:65). Ecosystem— 1. "The system formed by the in- teraction of a group of organisms and their en- vironment (Durrcnbcrgcr 1973)." 2. "A complete, interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment, e.g., a marsh, a watershed, a lake, etc. (after Hanson 1962)." 3. "An ecological community considered together with the nonliving factors of its environment as a unit" (Gove 1963). 4. "Any spatial unit that includes all of the organisms (i.e., the biotic community) in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined food and feeding relationships, biologic diversity and biogeochemical cycles (i.e., exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) operating as an integrated system." "Ecosystem is the preferred term in English while biococnosis or biogeocoenosis is preferred by writers using or familiar with the Germanic and Slavic languages (after Odum 1971)." "Some (Ford-Robertson 1971, Hanson 1962) make a distinction between the two terms by using bio(geo)coenosis to refer to actual biologi- cal units (such as a certain bog) and ecosystem when referring to conceptual units. Others (Odum 1971) make no such distinction'. We prefer Odum's 16 lumping of the terms, while recognizing that in some technical, ecological literature the distinc- tion is significant (C.F.S.)." 5. "Any complex of living organisms taken to- gether with all the other biotic and abiotic factors which affect them, that are mentally isolated for purposes of study, (after Ford-Robertson 1971, citing Tansley)" (Schwartz et al. 1976:67). Functional classification— A classification of sytems based on some aspect of the functioning of the system. An example would be the system of Odum et al. (1974) which classifies coastal eco- system by energy inputs. Physical regionalization— A regionalization based secondarily on some physical feature or features of the environment. The classification by Dolan et al. (1972) of coastal areas by climate, water mass, and geology is an example of a physi- cal regionalization. Phytogeographic regionalization— A regional classification based secondarily on the distribu- tion of some group of plants. Humm (1969) pre- sents a regionalization based on the distribution of marine algae along the Atlantic coast of North America. Profiles— Studies being performed by Ecologi- cal Services of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which review and synthesize the existing informa- tion into a compendium of information on a coastal area. In some cases the information is re- structured into a format which will facilitate the making of use decisions about land and water (L. Goldman, ES, pers. comm.). Regional classification— A classification of sys- tems based primarily on geography. Areas which are contiguous may be in the same region, but those some distance apart, though they may be quite similar structurally or functionally, cannot be classified together regionally. Secondary at- tributes used in the classification may be biotic or physical. Briggs' (1974) book on marine zoo- geography features a regional classification based secondarily on zoogeographic features. Structural classification— A classification of systems based on some structural feature such as geology or surface cover. Ray's (1975) classifica- tion "by habitats" of coastal environments is an example of a structural classification. It includes such classes as exposed environments with highly calcareous, rocky substrate. . Zoogeographic regionalization— A regional clas- sification based secondarily on the distribution of some group or groups of animals. See the discus- sion of Briggs (1974) under Regional Classifica- tion in this glossary. 17 Table 1. Coastal regionalization Level I and II lateral boundaries. Level I Level II Lateral boundaries A. U.S. North Atlantic Coast 1. Northern Gulf of Maine 2. Southern Gulf of Maine A. Maine-Canada border to Cape Cod 1. Maine-Canada border to Cape Elizabeth 2. Cape Elizabeth to Cape Cod at Monomoy Island B. U.S. Middle Atlantic Coast C. U.S. South Atlantic Coast D. Southern Florida E. Atlantic Insular 1. Southern New England Coast 2. New York Bight 3. Delaware Bay 4. Dehnarva Shore 5. Chesapeake Bay 1. Pamlico Sound Complex 2. North Carolina Coast 3. Sea Islands 4. East Florida 1. Biscayne Bay 2. Florida Keys 3. Florida Bay 4. Ten Thousand Islands 1. Puerto Rico 2. Virgin Islands 3. Navassa Island 4. Sen-ana Bank and Roncador Bank B. Cape Cod at Monomoy Island to Cape Hatteras, but not including Pamlico, Currituck, or Albermarle Sound 1. Cape Cod at Monomoy Island to Montauk Point, including Long Island Sound 2. Montauk Point to Cape May 3. Cape May to Cape Henlopen 4. Cape Henlopen to Cape Charles, plus sea- ward shore from Cape Henry to Cape Hat- teras 5. Cape Charles to Cape Henry C. Cape Hatteras to Fort Lauderdale plus Pamlico, Albermarle, and Currituck Sounds 1. Pamlico, Albermarle, and Currituck Sounds 2. Seaward coast of Outer Banks from Cape Hatteras to Cape Lookout and both estuarine systems and seaward islands from Cape Look- out to Winyah Bay 3. Winyah Bay to St. Johns River 4. St. Johns River to Fort Lauderdale D. Fort Lauderdale to Cape Romano including Florida Keys 1. Fort Lauderdale and Biscayne Bay including Biscayne Bay National Monument 2. From Biscayne Bay National Monument to Key West and to include Dry Tortugas 3. South tip of Biscayne Bay to Cape Sable 4. Cape Sable to Cape Romano E. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands 1. Puerto Rico 2. Virgin Islands 3. Navassa Island 4. Serrana Bank and Roncador Bank'1 F. Gulf of Mexico 1. Central Barrier Coast 2. Big Bend Drowned Karst 3. Apalachicola Cuspate Delta 4. North Central Gulf Coast 5. Mississippi Delta 6. Strandplain-Chenier Plain System 7. Texas Barrier Island System continued F. Cape Romano to Texas-Mexico border 1. Cape Romano to Tarpon Springs 2. Tarpon Springs to Light House Point 3. Light House Point to Cape San Bias 4. Cape San Bias to Pascagoula-Horn Island 5. Pascagoula-Horn Island to, and including, Vermilion Bay 6. Vermilion Bay to Galveston Bay 7. Galveston Bay lo Texas-Mexico border (in- cluding Galveston Bay) 18 Table 1. (continued) Level I Level II Lateral boundaries G. U.S. Southwest Pacific Coast H. U.S. Northwest Pacific Coast I. Pacific Insular J. Panama Canal Zone 1. Southern California 2. Central California 3. San Francisco Bay 1. Pacific Northwest 2. Columbia River Estuary 3. Puget Sound 1. Hawaii 2. Guam, the Pacific Trust, and Other U.S. Claimed and Administered Islands 3. Samoa and Other U.S. Claimed and Administered Islands 1. Canal Zone, Caribbean 2. Canal Zone, Gulf of Panama 3. Canal Zone, Gatun Lake G. California-Mexico border to Cape Mendocino 1. California-Mexico border to Point Concep- tion 2. Point Conception to Cape Mendocino 3. San Francisco Bay H. Cape Mendocino to Washington-Canada border 1. Cape Mendocino to the Straits of Juan de Fuca 2. Columbia River Estuary from Cape Disap- pointment to Clatsop Spit 3. Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia I. Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, Pacific Trust Territories, and other Pacific islands, administered, claimed, or in trust to the United States 1. State of Hawaii 2. Guam, the Carolines, the Marianas, the Mar- shall, Wake, Midway Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Howland Is- land, Baker Island 3. Samoa, Jarvis Island, Canton Island, Ender- bury Island, the Line Islands", Phoenix Is- lands , Ellice Islands , Northern Cook Is- lands0, Tokelau (or Union) Islandsc J. Panama Canal Zone 1. That portion of the Canal Zone which faces the Carribbean 2. That portion of the Canal Zone which faces the Gulf of Panama 3. That portion of the Canal Zone which faces the Canal itself, including the shorelines of Gatun and Madden Lakes K. Pacific Alaska 1. Alexander Archipelago 2. Gulf of Alaska Coast 3. Prince William Sound 4. Cook Inlet 5. Kodiak Island and Protected Coast 6. Wave-Beaten Southwest Alaska Coast K. Alexander Archipelago to Unimak Island at Unimak pass, including Cook Inlet 1. Alexander Archipelago to Cape Spencer 2. Cape Spencer to Kenai Peninsula at Cape Elizabeth, except Prince William Sound but including the outer or Gulf of Alaska facing coasts of Montague and Hinchinbrook Islands 3. Cape Hinchinbrook to San Juan-Latouche, including the inner or lee coasts of Montague and Hinchinbrook Islands 4. Cape Elizabeth to Cape Douglas 5. Kodiak Island, coast from Cape Douglas to Cape Providence, and Chirikof Island 6. Cape Providence to Unimak Pass continued 19 Table 1. (concluded) Level I Level II Lateral boundaries L. Aleutian Islands M. Bering Alaska 1. Aleutian Islands N. Arctic Alaska 1. South Bristol Bay 2. North Bristol Bay 3. Yukon, Kuskokwim Delta 4. Norton Sound Coast 5. Bering Sea Islands 1. Chukchi Coast 2. Beaufort Coast L. Aleutian Islands 1. Aleutian Islands M. Unimak Island at Unimak Pass to Cape Prince of Wales, including Pribilof Islands, Nunivak Is- land, St. Matthew Island, and St. Lawrence Is- land 1. Unimak Island at Unimak Pass to Cape Greig 2. Cape Greig to Jacksmith Bay 3. Jacksmith Bay to Point Romanof, including Nunivak Island 4. Point Romanof to Cape Prince of Wales 5. Pribilof Islands, St. Lawrence Island, St. Matthew Island, and Diomedes Islands N. Cape Prince of Wales to Alaska-Canada border east of Demarcation Point 1. Cape Prince of Wales to Barrow 2. Barrow to Alaska-Canada border east of Demarcation Point O. Great Lakes 1. Lake Superior 2. Lake Michigan 3. Lake Huron 4. Lake Erie 5. Lake Ontario O. Great Lakes 1. Lake Superior and the St. Marys River 2. Lake Michigan and the Mackinac Straits 3. Lake Huron and the St. Clair River 4. Lake Erie and the Niagara River 5. Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River aBoth claimed by the United States and Colombia. "Claimed by the United States and the United Kingdom. 'Claimed by the United States and New Zealand. 20 Table 2. Proposed actual boundaries of Level I and II divisions which abut U.S. political boundaries. Level I Level II Lateral boundaries A. North Atlantic F. Gulf of Mexico G. Southwest Pacific H. Northwest Pacific K. Pacific Alaska N. Arctic Alaska 1. Gulf of Maine 7. Texas Barrier Island System 1. Southern California 3. Puget Sound 1. Alexander Archipelago 2. Beaufort Coast A. Cape Cod to St. Johns, Newfoundland, includ- ing Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy 1. Cape Elizabeth to Lancaster, New Brunswick, and the east coast of Nova Scotia, but not including the Bay of Fundy F. Cape Romano to the cape off Matamoras, Mex- ico 7. Galveston Bay to the cape off Matamoras, Mexico G. Cape Mendocino to Cabo San Lucas 1. Point Conception to the coast of El Rosario H. Cape Mendocino to and including Vancouver Is- land 3. Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia (already included in definition) K. From, but not including, Vancouver Island to Unimak Island at Unimak Pass, including Cook Inlet 1. Queen Charlotte Island and the Alexander Archipelago to Cape Spencer N. Cape Prince of Wales to Cape Bathurst 2. Barrow to Demarcation Point 21 Lake » \ / > Superior ; ^ -^v^_ ^-^y^ Ol ^^ Lake ( .tf X ^21. ^-VL»~ Huron V--*fl ^ /f^S°3v> ^A Ia2 (A ft \ ( /-^6Ty Lake \. / / v> ) v* Ontario _j^~*Yl\ Lake \ J /^~~^^/ /Cj""' Michigan Y) .A^Lke fw V/ ' Erie B3J B5 \(/ 3,7 B4 Eastern United States CI ^J\. a^ C2 e^ C3 Atlantic f Ocean fl A^r*^_ ,^w %•■*■ /.' ^A X, ^^^^ (* \ C4 V Gulf of Mexico \. \ rV n- • • ■ . ■# Scale 1:17,000,000 Adapted from U.S. Geological Survey 1970 Figure 1, Great Lukes and Atlantic coast of United States showing coastal regionalize Hon Level J and 11 divisions. 22 23 o en go. c (« u u O > 2 s a v id U c .o .a -s e e -J S .o « .N ■e a S o "J o (J 8P i o ■« a s o s -a 3 24 Scale 1:17,000,000 Adapted from U.S. Geological Survey 1970 Figure 4. Pacific coast of the United States showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions. 25 i • • / * <2> '^ ■»/"" c •'/ V GO; ^ 3 a J / s •wi^_ • • * s c o/l / #3 J S /! / is O ^ S7 \ u /; / £ y^S sa " .2 S \ . . / in\> v. I 13 5^ *.. • \ / • LSI *'* *>. %L M 3 < %dL» *> •."* -<~~^ *■' !" »• ° si\ 0 ^^E^ ~^|j ..... ^ o 3 u •5b _c 3 %) O t/i 13 E o T3 — P3 3 - o o o o" o o "J "3 S "3 s o o o a a bo S 3 .S3 o u a, a n u u C/3 26 t 4» o V u "E u (/) V '— C cd ■JS E o u a. -a , ' o o o' o o 0 a. a /*» u 27 APPENDIX The following persons provided comments on the first draft of the regionalization presented in this paper: Name Affiliation Commented on R. Andrews U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 5 Newton Corner, MA Atlantic, Great Lakes, Alaska L. Barclay J. Barkuloo B. Brun U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Asst. Regional Activity Leader Outer Continental Shelf Region 4 Charleston, SC U.S. Fish 8c Wildlife Service Asst. Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 4, Panama City, FL U.S. Fish 8c Wildlife Service Asst. Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 5 Newton Corner, MA Atlantic coast Florida, Gulf coast Atlantic coast J. Byrne U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Asst. Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 1 Portland, OR Pacific insular, Pacific northwest, California J. Carrol U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Supervisory Fish & Wildlife Biologist Vero Beach Field Office, FL Florida V. Carter U.S. Geological Survey Wetlands Ecologist Reston, VA Classification in general, Atlantic coast R. Chabreck Louisiana State University Professor Baton Rouge, LA Regionalization in general. Gulf coast H. Coulombe U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Leader, National Habitat Assessment Group Fort Collins, CO Panama Canal Zone 28 Name Affiliation Commented on D. Dobel R. Folker L. Goldman R. Hays U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Supervisory Fish & Wildlife Biologist Galveston Field Office, TX U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Biologist Laguna Niguel Field Office, CA U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist Ecological Services Washington Office, D.C. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Plant Ecologist National Habitat Assessment Gi iup Fort Collins, CO Texas coast California coast Regionalization in general Classification in general H. Hyatt U S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 3 Twin Cities, MN Great Lakes, Alaska, Pacific coast J. Johnston J. Kiikwood U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wetlands Ecologist National Coastal Ecosystems Team NSTL Station, MS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 4 Atlanta, GA Regionalization in general, Gulf coast Classification in general G. Kline C. Laffin U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fish & Wildlife Biologist Olympia Field Office, WA U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Asst. Regional Activity Leader Outer Continental Shelf Region 5 Newton Corner, MA Pacific coast Atlantic coast, Florida, Atlantic insular E. LaRoe State of Oregon Coastal Specialist Regionalization in general, Florida, Texas, Alaska 29 Name Affiliation Commented on Department of Land Conser- vation and Development Salem, OR C. Lensink P. Lent F. Smith U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Anchorage Area Office, AK U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Coordinator Anchorage Area Office, AK U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Supervisory Fish & Wildlife Biologist Sacramento Field Office, CA Alaska coast Alaska coast California coast R. Swanson T. Talley R. Wade J. Watson U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fish & Wildlife Biologist Mayaguez Field Office, PR U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Supervisory Fish & Wildlife Biologist Panama City Field Office, FL U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 2 Albuquerque, NM U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Activity Leader Coastal Ecosystems Region 1 Portland, OR Atlantic insular Florida coast Gulf coast Pacific coast B. Wilen U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Asst. Project Leader National Wetland Inventory St. Petersburg, FL Regionalization and clas- sification in general 30 I,