Biological Services Program
FWS/OBS-78/80
MARCH 1979
PHYSICAL REGIONALIZATION OF COASTAL
ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ITS TERRITORIES
'r"~

Sit,. . V j1 'f ^
tS_j-«• il.y* . ¦
V- *.
%










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. F1sh
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 1s as follows:
•	To strengthen the F1sh 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 1n the identification and resolution of
problems associated with major changes 1n 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 1s 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 1s 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 F1sh 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 gale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock No. 024-01
-------
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.
iii
-------
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
Page
PREFACE	 iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	 iv
LIST OF FIGURES	 vi
INTRODUCTION	 1
OBJ ECTIVES 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
v
-------
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 division1 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 noncalcareous substrate.
Functional classifications separate systems on
the basis of i'unctional processes such as energy
inputs, stratification and circulation patterns, or
geological processes forming the coastline. Ex-
amples of functional classifications arc those by
Shepard (193 7), Hansen and Rattray (1966),
Glenne (1967), Inman and Nordstrom (1971),
and Odum et ai. (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, l'rictional
effects, choking effects, stratification effects, and
other effects in the estuary itself. Odum ct 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 regionaliy. Secondary attri-
butes used in the classification may be biotic or
physical, and thus a biogeographic (or zoogeo-
graphic or phytogcographic) regionalization or a
physical regionalization would be produced.
Examples of zoogcographic regionalizations
arc 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-Wcst-Pacific.
An example unit in Brigg's classification would be
Northern Hemisphere Warm-Tcmperatc 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 arc 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 are 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
Wastler and de Guerrero (1968), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (1970), U.S. Senate (1970), and
Lynch et al. (1976). Wastler and dc 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 O - 79 - 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-Maritimc Polar-Marine-
Divergent/Convergcnt.
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
3
-------
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 are 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 are appro-
priate criteria for separating these ecosystems.
Level II: These divisions arc 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
4
-------
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, A1 (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 arc 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-
5
-------
tion level.
Pro—Fairly easy to determine.
Con—May include large areas not nor-
mally considered coastal or exclude
those which arc.
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.
Coil—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 arc 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 arc 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.
16.	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, H> or III division
based on the 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 of
comparison of information among divi-
sions. Extremely difficult to determine.
6
-------
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.
B1 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
7
-------
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.
D1 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.
F1 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.
G1 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
9
-------
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.
J 1 Canal Zone, Caribbean. Faces Caribbean Sea,
receives high-energy wave action; coastal
plain with high relief, cliffcd, with sand
beaches.
J2 Canal Zone, Gulf of Panama. Abuts the Gull
of Panama,' receives lower energy wave action
than J1; 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.
K1 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 has 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 on coastline.
K4 Cook Inlet. Tide-mixed estuary, extensive
marshy lowlands, water very salty, little
glacial action on shoreline. Tide very domi-
nant with tidal bore exceeding 9 m (30 ft) in
some places, currents up to 12 knots.
K5 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 Berint; Alaska. This division is affected by a
branch of the Aleutian Current which enters
the Bering Sea via passes between the Aleu-
tian Islands.
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 cither mountainous or low-lying wet
tundra, with black volcanic mud beaches; re-
ceives direct wave action from the Bering
Sea, but more protected than South Bristol
Bay.
M3 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;
icebound 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.
N1 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 arc 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, il 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, cds. 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 l.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):71-254.
Ekman, Sven. 1953. Zoogeography of the sea.
Sidgwick and Jackson, Ltd., London, England.
417 pp.
Ford-Robertson, F. C., ed. 1971. Terminology of
forest science, technology, practice and pro-
ducts. Soc. Am. Foresters, Washington, D.C.
349 pp.
General Land Officeof 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. 11 (3):319-326.
Hanson, H. C. 1962. Dictionary of ecology. Philos.
Libr. New York. 382 pp.
Hedgpeth, J. W. 1957. Classification of marine en-
vironments. Gcol. Soc. Am. Mem. 67(l):17-28.
Humm, H. J. 1969. Distribution of marine algae
along the Atlantic Coast of North America.
Phycologia 7(l):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
ed. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania. 574 pp,
Odum, H. T., B.J. Copeland, 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, Morgcs, 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-13/1976.252 pp.
Selkregg, L. L., ed. ]974a. 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.
Wastier, 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 arc 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 arid 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 (Durrenbergcr 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
biocoenosis 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 anil II lateral boundaries.
Level I
Level 11
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
1.	Southern New England
Coast
2.	New York Bight
3.	Delaware Bay
4.	Delmarva Shore
5. Chesapeake Bay
1.	Pamlico Sound Complex
2.	North Carolina Coast
3.	Sea Islands
4.	East Florida
B.	Cape Cod at Monomoy Island to Cape Hatteras,
but not including Pamlico, Currituck, or
Albermarlc 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,
Albemarle, 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. Southern Florida
E. Atlantic Insular
1.	Biscayne Bay
2.	Florida Keys
3.	Florida Bay
4.	Ten Thousand Islands
1.	Puerto Rico
2.	Virgin Islands
3.	Navassa Island
4.	Serrana Bank and
Roncador Bank
r>. 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 Banka
F. Gulf of Mexico
1.	Central Barrier Coast
2.	Big Bend Drowned Karst
3.	Apalachicoia 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 to Texas-Mexico border (in-
cluding Galveston Bay)
18
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Level I
Level II
Lateral boundaries
G. U.S. Southwest
Pacific Coast
II. U.S. Northwest
Pacific Coast
I. Pacific Insular
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
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'1, Phoenix Is-
lands'5, Ellice Islands'3, Northern Cook Is-
lands0, Tokelau (or Union) Islands0
J. Panama Canal Zone
K. Pacific Alaska
1.	Canal Zone, Caribbean
2.	Canal Zone, Gulf of
Panama
3.	Canal Zone, Gatun Lake
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
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. 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)
Lateral boundaries
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
I. Unimak Island at Unimak Pass to Cape Greig
2- Cape Greig tojacksmith Bay
3.	Jacksmith Bay to Point Romanof, including
Nunivak Island
4.	Point Romanof to Gape 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 ot Wales t-o Barrow
2.	Barrow to A]aska-Canada border east of
Demarcation Point
O. Great Lakes
1.	Lake Superior and the St. Mary5 River
2.	Lake Michigan and the Mackinac Straits
3.	Lake Huron and the St. Claii River
4.	Lake Erie and the Niagara River
5.	Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River
Level I
Level II
L. Aleutian Islands
M. Bering Alaska
N. Arctic Alaska
O. Great Lakes
1. Aleutian Islands
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
1.	Lake Superior
2.	Lake Michigan
3.	Lake Huron
4.	Lake Erie
5.	Lake Ontario
aBoth claimed by the United States and Colombia.
^Claimed by the United States and the United Kingdom.
cClain»ed 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
A. North Atlantic
1. Gulf of Maine
F.	Gulf of Mexico
7. Texas Barrier Island
System
G.	Southwest Pacific
1. Southern California
H.	Northwest Pacific
3. Puget Sound
K. Pacific Alaska
1.	Alexander Archipelago
N. Arctic Alaska
2.	Beaufort Coast
Lateral boundaries
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
-------
Figure 1. Great Lakes and Atlantic coast of United States showing coastal regionahza-
tion Level I and II divisions.
22
-------
Figure 2. Gulf coast of United States showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions.
-------
Figure 3. Atlantic outlying areas showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions.
-------
Figure 4. Pacific coast of the United States showing coastal regionalization Level I
and II divisions.
25
-------
Figure 5. Pacific outlying areas showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions.
-------
Arctic
Scale approximately 1:15,000,000	Adapted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970
Figure 6. Alaska coast showing coastal regionalization Level I and II divisions.
-------
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 & Wildlife Service
Asst. Regional Activity Leader
Coastal Ecosystems
Region 4,
Panama City, FL
U.S. Fish & 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 8c 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 8c Wildlife
Biologist
Vero Beach Field Office, FL
Florida
V. Carter
R. Chabreck
H. Coulombe
U.S. Geological Survey
Wetlands Ecologist
Reston, VA
Louisiana State University
Professor
Baton Rouge, LA
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Leader, National Habitat
Assessment Group
Fort Collins, CO
Classification in general,
Atlantic coast
Regionalization in general,
Gulf coast
Panama Canal Zone
28
-------
Name
D. Dob el
R. Folker
L. Goldman
R. Hays
H. Hyatt
J. Johnston
J. Kirkwood
G. Kline
C. Laffin
£. LaRoe
Affiliation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Supervisory Fish & Wildlife
Biologist
Galveston Field Office, TX
U.S. Fish Se Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Laguna Niguel Field Office, CA
U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service
Wildlife Biologist
Ecological Services
Washington Office, D.C.
Commented on
Texas coast
California coast
Regionalization in general
U.S. Fish Se Wildlife Service	Classification in general
Plant Ecologist
National Habitat Assessment
Group
Fort Collins, CO
U.S, Fish &c Wildlife Service
Regional Activity Leader
Coastal Ecosystems
Region 3
Twin Cities, MN
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wetlands Ecologist
National Coastal Ecosystems
Team
NSTL Station, MS
U.S. Fish 8c Wildlife Service	Classification in general
Regional Activity Leader
Coastal Ecosystems
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Great Lakes, Alaska,
Pacific coast
Regionalization m general,
Gulf coast
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service	Pacific coast
Fish & Wildlife Biologist
Olympia Field Office, WA
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Asst. Regional Activity
Leader
Outer Continental Shelf
Region 5
Newton Corner, MA
State of Oregon	Regionalization in general,
Coastal Specialist	Florida, Texas, Alaska
Atlantic coast, Florida,
Atlantic insular
29
-------
Name
C. Lensink
P. Lent
F. Smith
R. Swanson
T. Talley
R. Wade
J. Watson
B. Wilen
Affiliation
Commented on
Department of Land Conser-
vation and Development
Salem, OR
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Regional Activity Leader
Coastal Ecosystems
Anchorage Area Office, AK
Alaska coast
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
California coast
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
Atlantic insular
Florida coast
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service	Gulf coast
Regional Activity Leader
Coastal Ecosystems
Region 2
Albuquerque, NM
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service	Pacific coast
Regional Activity Leader
Coastal Ecosystems
Region 1
Portland, OR
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Asst. Project Leader
National Wetland Inventory
St. Petersburg, FL
Regionalization and clas-
sification in general
30
-------