{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["CMECS Public Review Comments"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":1,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"CMECS Public Review Comments","index":0,"n_rows":823,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":823,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Organization","Reviewer Contact Information","Page/\nParagraph/\nSubparagraph","Figure/\nTable/\nLine","Component","Comment\nType","Bin","Keywords","CMECS Section","Comment Title","comment # ","Comment","Recommendation","Original Source","Editing Team","Proposed Change"]
["USGS PCMSC","mtorresan@usgs.gov","All pages dealing with using soil nomenclature for marine sediments",null,"SGC, SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,"Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Don't use soils terminology for the Marine realm",1,"Even considering abandoning Wentworth and implementing USDA and Agricultural soil classifications to marine deposits is wrong.  I will echo statements made by colleagues I work with:    • CMECS III uses non-Wentworth size classes (p. 28 of the CMECS III document). Wentworth is a well established classification in the marine community (since early 1920s). Forcing the use of non-Wentworth size classes (neither power10 nor power2 based) has the potential to isolate US from international programs  \t• Universities typically (must?) use Wentworth to work with industries (e.g., oil/gas; training). CMECS III could be divisive.  \t• Folk & Wentworth terminologies/classifications are used extensively in the literature and worldwide. CMECS III terminology is not used commonly (as defined by Google search done by C. Jenkins).  \t• The unfamiliar soils terminology (e.g., FGDC-STD-006 [ Frasiwassents, Sulfiwassents . . .] starting about p. 76 of the document) could discourage interdisciplinary work and lends confusion to common databases  \t• Soils terminology (see above) typically does not apply to marine processes or environments. Note that CMECS is designed to be a \"Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard)    Also, just look up the definition of soils in the Dictionary of Geological terms; the book of Soil Genesis and Classification, or any other such reference.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!  THE PROCESSES THAT CREATE SOILS ANS MARINE DEPOSITS ARE NOT THE SAME>  PARTICLE SIZ CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES ARE NOT THE SAME.  Soils terminology has never been used in estuarine, coastal or marine environments.  Don't start now.","Leave the marine systems alone.  You will create needless havoc.  1) It is simply inappropriate. For example, you don't ever/anywhere see the term 'sandy loam' used by sedimentologists to describe a marine sediment. Also, we just don't generate TOC data on a standard basis. 2) Requiring use of the the soil/engineering scale instead of Wentworth would make the grand majority of the marine community's active and historical sediment databases (and software used to generate the processed data) obsolete. What a phenomenal waste of invested taxpayer dollars.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["U.S. Geological Survey","cstorlazzi@usgs.gov, (831) 427-4721","all","all","SGC, SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","ALL","Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","Use of \"soils\" classifications to marine applications is completely wrong.",2,"The book, \"Dictionary of Geological Terms\", first published in 1957 by Anchor Books, defines \"soils\" as, \"1. The natural medium for the growth of LAND plants. 2. In engineering, all unconsolidated materials above bedrock, i.e. the regolith\", with \"regolith\" being defined as, \"The fragmental and unconsolidated rock material, whether residual or transported, that nearly everywhere forms the surface of LAND...\". Thus \"soil\" is a subaerial term that is not applicable to marine environments. The book, \"Introduction to Soil Physics\" published in 1980 by Academic Press, defines \"soils\" as, \"..the weathered and fragmented outer layer off the earth's TERRESTRIAL surface\". The book \"Soil Genesis and Classification\", first published in 1973 by Iowa State University Press, defines \"soils\" as generated, \"on the LAND surface of earth\". The US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) defines \"soils\" as, \"..a natural body comprised of solids (minerals and organic matter), liquid, and gases that occurs on the LAND surface..\". Furthermore, as someone who provides scientific reviews for (and reads) numerous earth and ocean science journals, I have never seen the use of \"soil\" terminology in estuarine, coastal, or marine environments. Thus academics, geologists, and soil scientists all agree that \"soils\" are terrestrial, not estuarine, coastal or marine features, and thus soil terminology is not applicable to CMECS.","Exclusion of \"soil\" terminology from the CMECS classification schemes.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
[{"$nulls":4},"BBC, SGC, SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","Mapping, Thresholds, Mixes, Modifiers, Scale","Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic ","Soft-bottom benthic infauna",3,"I'm a marine benthic ecologist, working primarily in soft bottom sediments, where data are collected primarily by means of grab samplers or cores. It doesn't appear that this category is described well. Terminology used is non-standard and awkward. Appears that the classification system is geared toward optical systems.    5. The Benthic Biotic Component (BBC)  Call this “The Benthos”  It says this is to be used together with the Surface Geology Component. That doesn’t work for benthic infauna—they need what you are calling the Sub-Benthic Component.    5.1 Using the terms “Class” and “Subclass” can easily be confused with taxonomic classes and subclasses. Maybe say “Category” and “Subcategory” instead.    Class: Faunal Bed. The classification scheme for epifauna and infauna is conflicting and doesn’t make sense. The standard says call it epifauna if epifauna cover ≥ 10% of the sediment surface. However, there could easily be 100% infauna underlying that epifauna. You have to refer only to the sediment surface when describing epifauna. Also, what  size classes are considered? If we are talking about meiofauna or microbes (a very important part of the benthos) they could easily be classified as 100% for every soft-bottom area.     5.4 Catalog of Biotic Groups  Class Faunal Bed > Subclass Infauna > Biotic Group: Deposit Feeders.  Now you have opened a can of worms by mixing in one feeding type into the classification scheme. What about the other feeding types: filter feeders, predators, etc.    6. The Sub-Benthic Component (SBC)  Terminology awkward. Can't tell at a glance exactly what this is. Why not just say “Sediments”, which could be further broken down into “surface sediment” and “sub-surface sediment.”","Here’s a simpler classification scheme that you might consider for soft-bottom benthos:  Sediments:  Surface or sub-surface; then grain-size  Benthos: Epifauna or infauna; then consider size: macrofauna (> 0.5 or 1.0 mm), meiofauna, microfauna      Thanks for the opportunity to review.  Looks like a lot of work and thought has gone into this. However, I suggest you sit down with a couple of marine benthic ecologists who work primarily with the benthos in soft-bottom sediments (the most common kind!) and see if you can hash out a more logical system for that particular component.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"In general, agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954).   Retained \"Class and Subclass\" because none of the other terms are KPCOFGS-related.  Replaced the Epifauna/Infauna split with Attached (Hard substrate) and Soft Substrate.  Clarified Invertebrate sizes with a modifier that now includes Meiofauna, also Microbes are now better covered in the BC.  Deposit Feeders has been better defined, it identifies a substrate feature rather than a feeding group.  The Reviewer has presented a logical alternative scheme, but with these refinements we feel our system is equally logical, and has now been through extensive review."]
["NOAA National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)","carla.j.moore@noaa.gov","Chapters 4 and 6, beginning on pages 27 and 69, respectively","all","SGC, SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","Modifiers","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Application of soils standards/terminology to marine sediments",4,"I think it is inappropriate to use soils nomenclature and particle sizes to describe marine sediments.  We house a large volume of marine sediment data and none of those data use soils terminology, or soils size standards for mud, silt, sand, etc.  I do not personally know of any marine sediment laboratories around the world that use soils terminology or particle size definitions in their research","The committee should go back to the drawing board for both the surface geology and subsurface layer components and involve active researchers from the marine geology community in a reworking of the proposed classification scheme, otherwise it is unlikely to be either adopted, or used by the community.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["USGS","lpoppe@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Mapping, Thresholds, Scale","Surface Geology","Sediment classification",5,"My arguments against using soil classification schemes to describe marine sediments include: 1) It is simply inappropriate. For example, you don't ever/anywhere see the term 'sandy loam' used by sedimentologists to describe a marine sediment. Besides we just don't generate TOC data on a standard basis. 2) Requiring use of the the soil/engineering scale instead of Wentworth would make the grand majority of the marine community's active and historical sediment databases (and software used to generate the processed data) obsolete. What a phenomenal waste of invested taxpayer dollars.","Abandon the use of the soil classification scheme","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["US Geological Survey","mtorresan@usgs.gov","26 and beyond",null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Mapping, Modifiers, Scale","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Sediment classification System",6,"My laboratories with the USGS use a scheme that has been  general practice since the 1920s.  All data and descriptors we put out and send to researchers are listed in Phi and MM and use the  Wentworth 1922, Shepard 1954, Folk and Ward 1957 size boundaries and classifications.  Our data is output as such, software written as such and we likely won't change.  Maybe this group can also provide funding to re-write the code so we can display our data and descriptors to show Wentworth and the new scheme together?  Will you or someone then go back and re-describe all that has ever been done with this new scheme?","Leave the marine realm and the sediment classification as is.  Don't create needless havoc.  Please don't waste our time.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["USGS",null,28,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Mapping, Modifiers ","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Sediment Classification scheme",7,"Ordinarily, I might ignore this type of request for a review. In this case, however, that would be a mistake. My understanding is that use of CMECS III (Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard) -- which is focused on coastal and marine environments -- is poised to become a federal requirement. I have not yet reviewed the entire document, but as I see it, here are a couple of consequences:    \t• Wentworth size classes will be abandoned for the soils standard (FGDC-STD-006).  For example in the new CMECS III requirement (p. 28 of CMECS III document):  \t\t- clay: > 9 phi (<0.002 mm)  \t\t- Silt:  4.3 to 9 phi (0.05 to 0.002 mm)  \t\t- Sand: 4.3 to -1 phi (0.05 to 2 mm)  \t\t\t-- very fine sand: 4.3 to 3.3 phi (0.05 to 0.10 mm)    \t• Extensive use of soil classification terminology (starting at p. 76 of CMECS III document) will be required in the marine environment:  \t\t- for example Frasiwassents, Psammowassents, Sulfiwassents . . .    Again, my understanding is that, following the public review period, use of the CMECS III standard is poised to become a federal requirment. At that time, this structure and terminology likely will be (must be?) used to obtain federal grants (or at least some federal grants).  I see a potential wedge between government and academic work and the increased difficulty of getting researchers to submit data to common databases (e.g., NGDC). this new \"standard\" will move away from many decades of consistent grain-size terminology within the marine community. Soil classifications are not applicable to most oceanic environments (processes of development and deposition are completely different).      Why waste time and money.  Please don't do this!!!  Will we then have to go back and change what is being taught in basic marine geology and oceanography classes, change texts, change the way we have been describing sediment form as far back as the 1920's? This to me is a bad call, waste of time, and energy.","Leave the Sediment classification as is and has. Don't mess with an already good thing.    The new soild standard will only cause confusion.  It's a bone-head move to say the least.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954).  Although, the term \"bone-head\" seems a bit harsh."]
["USGS","gcochrane@usgs.gov",76,null,"SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Mapping","Sub-Benthic","Sediment classes",8,"FGDC-STD-006 and the Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2010) soil classes may be used in estuaries, but they are not used in the Coastal and Marine Environment.  Marine geologists will not use these classes and if the standard insists that they do, marine geologists will not use the standard.","Limit the soil taxonomy to estuaries.  Use a marine sediment classification like the one used in the SGC for the marine (and coastal) environment.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment - Wildlife Division","derosiera@michigan.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,"Scale",null,"No comments",9,"Thank you for the opportunity to review this classification. I briefly reviewed the document and have no comments.","NA","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Comment acknowledged"]
["University of Connecticut","peter.auster@uconn.edu",null,null,"WCC, GFC, ","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Thresholds, Modifiers, Scale","Water Column, Geoform","Classifications and implementation",10,"This draft of the protocol is greatly improved from past versions.  The hierarchy seems to be able to accomodate existing classification schemes with minor modification so past and on-going efforts will not be heavily impacted if this is implemented.  This will be a matter of integrating the modifiers into the various levels of the hierarchy (although this may be less than straightforward and will require time).  Overall the authors seem to have dealt with the biggest problem from the last round in that there are detailed small-scale classes.  Before there was only higher level categories but no detail.  That said, I remain very concerned about definitions of the higher classes that remain ambiguous or difficult to define without lots of data.  For example, where is the boundary of marine and estuarine regions (the 30 ppt boundary is dynamic)?  What about mapping turbidity or oxygen levels for water column properties?  It's not that one could not do any of these but the classification scheme is meant to comport maps produced by various efforts across the country.  For any of the properities, timing is everything as the metrics are extremely dynamic in space.  In the end, it's the maps that put small scale features in a spatial context that will be used by public, managers and policy-decision-makers.  In fact it appears that the examples in the document all come from existing small scale efforts and were not produced by actually running through the CMECS process (I could be wrong here and need to take a closer look but time is short).  The large scale part of the hierarchy  puts regions and the country in context and obviously can be of value.  However, if those doing the actual mapping spend as much time trying to gather data to justify the higher level classifications as the small scale ones, this will be unworkable ... or cost much more to produce the maps desperately needed in the management process.","Not sure, but recommend being very confident this actually works in practice before requiring use.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"We acknowledge that dynamism and variability are inherent in nature, especially the water column but the purpose of CMECS is to identify and characterize units at the time of sampling. Decisions about sampling intervals, time-series, averaging, boundary definitions and map units can be made by the user based on local conditions and applications. The current document provides standard definitions of units. Mapping and implementation guidance will be produced for CMECS in a later document.  "]
["CT Dept of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs","kevin.obrien@ct.gov","137 (Section 11)",null,"All and BBC","Editorial",null,"Mapping, Scale","Document Structure","Disjoint Text/Figures",11,"The text and figure numbers are out of sync.  There is no Figure 25, the text for Figure 26 seems to match Figure 27.","Review and correct as needed.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Corrected"]
["CT Dept of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs","kevin.obrien@ct.gov",99,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Mapping","GeoForm","Anthropogenic Geoform items",12,"I fully realize the intent here is not to provide an exhaustive list of potential items, but it seems that there are some obvious elements missing from what should be \"common\" anthropogenic geoforms.","Suggest expanding list to include:  Cable Area  Pipeline Area  Breakwaters  Wreck/Obstruction  Mooring fields","SurveyMonkey ",null,"These units added"]
["CT Dept of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs","kevin.obrien@ct.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Mapping, Thresholds, Modifiers, Scale","GeoForm","Estuarine Geoforms - subforms",13,"When looking at the Estuarine geoform type, it seems as if the exisiting subforms used to describe the other geoform types need to be expanded, or a seperate list of Estuarine geoforms might need to be derived.  For example, if I were classify Long Island Sound with the \"Embayment/Sound\" Estuarine geoform, the existing geoform subforms (head, mouth, wall, floor, etc.) do not provide adequate descriptive capacity.","LIS can be naturally split into several areas based on geomorphology, biology, etc., so it would be ideal to use an estuarine geoform subfom to do this.  So adding/expanding something like \"basin\" or other similar concepts would be useful.  This will likely increase the intended size of the subform, so I'm not sure the best way to handle that - either expand the existing subform size, or make a unique estuarine subform.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Major estuaries added to GC"]
["CT Dept of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs","kevin.obrien@ct.gov","192 (Appendix F)",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Mapping, Thresholds, Modifiers ","GeoForm","Estuarine Geoforms",14,"Its not clear to me how CMECS would handle the Estuarine Geoform component.  Clearly it needs to be in, and I'm glad to see it's included, but is it another choice akin to the Coastal or Marine Geoforms (i.e. if I were to select a \"Coastal Region\" [New England Seabord Lowland] and \"Physiographic Setting\" [Coast], I would then opt for an \"Estuarine Geoform\" of [Embayment/Sound] if I were working in Long Island Sound?)  What would be the implication of using the \"Coastal Geoform\" [Bay,Embayment, Sound, Bight] instead of \"Estuarine Geoform?\"","I think some more thought needs to go into how estuarine systems are to be included in the geoform component.  Its unclear what the implications of using that geoform option is vis-a-vis the option of \"Bay,Embayment, Sound, Bight\" under a Coastal Geoform.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Estuarine types now in GC Physiographic Setting"]
["CT Dept of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs","kevin.obrien@ct.gov",70,null,"SBC","General","Units/Definitions","Mapping, Thresholds, Mixes ","Sub-Benthic","Utility of Sub-Benthic (surface layer)",15,"The Sub-Benthic Component (surface layer) class/subclass units as described provide no new information/utilty than the existing Surface Geology Component class/subclass does.  Anything descibed in the SBC-surface can be completely described using the SGC values.  I don't see the utility of having two nearly identical elements in an already complex schema - it seems like it was included to provide a seamless assessment of the sub-bottom.","Suggest either eliminating it, re-explaining its necessity, or redefining it.  As it stands (and as the document essentially states) it is redundant with the Surface Geology component.  Perhaps a notation in the SBC that the first 15cm of depth should be addessed in the SGC?   The SBC-Soils (>15cm) seems fine though.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"In general, agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
[null,null,137,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Mapping","GIS","Practicaility of implmenting CMECS",16,"It is not clear how and if CMECS could be implemented into regionally based mapping project. Will they deign and informational content is exhaustively inclusive, the question begs whether it is practical. Success will be evaluated based on its useful utility. It appears as if CMECS is untested in its implementation. How does the private sector feel about this effort? They often implement mapping work for Fed'l and state Govts. Will CMECS be required for use once adopted? Let's hope it is voluntary.","Demonstrate that is works in several mapping projects.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"CMECS has been tested by several private sector groups including PhotoScience, Inc., Coastal and Oceans, Inc., and I.M. Systems Group with generally positive results.  Steps have been taken in version 4 to remove some areas of confusion in implementation.  As an FGDC standard CMECS will be required for groups receiving federal funds."]
["US EPA","dewitt.ted@epa.gov","39-69",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Thresholds, Modifiers","Biotic Cover","Benthic Biotic Cover - Oligozoic vs Azoic",17,"There is no Class-level to characterize situations in which there are no habitat-forming biota or otherwise abundant biota present at a site.  A specific Class is needed to distinguish those sites from areas for which no ecological data are available, and to recognize that areas of low biomass, abundance, or biodiversity do occur naturally or are caused by human actions (modifiers).      Examples include open coast sandy beaches, sands in high energy/current tidal channels, dredge spoil mounds, high intertidal pannes in salt marshes.    The biotic group \"oligozoic\" under Faunal Beds begins to address this situation, but the designation needs to be raised to the Class level.","Create two Classes to characterize sites with very low (or no) densities of other biota, and create or use existing modifiers to identify human-driven causes for the lack of biota    a) Oligozoic - No habitat-forming biota are present, and macrofauna and aquatic vegetation are present at very low densities (<10 individuals of macrofauna per m2, <1% cover).      b) Azoic - No macrofauna or aquatic vegetation are present (<0.1 individuals of macrofauna per m2, 0% cover).","SurveyMonkey ",null,"The concept of Oligozoic was greatly refined, and was expanded through Biotic Communities.  \"Oxic areas of subtidal mineral sands are generally sparsely colonized by multicellular organisms (e.g., haustoriid amphipods, small polychaetes) and are not considered Oligozoic.  Biotic Communities [include] Anoxic Oligozoic Areas, Meiofaunal Communities, Bacterial Communities.\"              \"Azoic\" is not used as a classifier in CMECS because even the most vile anoxic sediments generally contain  a few small macrofauna if a grab sample is examined carefully after application of rose bengal.  "]
["US EPA","dewitt.ted@epa.gov","59-60",null,"BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Thresholds","Biotic Cover","BBC - Faunal Bed - Subclass Infauna - Inconsistent Classification",18,"Designations of biotic groups is not consistent with heirarchical strategy laid out in the introduction to the BBC (p 39).  Specifically:    a) several groups are sub-sets of a larger functional group: specifically, \"tunneling megafauna\", \"larger deep burrowing fauna\", \"burrowing urchins\", \"Ophiuroids\", \"Echiurid communities\" all are sub-sets of \"Large Bodied Burrowing Infauna\" (or, Large Burrowers).  Biotope modifiers should then be used to identify the taxonomic composition of the group.    b) some classes are confounded, such as \"deposit feeders\" with \"small surface burrowing fauna\", \"tunneling megafauna\", \"burrowing urchins\", and \"ophiuroids\".  Deposit-feeders should be made a modifier (trophic grouping).    c) Biotope designations should be made at the Family or Order taxonomic level, with higher-resolution taxonomic disgnations (Genera, Species) appearing as additional modifiers.","1) Combine the following biotic groups (\"tunneling megafauna\", \"larger deep burrowing fauna\", \"burrowing urchins\", \"Ophiuroids\", \"Echiurid communities\") into one group (\"Large Bodied Burrowing Infauna\", or \"Large Burrowers\").  Biotope modifiers should then be used to identify the taxonomic composition of the group.    2) Remove \"Deposit Feeders\" as a biotic group, and let it be a modifier at the Biotope or sub-biotope level.  Other trophic group modifiers should be created at the same strata as that to which \"deposit feeders\" is assigned, including: \"filter feeders\" and \"mixed deposit and filter feeders\".    3) Biotope designations should be made at the Family or Order taxonomic level, with higher-resolution taxonomic disgnations (Genera, Species) appearing as modifiers of Biotopes.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"There are subtleties to these burrowing groups such that the hierarchy proposed by this reviewer is not really faithful to organismic behaviours.  Burrowing echinoderms, for example, tend to plow the sediments rather than burrow into them as would a worm, so these groups are not really subsets of \"Large deep burrowing infauna\".   Further, the \"Deposit feeders\" unit is used to identify a specific habitat characteristic, not describe a feeding pattern.  This reviewer presents a valid alternate scheme, but we do not believe it is so significant an improvement as to warrent changing the CMECS scheme, which was generally accepted by reviewe"]
["US EPA","dewitt.ted@epa.gov","39 - 69",null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Thresholds, Mixes, Modifiers","Biotic Cover","Benthic Biotic Component - Mixed Classes",19,"The classification hierarchy does not adequately address mixtures of ecologically dominant, \"habitat-forming\" organisms, which are common occurrences in shallow marine and estuarine environments. This problem starts at the Class level, with examples as follows:  - co-occurring seagrasses (aquatic bed) with burrowing shrimp (faunal bed) (Pacific NW, Caribbean)  - co-occurring seagrasses and patches of oysters (Pac. NW, Atlantic, GOM estuaries)  - co-occurring coral patches and seagrasses (tropics)    Using one class (or subclass) to \"modify\" a \"superior\" class is problematic unless there is clear evidence to support that the \"superior\" class more signficantly modifies the ecological structure and function of the biotic community at the site than does the \"modifier\" class.  I suggest that in MOST cases of co-occurring habitat-forming* species, such evidence is not available, and that judgements of \"superior\" and \"modifier\" classes will be biased by the expertise of the leaders of the classification effort or by the technology used to characterize the habitat.    Failure to explicitly identify \"mixed classes\" runs counter to one of the guiding principles of the CMECS effort: Create a Comprehensive Ecological Classification ... It attempts to provide an answer to the question, “what is out there?” As a result, CMECS is not technology-constrained; units (especially lower-level units on the scale of meters) are not defined solely on what is identifiable from remote imagery or other currently available sensing technology.\" (p 12).    Part of the problem also lies with the decision to not recommend a minimum mapping unit.    (* used synonomously with \"ecosystem engineering species\" and \"foundation species\", with all due respect to subtle differences in their definitions)","Explicitly recognize that mixtures of habitat-forming species do co-occur, and that ecological data is often not available to support assignation of one biotic group as \"superior\" and the other(s) as \"modifiers\".  These mixtures will include fauna-fauna, fauna-flora, and flora-flora combinations.    Suggested Solution: Create one or more Class-level categories for \"Mixed Habitat-forming Biota\", and use modifying classes to identify the responsible biota.  Reserve this Class for situations in which more than one type of habitat-forming (aka, ecosystem engineering or foundation species) species* is present at densities >10% of the cover or >10% of the biomass.      *drawn from those biotic groups currently identified at the Class level","SurveyMonkey ",null,"We opted for co-occurring elements based on dominance.  Users can create mixed classes this way.  "]
["US EPA","dewitt.ted@epa.gov",41,null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Mixes","Biotic Cover","BBC Faunal Bed Class - rules for subclasses",20,"Criterion to classify faunal cover as \"infaunal\" or \"epifaunal\" based on whether or not epifaunal cover exceeds 10% seems arbitrary and not based on habitat structure/processes that are actually affecting the ecological structure or function at the site.  Why not 20%, or 50% etc?  In truth, the ecological structure and function are often likely to be affected by BOTH dominant epifaunal and infaunal organisms.  The 10% criterion seems to me to be driven by expediency (i.e., what can be easily detected) rather than by ecology, which runs counter to one of the Guiding Principles, Create a Comprehensive Ecological Classification... \"As a result, CMECS is not technology-constrained; units (especially lower-level units on the scale of meters) are not defined solely on what is identifiable from remote imagery or other currently available sensing technology\" (p 12).     Examples of where the existing classification will have problems include:  - epifaunal oysters overlying burrowing shrimp beds (Pacifc NW estuaries)  - epifaunal mussels overlying hard clam beds (NE Atlantic bays & estuaries)    Letting \"infauna\" modify \"epifauna\" (or vice versa) is not likely to be a good solution, unless there is credible evidence that \"epifauna\" are the dominant structuring group (or vice versa), especially in cases where the infaunal organisms are large, active*, and abundant enough to act as ecosystem engineering species.     (* in the sense that their movements or structures they build modify the physical or chemical characteristics of the habitat, to which other biota respond via changes in their abundance)    This problem is symptomatic of a larger problem in the CMECS, which is how to deal with \"mixed\" drivers of ecological structure/function.  I comment on that issue separately, but suffice to say that CMECS should deal with that larger problem first, then attend to reconciling the \"infaunal\" vs \"epifaunal\" problem.","Create a Class for \"Mixed Faunal Bed\" that allows for coexisting infaunal and epifaunal structuring dominants (ecosystem engineering spp.) to be \"equally\" represented in the site classification.    This \"Mixed\" class should be further constrained to situations in which BOTH the epifaunal and infaunal organisms act as ecosystem engineering species - that their size, abundance, and activities are sufficient to modify the physical or chemical characteristics of the habitat such as to likely cause changes in the distribution and abundance of other biota in the community.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Epifuana vs infauna distinction dropped.  10% cover approach was dropped.  Was replaced by new rules based on dominance."]
["US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center","cstorlazzi@usgs.gov, (831) 427-4721",37,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef","Surface Geology","Error with definition of surface geology classification (coral reefs)",21,"Coral reefs in the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere in the US territories in the Pacific Ocean can have linear reefs in water depths less than 3 m and greater than 20 m and are often NOT associated with reef lagoons; the document states that linear reefs are \"forms in deeper water (3 to 20 m)  as the terminus of a Reef Lagoon\"","I would drop any reference to the associated water depths defining a Linear Reef or expand them to \"1 to 40 m) and drop any reference to an association with a Reef lagoon, which is simply incorrect.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Depth limitations have been removed."]
["US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center","cstorlazzi@usgs.gov, (831) 427-4721",36,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef","Surface Geology","Error with definition of surface geology classification (coral reefs)",22,"Coral reefs in the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere in the US territories in the Pacific Ocean can have spur-and-groove structures less than 1 m tall; the document states that rspur-and-groove structures are \"greater than 1 m above the surrounding substrate\"","I would omit any reference to spur-and-groove structures' heights.  See the following journal publication for additional information:    Storlazzi, C.D., Logan, J.B., and Field, M.E., 2003.  “Quantitative morphology of a fringing reef tract from high-resolution laser bathymetry: Southern Molokai, Hawaii” Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 115, no. 11, p. 1344–1355.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Reference to spur and groove heights has been removed."]
["US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center","cstorlazzi@usgs.gov, (831) 427-4721",35,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef","Surface Geology","Error with definition of surface geology classification (coral reefs)",23,"Coral reefs in the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere in the US territories in the Pacific Ocean can have deep fore reefs at slopes less than 30 degrees; the document states that deep fore reef slopes are \">30 degrees\"","I would omit any reference to slopes in the definition of deep fore reef slopes","SurveyMonkey ",null,"Expllicit slope definitions have been removed."]
["US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center","cstorlazzi@usgs.gov, (831) 427-4721",35,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef","Surface Geology","Error with definition of surface geology classification (coral reefs)",24,"Coral reefs in the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere in the US territories in the Pacific Ocean can have reef crests greater than 100 m wide; the document states that reef crests are \"only a few meters to few tens of meters wide\"","I would leave out the reference to wide of the structure.","SurveyMonkey ",null,"References to width have been removed."]
["INSTAAR, Univ Colorado Boulder","email=chris.jenkins@colorado.edu; skype=stromatolite","All","All","All","Technical","Soils/Sediments","ALL","ALL","Marine Sediments are not Soils : Write Translators Instead",25,"Marine sediments are not soils. The dominant physical processes are different.  For example, the major focus for marine sediments is on their depositional history.  The major focus for soils is their chemical/biotic profile from the surface.    Example:   a. The CMECS III classification is weighted to the coarse fractions because of it's agricultural focus. It lacks sufficient resolution in the dominantly fine fraction deposits of the oceans. (Figs 13, 14).    b. Does the Wassen condition of saturation apply at time of deposition of the material   (and creation of structures), or later during oxidation, or just we observe it ?    c. The 15cm thickness of uppermost substrate is unacceptably arbitrary. Gravity flows, storms and  volcanic events routinely create/remove meters of material in a day. In other places 15cm represents thousands of years. The danger of arbitrary setting like this is that it misleads the inexperienced (eg young,  interdisciplinary) to force their observations into a wrong framework. Especially if it is mandatory.    d. By the way soil doesn't seem to be defined by CMECS III.   And the USDA web definition specifically restricts it to terrestrial environments.","Advice:  Just let the agricultural, coastal and marine sectors do their own work.   Marine scientists don't want to tell agriculturalists how to do their soil mapping.    FGDC should require datasets to specify which classifications they are using (metadata).    Then build a set of software translators between the established classes.   Some of these translators already exist.","SurveyMonkey",null,"CMECS sediment units are now based on Wentworth/Folk systems.  References to the sub-benthos and subaqueous soils have been removed although users are free to apply the FGDC Soils standard if that suits their work."]
["Habitat Conservation Division, NWR, NMFS","john.stadler@noaal.gov",23,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Boundaries","Thresholds, depth","Estuarine subsystems","Estuarine shallow vs deep",26,"The depth criteria for separating estuarine shallow from estuarine deep, and riverine estuary shallow from riverine estuary deep is the 4 m depth contour.  However, the location of that contour will change, depending on the tidal elevation, especially in areas with large tidal ranges.","Define the 4 m depth contour relative to a specific tidal elevation, such as 4 m below MLLW, or 4 m below MHHW, or 4 m below MSL.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done. Defined relative to MLLW."]
["Habitat Conservation Division, NWR, NMFS","john.stadler@noaa.gov",21,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Boundaries","modifiers, intertidal, estuarine shallow and deep, tidal elevations","Marine and estuarine subsystems","Comments on Systems and subsystems",27,"The text definitions of marine and estuarine intertidal zone state that it extends from MLLW to the extent of tidal inundation, i.e., the extreme high water of spring tides.  However, in Figure 5, the intertidal is indicatedto extend only to the MHHW line.  These are two different definitions, with the MHHW line being, in some cases, significantly lower than the spring tides, and will cause problems for users of this system.","I recommend that the FGDC modify Figure 5 so that the intertidal zones extend to the actual extent of the tidal innundation, i.e., the extreme high water of spring tides.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done.  This has been corrected as recommended."]
["INSTAAR, University of Colorado Boulder","email=chris.jenkins@colorado.edu; skype=stromatolite0","33, all",null,"SGC, SBC","Technical","Consistency"," thresholds","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Validation is Required - CMECS III",28,"As an example of the inconsistencies in the vocabulary:    \"Fine unconsolidated substrates (10% or more of particles < 2 mm, by volume), if distinguishing Silt and Clay: Subclass: Sand [3] – Sediments composed of, in the fine particle fraction (< 2 mm), at least 75% sand-sized particles by weight.\"    Q: Is a bimodal sediment of well-sorted cobble frame (ie 30% interstitial space), infilled with (therefore) 30% infilling fine sand matrix really counted as \"Fine substrate\" ?   It has >10% finerthan2mm !","CMECS needs to test the classification on a real data set of diverse sediment analyses, such  as those of USGS from the US continental shelf.    Without published validations, the scheme will not be accepted.  And rightly so !","SurveyMonkey",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954).  These classifications have been tested on hundreds of data sets over many years."]
["INSTAAR, University of Colorado Boulder","chris.jenkins@colorado.edu; skype=stromatolite.","28, Table 1",null,"SGC, SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","mapping, thresholds, modifiers, scale","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Grainsize scale - Marine - CMECS III",29,"a. The CMECS scale is a hybrid power-2, power-10 scheme.  b. The mm and phi values at the class boundaries are not consistent.    There is a reason why soil and marine sediment grainsize scales differ:   the dominant physical processes for the two media are different.     If I was a reviewer of this scheme for an international journal publication,  I would say \"Reject the paper: Its just another jiggling of the grainsize scales; just adding to the confusion.\"","Recommend:   a. Use USDA for soils and Wentworth for sediments.  b. Mandate publications/reports to SAY which scale they use.  c. Build translating software to bridge the divides.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954).  These classifications have been tested on hundreds of data sets over many years."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Technical",null,"All","All","A very nice document",30,"This is an excellent document.  All Chapters are well-written and well put-together, and the product represents a tremendous amount of effort and consensus-building.  The document on the whole is sound and thorough.  This is a tremendous contribution to coastal and marine science and management.","N/A","SurveyMonkey",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["INSTAAR, Univ Colorado, Boulder","email=chris.jenkins@colorado.edu; skype=stromatolite0","All","All","All","Technical","Implementation","All","All","CMECS III - Marine/coastal research - NSF -Universities",31,"Mandating a grain size scale or habitat classification makes no sense for research. I discussed this with NSF program managers since NSF funded research would fall under the mandatory rule.     They asked me to convey to CMECS that your committee should:   (i) Contact NSF and discuss the issue directly with NSF Programs and NSF-supported researchers.   (ii) Allow more time to consider the vital issue of mandatory implementation of the CMECS proposal.","Specific problems:    (i) The CMECS standards are not compatible with international marine practices and will divide US government science from international programs. Those programs are extremely important in marine sciences to reduce costs. An example is the NSF-funded Ocean Drilling Program, with Japan and Europe as partners.    (ii) The CMECS standards are not formally published and may not be accepted for use by peer reviewed publications, especially internationally. A public comment phase such as this, today, is no substitute for technical scientific review.    (iii) The CMECS grainsize scale departs from the universally well-regarded and stable Wentworth scale which is adopted by the IUGS and ISO, throughout the oil-gas industry and naval research. The CMECS scale is unlikely to be accepted.     (iv) In Google search I find 73 references to Psammowassents but 214000 references to “wet lithic sand”. Many CMECS terms are unknown to marine geoscientists. This - plus the scheme's many deviations and inconsistencies - makes it very unlikely that the scheme will be accepted in the marine field.     (v) If this experiment in classification is made mandatory but then fails to be widely accepted (as happens), will the mandating legislation be rescinded ?","SurveyMonkey",null,"CMECS draws stronglyl on the EUNIS classification system and the biotope concept in CMECS is drawn from the European work of Connor et al."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Mixes","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","Organic",32,"\"Organic\" seems to have several meanings in CMECS, e.g., pgs 70, 76-81, 111, 112, 128, 205, etc.  It would be better if the term had one meaning throughout.","Clarify and simplify treatment of \"organic\".  Suggest the Cowardin definition be followed?  Why is \"organic\" included in the SBC surface layer and Cowardin but not the SGC?  Fix to clarify.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Organic has been added to the SC as a substrate type."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Modifiers, Silt and clay","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","SGC triangle fig",33,"The SGC should include a silt sand clay triangle figure (tertiary diagram) that is just the CMECS classes, for easier understanding.","Add such a figure.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Modifiers, Contributors","Document structure","Contributors",34,"CMECS should include somewhere a list of Contributors and Authors.  Science is not anonymous and users should know who is responsible.","Add a list of Contributors and Authors.","SurveyMonkey",null,"A list of CMECS developers, contributors, and reviewers is now included as an appendix."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","General",null,"Modifiers, Estuarine Types","GeoForm","Appendix G",35,"Appendix G (estuarine types) is excellent and very useful.  Suggest putting it square into the Geoforms Chapter, it is now hidden as an Appendix.","Move Appendix G into the Geoforms Chapter.  Retain text.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done.  Moved into GC"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Modifiers, Appendices","Appendices","Appendices",36,"The comment I just submitted, referring to Appendices A - G, should have referred to all the Chapter-based Appendices, A - I.  Thanks/sorry.","N/A","SurveyMonkey",null,"Comment acknowledged"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Consistency","Modifiers, Appendices","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","Appendices A - G",37,"Appendices A - G are very helpful.  Suggest a final go-through for accuracy wrt the relevant Chapters, e.g., \"organic\" pg 205 is not consistent with chapter text.  WCC appendix needs updating, etc, etc.","1 - Suggest a final go-through of Appendices A - G for accuracy wrt the relevant Chapters.    2 - These appendices (A - G) are very helpful in understanding the Chapters.  Suggest each Chapter include a figure, inspired by Appendices A - G, that gives the \"Component-at-a-glance\".  Perhaps a horizontal tree-type figure showing how the units relate and listing Modifiers?","SurveyMonkey",null,"A table has been added at the beginning of each chapter to illustrate the component structure"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Modifiers","Glossary","Glossary",38,"The glossary is very well done and represents a lot of work.  As with every glossary, it needs a final go-through to be sure it is complete and accurate.","Do a final go-through of Glossary to be sure it is complete and accurate.  Should every classification unit and modifier be captured in the glossary?","SurveyMonkey",null,"The glossary has been removed and all definitions associated with CMECS units are recorded in their appropriate component chapters."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Editorial","Units/Definitions","Wetlands","Water Column ","Metric standard",39,"The metric standard was not used in the definition of head of tide.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"This is reported in the units used in the Federal Standard FGDC-001.2, then translated into metric units."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"Editorial",null,"Scale","Document structure","Executive Summary",41,"The document should have an executive summary or abstract.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"This is not part of the FGDC format but will be added when the document is published elsewhere"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","Section 7.3",null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Scale","GeoForm","Rugosity scale",42,"Geoforms Section 7.3 does not adequately address rugosity, which occurs at sub-meter scales. The SGC and BBC are not adequate.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Rugosity handled as modifier"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","Section 7.2",null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reef","Document structure","Pacific Islands physiography",43,"Pacific Island physiography was not adequately covered in the Section 7.2 Physiographic Setting categories.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Reef morphologies from NCCOS Pacific Classifications Incorporated into GC and Modifiers"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","Modifiers","Classification","Landscape modifiers",44,"Some of the most interesting aspects of landscapes will fall into the many, varied, and dynamic modifiers.  This aspect of the classification could overshadow the other sections and result in lots of \"splitting\" even within a single site.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"No action taken. If the users needs more specific units modifiers provide a means for this. Units split by modifiers can always be reported in the context of the standard unit."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"General ","Units/Definitions","Modifiers, Dynamic Content","Dyanamic Content chapter","Chap 10 detail",45,"Perhaps Chapter 10, dynamic content, goes into too much procedural detail?","Suggest going through to trim, also, move section 10.3 up earlier, to become section 10.2","SurveyMonkey",null,"Dynamic content section has been simplified"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","Technical ",null,"Modifiers","GeoForm","Geoforms classification",46,"Geoforms might be improved based on the methods used in other classification systems.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Spatial hierarchy and meso/macro habitats adopted from Greene"]
["NOAA","Garry.Mayer @noaa.gov","N/A",null,null,"General",null,"Scale, Organization","Document structure","CMECS Organization",47,"The organization of the sections of the CMECS documentneeds to be revisited. The present arrangement does not describe the five CMECS components in a logical or easy to understand sequence.","Revise oder of sections.  Perhaps begin with the BBC, the most developed and intensely used section.  Follow that with descriptions of of the SGC, SBC, and GFC, and close with a discussion of the WCC.","SurveyMonkey",null,"CMECS Settings/Components are now organized such that they start at broad geographic regions and then narrow down in scale to individual biological units.  "]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","Technical","Implementation","Modifiers","GeoForm","Anthropogenic geoforms",48,"Anthropogenic geoforms are important, yet I wonder how well this concept will be applied, especially in places of historical human activity where the causes of \"geoformation\" are now pretty subtle.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Implementation guidance will be provided in subsequent publications"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","Modifiers, scale","GeoForm","Geoform classification",49,"The concept classification based on geoform is confusing due to lack of spatial hierarchy (so, you can have a channel within a delta).  At present, it appears CMECS does not offer a systematic classification of these, so I wonder about its utility (recognizing that naming conventions are important).","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Spatial hierarchy adopted based on Greene"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","128, 129, etc",null,"Modifers","Technical ","Units/Definitions","thresholds","Modifiers","\"-rich\"",50,"I find use of \"-rich\" terms to be confusing, e.g., \"organic\" vs \"organic-rich\".  People will say  \"organic\" when they mean \"organic-rich\".","Suggest simplifying to just have one term, e.g., \"organic\" and eliminating the \"-rich\" option.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Term \"Organic-rich\" was eliminated. "]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reef","Biotic Cover","Reef classification",51,"The addition of Subclass: Sponge Reef to the Class: Fauna Reef.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done - but in new \"Reef Biota\" class"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Wetlands","Biotic Cover","Impounded wetlands",53,"“Impounded” wetlands may not fit into any category well.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Use Anthropogenic Impact modifier.  "]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","Ch 9",null,"Modifiers","Editorial","Consistency","modifiers","Modifiers","Modifier consistency",54,"Should go through Modifiers Chapter to double-check consistency and completeness with CMECS text elsewhere.","Go through and fix.  For example, but not limited to:    pg 110 -- Depth Range shallow cutoff should use 4m not 5m, for consistency with shallow/deep in Systems chapter.    pg 125-6 -- check the 35% cutoffs for accuracy in Table 24    pg 125 -- should give the formula used for rugosity.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done"]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Boundaries","thresholds","Water Column","Depth cutoffs",55,"The arbitrary usage of a 4m depth cutoff in both the water column and in distinguishing deep from shallow habitats is problematic. Concerns include temporal variation in depth (e.g. tides), the limited biological consistency in this distinction (the photic zone extends to different depths at different locations dependent on turbidity etc.).","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Removed the specific depth-based cutoff for layering, and replaced with depth to pycnocline or mid-depth as distinction of upper and lower layers. A depth cutoff is used in the  Aquatic Systems definition to determine coastal vs offshore in estuaries and marine subsystems. Although these cutoffs are somewhat arbitrary, they represent important segments that have common ecological processes that allow meaningful spatial and functional division. Text and supporting references explaining the rationales for this have been added to the discussion."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","modifiers","Biotic Cover","Benthic Biotic Component",56,"The Benthic Biotic Component departs from the Cowardin Classification, but when identifying biotic groups and biotopes a habitat may fit into multiple categories.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"This should no longer be the case, but if a dominant species occurs in more than one class (eg oyster in reef and FB) then the user should identify that they are different unique units. "]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Wetlands","Water Column","Estuary definition",57,"How do we define an estuary? The mouth is typically an arbitrary line while the head of tide is very difficult to identify (and over what time-frame is a 0.2ft range in depth be observed?)","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"The 0.2 tidal range line is based on MHHW and is fixed in time."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Technical","Implementation","Thresholds, modifiers, Scale","improvements to scheme","Classification Scheme Specifics",58,"There are concerns about the uses of differing gears in the assessment and identification of habitats. For example, Secchi disks are the recommended instrument for turbidity, but many prefer to use methods that are less susceptible to human error. Vegetative cover could be measured using stalk density or percent cover, and one method may be preferential based on the needs of the researcher. Rugosity may be measured using acoustics or directly measured. Costs, sensitivity, reliability, and other factors mean that different tools and methods will be used by researchers classifying habitats. How will these be accommodated by CMECS?","see above text (specific concerns will be addressed in separate comments)","SurveyMonkey",null,"CMECS has tried to rely on commonly used methods where those are needed to define a unit (secchi depth).  Other technical guidance will be included in subsequent implementation documents."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Editorial",null,"modifiers","Modifier","Modifier explanations",59,"Every Modifier table should have an intro and explanation.  Some of these explanations still reside in the relevant chapter text.","Add an appropriately detailed intro and explanation text to Modifier tables.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Introductory text was added to modifiers except where self explanatory."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","mapping, thresholds, modifiers, scale, testing","Testing","Testing",60,"There is a strong need for more testing. One question that should be addressed is consistency among different scientists, during different seasons, and using any of the common tools available. Another major question is usefulness of the system for users in answering their specific question(s), as many have modified or generated habitat classification systems to meet these needs.  \tThe HAIP team proposes more rigorous testing of the comparability of CMECS data products across scientists, techniques, scales, and regions. In order for users to have confidence in other scientists’ application of the classification, as well as their own application, a test should be run to identify classification consistency amongst scientists. Such a test could provide a group of habitat scientists with pictures and/or other information on habitats at various scales, and ask that they classify them down to the lowest CMECS order (e.g. biotope, subform). A possible performance measure could be the average percent agreement with the remaining scientists for that category. By investigating the assumed decrease in classification agreement at the lower levels of the scheme, the CMECS team could provide users with conclusions on the reliability of CMECS at various levels. This information could be used to inform a required minimum classification (e.g. “To comply with CMECS, users must classify habitats to at least subclass in each category”) and to inform scientists as they compare data across scientists. A similar test could be used to investigate the effects of scale, techniques, and regions.","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"Over the entire development period CMECS has been piloted in over 20 projects involving cross-walks of existing data as well as those in which CMECS was employed from the start.   The development team has and continues to solicit pilot projects and will continue to do so after an FGDC decision on endorsement.  Lessons from those pilots will inform any updates that take place during the first revision cycle."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","scale, implementation, funding","Implementation of CMECS","Implementation",61,"The major concern regarding implementation is what will CMECS’ acceptance as a standard actually mean for habitat scientists. How will their data collection, analysis, distribution, and publication be affected on a daily basis? What will the financial and staff costs be to convert their data to the CMECS format for their own use or for compliance with the FGDC standard? While the text indicates that it must at a minimum be crosswalked by federal agencies or groups receiving federal funding, there is no clear explanation of what this means, what timeframe or process will be used, and under what timeframe it must occur.  \tEnhanced flexibility in the standard is important. To encourage participation, gaining modifications and exceptions should be a simple, efficient, and relatively low effort process to get exceptions to the standard into the system. Clear direction for gaining modifications does not yet exist, but minimizing the effort to gain such modifications will be crucial to ensuring that the standard is embraced and utilized.  \tThere are also concerns about acceptance amongst the habitat science community. Since the transition will be key to users embracing the system, assistance in classifying, converting, and inputting data using CMECS should be available. Interoperability tools should be developed to ease translation between other common systems.  \tIn their regulation and management capacities, federal and state agencies often use descriptions of habitat in delineating or justifying the necessity for protected areas and other management choices. Would managers be constrained to using CMECS as the required nomenclature for such management guidance? If so, to what extent?","The HAIP strongly recommends the creation and distribution of a CMECS manual to provide guidance on the application of the standard. There should be clear and user-friendly instruction provided for the implementation of CMECS in various applied scenarios. This would ensure that potential users clearly understand how and when to apply CMECS, that they understand how to maximize its benefits and mitigate its challenges, and that they will be confident in its implementation by themselves and the scientific community.","SurveyMonkey",null,"A goal of the CMECS development team is to adopt existing successful classification schema whenever possible.  It is the hope of the team that adopting CMECS units will not impose a serious burden on researchers or managers.  Where a unit is not already explicit in CMECS in most cases we expect a cross-walk to be a simple process.  A maintenance plan for CMECS is under development which will allow users to propose modifications in a simple manner and to apply new units on a provisional basis.  "]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","modifiers, scale, crosswalking","Crosswalking schemes","Crosswalking CMECS with other classification schemes",62,"Since users will be required to at a minimum crosswalk their preferred classification system to CMECS, it is important to identify the challenges faced by the user. Key questions include:  • How comparable is it to other classification systems, and how much effort is required to crosswalk between classification systems (e.g. EUNIS or the system developed by H. Gary Greene et al.)?  • Will the adoption of CMECS and its (in)consistencies with former systems have implications for international collaborations?  • What is the “reasonable timeframe” under which crosswalking must occur?  • To whom must the crosswalked data be provided, and how?","see above text","SurveyMonkey",null,"By building on existing classification systems and other FGDC standards, we anticipate that most cross-walks will not be problematic.  CMECS builds on the Cowardin wetland classification, the Wentworth/Folk sediment grain-size systems, and Gary Greene's geoform system.  CMECS compatibility with these systems to ensure easy cross-walking by most of the user community."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","modifiers, nekton","Water column","Nekton",63,"In the WCC it looks like Biotic Group allows nekton but Biotopes do not?","Change text to allow nekton in Biotopes.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Biotopes are moved to the BC; nekton is no longer included in CMECS."]
["NOAA Fisheries","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"General","Implementation","mapping, thresholds, modifiers, scale, overall scheme","general recommendation","General Recommendation",64,"The National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Assessment Improvement team (HAIP team) recognizes the importance of establishing a unified, standardized classification scheme. Such as scheme would ideally allow for comparisons across and within regions and researchers, facilitate communication and data sharing, and support large scale meta-analyses. The team expresses reservations in recommending the implementation of CMECS as a mandatory standard at this time because of concerns regarding unknown scientific implications. The implications of applying this standard in terms of the reliability, precision, accuracy, and resolution of habitat science remain to be fully tested. The HAIP team is supportive of a trial period in which further testing could be done to: 1) Identify necessary changes to CMECS; 2) Develop the process for the acceptance of new categories; 3) Implement CMECS as a non-mandatory standard to build acceptance and familiarity amongst habitat scientists; and 4) Develop mechanisms for translating data from other standards in order to minimize transition costs. The HAIP team also recommends that if CMECS is implemented, that the mandatory requirement applies only to broader categories (e.g. class) to minimize improper classification.  \tThere were several overarching concerns with the CMECS scheme. The first is that habitats don’t necessarily fit into clearly defined bins; there are continuous gradations between physical, chemical, and biological components and this information may be lost by forcing them into a particular category. For example, how would data on temperature, dissolved oxygen, or light penetration be represented in the CMECS scheme? The second is that temporal changes may have significant impacts on habitat at multiple time scales. Whether the changes are due to tidal fluctuations, seasonality, land use change, or global warming, the classification given to a particular location may be affected by the dynamic nature of habitat. Examples might include temporal changes such as oxygen fluctuations, water depth, and community composition. Third, the question of spatial resolution is unresolved. It is unclear whether a location would be classified similarly when classified at the scales varying from centimeters to kilometers.","see above text",null,null,"The CMECS team has conducted many pilots going back to 2003 and earlier.  In each case the lessons from those pilots have been incorporated into new revisions culminating in Version 4.   Although CMECS is proposed as a national standard the developers recognize that updates will be needed and a process for receiving and responding to input will be established.   In addition, technical guidance documents will be produced which will guide data developers in mapping and identifying CMECS units.  The issue of habitats occurring along a continuum and resisting assignment to specific bins is common to all classification systems and will be addressed through implementation guidance."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Units/Definitions","mapping","Water column","WCC Detail",65,"WCC needs more detail and filling out, e.g., \"subforms\" pg 105 - 108, \"biotic groups\" pg 108.","Add text to make level of detail within WCC units consistent.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done. Extensive text has  been added."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Editorial","Consistency","modifiers, units","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","Unit consistency",66,"Go through all Units for consistency and duplication.  E.g., Jetty/Groin pg. 100 is confusing; duplication of Ophiuroid group exists in BCC, etc, etc.","Go through and fix.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done.  Duplication removed insofar as possible. Units have been defined to be mutually exclusive."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef, wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","More Units needed",67,"More units are needed as the doc finalizes.  Adding units later is good, but better to get them in the first released document.","Go through doc and look for omissions.  Add Units.  E.g., BCC needs \"mixed macroalgae\", also, \"No Biotic Groups Identifiable with gear\", Anthro Geoforms needs \"Riprap\", etc.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done. Extensive units have been added to WC."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",102,null,"WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","mapping, scale","Water column","xyz vs xy",68,"WCC axis terminology is very useful but I believe xyz axes are more common in physical oceanography than xy axes as pg 102.  In xyz, water depth is z, and all parts of the entire feature can be located.","Replace xy text with xyz text, e.g.:  X and Y are horizontal axes and Z is depth.  Users may specify any arrangement that suits, with a default arrangement that North is positive X  in km, East is positive Y in km, Z is depth in m below MLLW, and the origin is specified by the user.  Imagine a gyre...users will be able to locate any parcel of water in the gyre...","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done. XYZ framework has been employed with Z as the vertical axis."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC, BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","wetlands, mapping, thresholds","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","GL Boundaries",69,"CMECS could use tighter definitions for what is and is not Great Lakes.  Where is the line where rivers flow into the Lakes, e.g., GL estuaries?","Add clarifying text.  Suggest looking at \"Final Recommendations of the IOPTF\" for CMSP:    \"The geographic scope for the Great Lakes would extend from the ordinary  high-water mark and include the lakebed, subsoil, and water column to the limit of the United States  and Canada international boundary, as maintained by the International Boundary Commission, and  includes Lake St. Clair and the connecting channels between lakes. Privately owned lands as defined by law would be excluded from the geographic scope.    The geographic scope would include inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes  settings. Inclusion of inland bays and estuaries is essential because of the significant ecological,  social, and economic linkages between these areas with offshore areas. Additional inland areas may  be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies, described in Section X of this Part,  deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for  the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and  ecosystem health.\"","SurveyMonkey",null,"Great Lakes discussion is added, presenting scope and jurisdiction.  River/lake distinction is consistent with the FGDC Standard 004 definition for Lacustrine and Riverine systems- text has been added to the document reflecting this."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Editorial",null,"All","All","More pictures",70,"The document would be more readable and understandable if it contained more pictures and figures.","Suggest adding labelled photos throughout to better illustrate classifications.    Suggest adding more figures throughout to better illustrate concepts.    Suggest a go-through to be sure there is a figure or image every 3 pages or so for visual readability.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Some additional graphics have been included and plans are for a web site to host example photos of all CMECS units."]
["U.S. EPA","ferraro.steven@epa.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,"All, empirical validation","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","Standard should be validated before adoption",71," My comments are on the standard as a whole.  The pivotal issue, I believe, is whether or not the scientific evidence is sufficient to adopt the classification system proposed in the CMECS as a “standard.”  As I explain below, I don’t think it is since the ecological relevance of the vast majority of the units in the classification has not been empirically validated.    An appropriate operational definition of an ecological unit will depend upon the epistemological purpose of the study (Jax 2006: Ecological units: definitions and applications. The Quarterly Review of Biology 81(3): 237–258).  According to the CMECS (p. 8–9), a major aim is to provide coastal and marine planners and managers with the information and tools needed to make well-informed decisions about habitat conservation and resource management.  As explained in Section 1.2, to this end they need to know (1) “what is out there?” (“species,” “communities,” “ecosystems” and “potential resource units”), (2) “where it is located?” (e.g., maps of (1)), and (3) “what is its [the CMECS’s ecological units] condition?”.   The CMECS addresses the question: “what is it?”, where “it” are the “ecological units,” e.g., systems (marine, estuarine and lacustrine) and habitats, in which the “what is out there” live.  According to the CMECS (p. 8), (1), (2) and (3) are topics being covered in other documents in preparation.  To conclude that the classification scheme in the CMECS is appropriate for its intended purpose, therefore, requires a leap of faith that the information in the three documents in preparation confirm that the ecological units proposed in the CMECS can be accurately and reliably matched with associative biotopes (def.: “Repeatable and characteristic assemblages of organisms together with the physical habitats that support their existence” CMECS, p. 144), mapped, and assessed with respect to condition.  For brevity, I will confine the remainder of my letter to the question of whether sufficient scientific evidence exists to link the CMECS ecological units to biotypes.  Statements in the CMECS, for example: “…substantial additional work is needed to better define the physical/biological associations that constitute regularly occurring biotypes” and “[b]iotopes have not been well catalogued as of this writing” (CMECS, p. 49), suggest that that it does not.   My understanding of the state of the science is that for the vast majority of the CMECS ecological units the scientific evidence is weak at best.    The CMECS adopts or modifies operational definitions of ecological units from other classification schemes that have not been empirically validated.  It is unwise and counterproductive to adopt an ecological classification system as a standard before its ecological relevance has been validated.  In my opinion, the interests of coastal and marine planners and managers and science are better served by limiting the scope of the CMECS to those ecological units for which associative biotopes have been validated.  The CMECS could be updated as more information becomes available.    Ecological classification standards have much practical utility.  Their importance dictates that they are not based primarily on scientific intuition or scientific consensus both of which can be and often is wrong.  They should be based on sound scientific empirical evidence and validated before put in general use.  Ferraro and Cole (2010: Ecological periodic tables for nekton usage of four US Pacific Northwest estuarine habitats.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67: 1957–1967) is an example of the kind of evidence needed to validate a habitat classification.    The imprimatur of an ecological classification system as a standard by the US Department of the Interior will have large, long-term consequences.  Whether they are good, bad or somewhere in between will depend upon the final version of this document.  My hope is that my comments help improve the changes for a good outcome.","see #7","SurveyMonkey",null,"The units in CMECS have been long employed to guide research and mapping and although much science is still to be done we feel the units are sufficiently vetted to serve as a standard which can be updated as the science allows in the future."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","27, 90",null,"SGC, GFC,","Editorial",null,"Thresholds","Surface Geology, GeoForm","SGC/GFC vertical releif cutoff",72,"The 1 m vertical relief cutoff between what is considered SGC vs GFC (page 90) should be mentioned in the SGC text on page 27-ish and in the intro.","Add text to SGC and intro.","SurveyMonkey",null,"The 1 m vertical relief cutoff no longer exists between what is considered SGC vs GFC; these are now separated based on Shape (GC) and Composition/Grain Size (SC)."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",83,null,"GFC, Modifiers","Technical","Boundaries","Modifiers, GFC Regions","GeoForm","Regions",73,"Some GFC US Regions (p 83 - 88) are described (NESL), others are located (EGCP).  Should be consistent.    New England Seaboard Lowland– The seaboard lowland is composed of a rolling landscape cut by numerous bays and estuaries. the sharp and jagged headlands are typical of a glacially drowned coast, where the weight of vast ice sheets depressed the land; most offshore islands are made up of the summits of submerged hills.    East Gulf Coastal Plain– Includes the Gulf coast east of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. Includes the Florida panhandle.","Consistently describe and locate all GFC US Regions.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Coastal regions removed from GC since they are terrestrial."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers, SBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Modifiers, SBC","Sub-Benthic","seismic classifications",74,"CMECS should mention seismic classifications in the SBC, even if just to acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of the document.","Mention in the SBC that seismic classifications are beyond the scope of the document.","SurveyMonkey",null,"With the removal of the SBC, sediments below the depth of living creatures are not considered and the Seismic point is moot."]
["NOAA CSC","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",20,"Figure 4","Modifiers, System/Subsystem","Technical","Consistency","Modifiers, System/Subsystem","Document structure","Tidal Zone",75,"Figure 4 lays out the system and subsystem structure of CMECS but upon further reading in section 3.2  Tidal zone is then included under subsystem (page 21).  Is tidal zone part of the subsystem or a further subdivided level?","Suggest a new level in system/subsystem that explicitly includes tidal zone.  Some research may also be needed to determine river flood stage effects on tidal riverine systems and perhaps include additional modifiers for these environments.","SurveyMonkey",null,"This was clarified in figure and text."]
["Estuary Technical Group, Institute for Applied Ecology","Laura Brophy: 541-752-7671, Laura@AppliedEco.org","46-47, 65-66",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Wetlands, brackish emergent, brackish tidal marsh, brackish scrub-shrub,  brackish forested, freshwater emergent, freshwater scrub-shrub, freshwater forested tidal,","Biotic Cover","Additional subclasses needed in emergent, scrub-shrub and forested classes",76,"Suggested revisions to CMECS 3.1  12/12/2010    Laura Brophy and John Christy  Estuary Technical Group   Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis OR 97330  541-752-7671  Laura@AppliedEco.org    Page 39 of CMECS 3.1:  We recommend changing the name of the “Benthic Biotic Component” to simply “Biotic Component.” “Benthic” is not an appropriate term for the dominant vegetation in emergent, shrub and forested wetlands.    Pages 44 and 65 of CMECS 3.1:  Because the CEMC defines “Subclass: Lichens” as being supratidal, it cannot be included under “Class: Aquatic Bed [AB].” The only logical place to put it is in “Class: Emergent Wetland [EM], and remove “excluding mosses and lichens” from the latter. Cowardin accommodated lichens in the Moss-Lichen Wetland of the Palustrine system, but since CEMC does not include Palustrine, it seems logical to put lichens in Emergent Wetland.    Page 46-47 and 65-66 of CMECS 3.1:  1. Under Class: Emergent Wetland [EM]: A “Brackish Tidal Marsh” subclass is needed to accommodate the ecotone between salt and freshwater-influenced systems. (“Emergent brackish marsh” is listed as a biotic group on page 66, but should instead be a subclass.)    2. Under Class: Emergent Wetland [EM]: A “Freshwater Tidal Marsh” subclass is needed to accommodate the Shallow Tidal Riverine subsystem, where substantial portions of tidally-influenced rivers may be freshwater and in no way coastal.    3. Under Class: Scrub-shrub Wetland [SS]: Add the sentence “Classification of tidal freshwater scrub-shrub vegetation follows the FGDC Wetland Standard Palustrine Class and is covered in the National Vegetation Classification Standard.” This creates parallelism between the Emergent, Scrub-Shrub and Forested Wetland class descriptions (also see comment 5 below).    4. Under Class: Scrub-shrub Wetland [SS]: “Brackish Scrub-Shrub” and “Freshwater Scrub-Shrub” subclasses are needed, for the same reasons cited in #’s 1 and 2 above.    5. Under Class: Forested Wetland [FO]: Add the sentence “Classification of tidal freshwater forested vegetation follows the FGDC Wetland Standard Palustrine Class and is covered in the National Vegetation Classification Standard. This creates parallelism between the Emergent, Scrub-Shrub, and Forested Wetland class descriptions.    6. Under Class: Forested Wetland [FO]: “Brackish Forested” and “Freshwater Forested” subclasses are needed, for the same reasons cited in #’s 1-2 above.    We would be happy to provide brief descriptions of the new subclasses for the CMEC.","All requested changes are listed in the \"full description of comment\" above.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Page 39.  Done  Page 44 and 65 .  Created New Mosses and Lichens Class.   Page 46-47 and 65-66: 1 and 2. . Did not make these distinction at the subclass level because of the need to consistently identify salinity at one level of the hierarchy - the biotic group level.  We felt it was more important to indicate the tidal nature of the types first to be consistent among all of the classes.  Both brackish and freshwater marshes are available at the biotic group level.  3. We added the text about relationship to FGDC-004, but this class is NOT compliant with FGDC-005.  Those two standards are incompatible on this class.  4. Brackish and Tidal Freshwater Scrub-Shrub have been added as Biotic Groups.  5. Statement added with varied wording.  6. Freshwater and Brackish forests added as Biotic Groups. "]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"Technical",null,"All","All","Nice Job!",77,"Despite my numerous awkward suggestions, this is a fine document.  It is much-needed and will be extremely useful to many people.  It is well-written, well-researched, and very complete.  Kudos to the Team!","(NA)","SurveyMonkey",null,"None required."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Reef, wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, mapping, modifiers","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","Linear Units",78,"Many user groups map with linear units, not polygons, e.g., Shorezone, CHEP, NBEP, TBEP.  This is very useful for shorelines.  CMECS has even piloted this.  While this is a mapping issue, it has implications for classification.  CMECS should \"open the door\" for linear unit classification.","Add a section that addresses linear unit classification in CMECS so that users can generate products that are more consistent.  Suggest look at Shorezone Pilot.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Language and examples have been provided in Chapter 12 to allow users who work with line data to assign CMECS units to their data."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"Editorial","Units/Definitions","modifiers, coding","Coding","Coding and Abbreviations",79,"CMECS provides many standard Abbreviations (e.g., Class: Aquatic Bed [AB]  Subclass: Macroalgae [1], Biotic Group: Rockweeds [rw])  but does not provide guidance on how to use these.  This becomes confusing when the Abbreviations repeat (e.g., Class: Emergent Wetland [EM], Subclass: Coastal Salt Marsh [1], Biotic Group: Emergent High Salt Marsh [hm]).  Different units are both \"1\".  The two-letter abbreviations should be unique throughout CMECS  (I think they are) but the number abbreviations are a problem for searches, etc, unless grouped into a \"code\".  Users will want to group to create a code, e.g., AB.1.rw or (BBC)-EM-1-hm.  CMECS should provide guidance on syntax, or datasets will be inconsistent.","- Assign every unit, including modifiers, an Abbreviation.  Some lack these.  - Rethink the number Abbreviations.  - Double check that the two-and-more-letter Abbreviations do not repeat.  - Provide guidance on syntax for assembling Abbreviations.  People are going to do it anyways.","SurveyMonkey",null,"A coding system will be developed for CMECS units and included in subsequent implementation guidance documents."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Technical",null,"Modifiers","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","Modifiers",80,"I find the Modifiers chapter to be very, very hard to use.  And separating the modifier Chapter from the Component Chapters adds to this.","Suggest a major re-organization.  At minimum, the modifier Chapter should be organized by Component, not alphabetically.  Most of the multiple-Component modifiers have a \"primary\" Component.  I also like the idea of a list of modifiers at the end of each Chapter.  Best (I think) would be to put the modifiers back into each Component Chapter, now that the Component Chapters are all more comparably detailed.  Sorry - its how I feel.  :-)","SurveyMonkey",null,"Modifiers have been grouped into general types (ex. spatial, temporal, etc.) which help the user locate appropriate modifiers,  In addition a list of modifiers generally associated with each component is included at the end of those chapters."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Editorial","Consistency","Wetlands","Biotic Cover","CMECS/NVC",81,"Should double-check that CMECS BBC classes, subclasses, and biotic groups are consistent with NVC standards and NVC descriptions.","Fix as needed.","SurveyMonkey",null,"The NVC alliances form the basis of the BC vegetated units with only minor changes to remove the geographic aspects."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Technical","Units/Definitions","Thresholds","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","MLLW",82,"Tidal Datum is not always specified in CMECS for water depths.","Go through and specify in every case, e.g., \"4 m\" on pg 24, \"low water\" on page 25.  Add a blanket statement \"All water depths refer to MLLW unless otherwise specified\".","SurveyMonkey",null,"It is likely that users will apply different tidal datums based on their own project needs.  Users should report the datum used as part of good metadata which will facilitate portability of their results."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Technical ","Mixes/Thresholds","Thresholds","Water Column, Biotic Cover, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic, Geoform","split cut-off values",83,"In many places the document uses overlapping cutoff values, e.g., 25% - 50% = X; 50% - 75% = Y.  If looking at existing data with 50% reported for a unit,CMECS provides no guidance on whether the unit is X or Y.","Go through document and clarify.  In some cases, a global fix might work: \"Always bin into the larger category\" but in other places individual fixes may be better:    25% - 49.9% = X; 50% - 75% = Y.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Overlapping thresholds have been removed whenever possible as part of Version 4.  The concept of a co-occurring element allows users to capture the additional constituents of any observation based on spatial dominance."]
["U.S. EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","28, 34, 127",null,"SGC","Technical ","Units/Definitions","Mixes","Surface Geology","Gravelly",84,"Use of the term \"Gravelly\" is confusing.  The gravel concept is used as a particle-size descriptor and also (\"gravelly\") as a modifier, with different meanings.","Suggest retain \"gravel\" as a particle-size descriptor but use \"fragments\" or similar instead of \"gravelly\" as a modifier.","SurveyMonkey",null,"We put forward a version that did this, but reviews by Geologists were not favorable to the idea.  Re-instated \"gravelly\" at request of  geologists (e.g., JK, ES)"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","Technical ","Consistency","Thresholds","Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic","FGDC-STD-006",85,"In some places CMECS SGC and SBC-surface are not identical to either FGDC-STD-006 or FGDC-STD-004.  E.g., 35% clay cut-off.  Suggest a go-through for consistency with FGDC-STD-006 or FGDC-STD-004.","Go-through doc for deviations from FGDC-STD-006 or FGDC-STD-004.  Be sure deviations are needed.  Re-align with FGDC-STD-006 or FGDC-STD-004 where beneficial.","SurveyMonkey",null,"In moving to Wentworth/Folk, these problems no longer exist."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC","General ","Structure/Hierarchy","Thresholds","Surface Geology","SGC reorg",86,"SGC should be given a go-through to assure a hierarchical structure.  Mud Division is not hierarchical.","Keep Muds in CMECS!   Maybe add these as Modifiers.  Suggest:    Sandy (50-100% sand)      Sands (75-100% sands) making it plural to avoid overlap with Subclass Sand?      Muddy Sand (50-75% sand)  Muddy  (50-100% mud)      Sandy Mud (50-75% mud)      Mud  (75-100% mud)    But be sure they do not get lost in the Modifiers Chapter.  They should be in Chap 4, front and center.","SurveyMonkey",null,"In moving to Wentworth/Folk, these problems no longer exist.  Mud is part of the classification."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,"34, more","Modifiers","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds","Modifiers","Modifiers","Secondary Elements",87,"I like the use of \"Secondary Elements\" and suggest this be given greater prominence in the document.  It is now hidden at the back of Chap 9.  Suggest adding a dedicated subsection somewhere.  Also suggest a different convention for reporting these vs. pg 34, see below.","e.g.,    Class: Unconsolidated Substrate; Subclass: Sand; Secondary Elelment: Boulder.    instead of:    Class: Unconsolidated Substrate; Subclass: Sand; Modifier: Boulder.    or something.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Section on co-occurring elements more prominent in the modifier chapter now and referenced in appropriate chapters. "]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","32, 33",null,"SGC","Technical ","Consistency","Mixes","Surface Geology","sediment volume/wt",88,"Some sediment thresholds rely on volume, others weight.","pick one.","SurveyMonkey",null,"In moving to Wentworth/Folk, these problems no longer arise.   Most thresholds are by % weight, some by % cover.  No volume thre+P56sholds now exist.P63"]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC","General ","Structure/Hierarchy","Mixes, SGC","Surface Geology","SGC graphic/figure",89,"The SGC is hard to figure out.  Suggest adding a \"Decision Tree\" or other graphic that guides users to classifications.","If > 35% clay, substrate is \"Clay\".  If < 35% clay and < 20% sand, substrate is \"Silt\".  etc., etc.  But more thorough.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954).  The system is now much more easily understood."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","31, etc, Fig 6",null,"SGC","Technical ",null,"Modifiers, Flag","Surface Geology","flag",90,"Suggest removal of all reference to \"flag\" and replacement with a better term.","Consolidated Sedimentary Rock ?","SurveyMonkey",null,"\"Flag\" removed.  Replaced with Bedrock."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical ","Boundaries","Modifiers, Estuarine ","System","Limit of Estuarine",91,"CMECS should be more specific about the seaward boundary of Estuarine","Suggest: \"An imaginary line drawn between the seaward-most protrusions of headlands at the estuarine enclosure at MLLW.  Islands are included as 'headlands' for line-drawing if they significantly contribute to the estuarine enclosure.\"     Or similar to allow consistent line-drawing.","SurveyMonkey",null,"Done. This has been corrected as recommended."]
["US EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Technical",null,"Modifiers, readability","Document structure","Chap 1 Re-Org",92,"Chapter 1 could use a clearer structure for readability, suggest a go-through for the order of the subheadings and to ensure that text matches subheadings.","e.g., boundaries of CMECS, head of tide, should be in \"scope\"?  Section 1.5 should be moved up?","SurveyMonkey",null,"The document has been reviewed by a technical editor for readability.  Their suggestions along these lines have been incorporated and the document does read more easily as a result."]
["US EPA","Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett RI 02882",null,null,null,"Editorial",null,"Modifiers, readability","Document structure","Chap 2 Clean-up",93,"Chap 2 seems to ramble a bit and could use a tightening of text with removal of un-needed/redundant passages.","None specific, shorten chapter.  Use call-out boxes?","SurveyMonkey",null,"The document has been reviewed by a technical editor for readability.  Their suggestions along these lines have been incorporated and the document does read more easily as a result."]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"Water column","Issue with Water Column",99,"Water column is problematic and perhaps we need to adjust our treatment of it.  We were planning to present water column as a habitat on its own - one that supports biota (such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish) not addressed in other habitats.  But in CMECS, water column is one of the layers.  I didn't include it in any of the profiles because it seemed too complex and confusing, i.e., what water column characteristics are linked to say \"intertidal flats?\"  Sometimes water is present, sometimes not; temperature, salinity, and other aspects are constantly changing.  For our \"water column\" habitat, I tried a CMECS side-bar, but none of the other CMECS components made sense to include besides system, subsystem and water column. ",null,"email from Annie Eicher to MF",null,"WC has been organized into Subcomponents and Modifiers. Each component can be used independently and those applications not requiring use of a component can ignore it.  "]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Dynamics",null,null,"Macroalgae and microbial mats as ephemeral components",100,"Macroalgae and microbial mats will be discussed within our chapter on tidal flats as ephemeral components of this habitat type rather than habitats of their own.",null,"email from Annie Eicher to MF",null,"This is an application of the CMECS units which users are free to pursue.  Others may choose to give these habitats with the same weight as more persistent ones if that is appropriate for their needs."]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Riparian and CMECS",101,"Our earlier draft report had a chapter on riparian, which really doesn't seem to fit into CMECS at all, however, we can adapt the chapter to one on \"tidal scrub-shrub wetland.\"",null,"email from Annie Eicher to MF",null,"Coment acknowledged.  Riparian systems above the head of tide are outside the domain of CMECS"]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"BBC","Editorial","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Difference between oyster reef and bed",102,"We were not planning on writing any kind of characterization of the cultivated oyster beds as a habitat type, however, we probably need some kind of explanation if they are to be included as a mapping unit.  Can you help me understand the difference between an oyster reef and an oyster bed in CMECS?",null,"email from Annie Eicher to MF",null,"Oyster reefs are structures where oysters have attached to each other in such a way that they form a persistent, consolidated structure.  Oyster beds are where there are oysters present, scattered or loosely arranged on the substrate in such a way that a permanent reef is not formed. "]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,"GeoForm","How to deal with artificial structures",103,"How to deal with artificial structures as habitat? (ex long lines placed by oyster growers, docks, pilings, rip-rap).  This doesn't seem to fit with CMECS, except that there is an \"anthropogenic geoform\" section w/in the geoform component. ",null,"email from Annie Eicher to MF",null,"Aquaculture Structure added to GC.  Further differentiation can be accomplished by the user."]
["Coastal and Oceans Inc.","john@coastalandoceans.com",null,null,"System/Subsystem, BBC","Technical","Boundaries",null,null,"Supra-tidal?",104,"Dune grass between stormline and the usual logline is important habitat.  Supra-tidal",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - ShoreZone",null,"If the grass is within the spray zone of marine systems then it lies within the CMECS domain.  Otherwise these situations are more terrestrial in character."]
["Coastal and Oceans Inc.","john@coastalandoceans.com",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"more specific kelp classes",105,"Need more specific Kelp classes.  Not limited to \"forests\"",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - ShoreZone",null,"Kelp are now found in canopy-forming and leathery-leafy algal categories based on their growth form."]
["Coastal and Oceans Inc.","john@coastalandoceans.com",null,null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,"GeoForm","more glaciated coast GFC units",106,"Need more glaciated coast GFC units",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - ShoreZone",null,"Several glaciated coast units incorporated from URI and Shorezone project."]
["Coastal and Oceans Inc.","john@coastalandoceans.com",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Boundaries",null,null,"Wrack line should be our upper limit",107,"Wrack line should be our upper limit",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - ShoreZone",null,"The wrack line tends to reflect the limit of extreme events and not prevailing conditions.  The upper limit of splash zone is a more reliable boundary for supratidal communities."]
["Coastal and Oceans Inc.","john@coastalandoceans.com",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General",null,null,null,"SGC and GFC linkage",108,"What's linkage between SGC and GFC?  Common field needed",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - ShoreZone",null,"More explanatory text "]
["Coastal and Oceans Inc.","john@coastalandoceans.com",null,null,"SGC, SBC","Editorial","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Definition for stones?",109,"Definition for stones?",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - ShoreZone",null,"Stones have been removed from the classification."]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"upper and lower limits for brackish",110,"What are upper and lower limits for brackish?",null,"Personal communication via Humboldt pilot testing",null,"The term \"brackish\" has multiple meanings and so has been removed from the WC; it now appears only in the BC and refers to vegetation that has a tolerance to low salinity. The range that would correspond to brackish waters in the WC is the oligohaline, 0-5 psu.   "]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Implementation",null,null,"upper limit of tidal",111,"What is upper limit of tidal in eel river?",null,"Personal communication via Humboldt pilot testing",null,"As in all rivers, the upper limit of tidal influence is the point at which the tidal range is 0.2 feet as defined in the FGDC Shoreline standard."]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Coastal marsh isn't really coastal",112,"Coastal marsh isn't really coastal",null,"Personal communication via Humboldt pilot testing",null,"Term changed to emergent tidal marsh"]
["CA SeaGrant","annie_eicher@fws.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Editorial","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Define PSU",113,"PSUs?",null,"Personal communication via Humboldt pilot testing",null,"PSU was removed from units and described fully in text as to why they are unitless. "]
["NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office","jay.lazar@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC/Modifiers","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"How to capture veneers? ",114,"How to capture veneers?  Thin sediment layers that bury oyster reef or gravel over bedrock",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - Chesapeake Bay",null,"Veneers are now covered in the \"Layers\" Modifier."]
["NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office","jay.lazar@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, BBC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Linear class",115,"Need a class for linear?  Oyster reef beyond fringing",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - Chesapeake Bay",null,"Added Linear Reef to Mollusk"]
["NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office","jay.lazar@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"non-reef oyster in BBC",116,"Need non-reef oyster in BBC",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - Chesapeake Bay",null,"Done - See Faunal Bed  Attached Oyster Bed"]
["NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office","jay.lazar@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC. BBC","General","Scale",null,null,"percent cover",117,"percent cover should differentiate between 50/50 and salt and pepper (?)",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - Chesapeake Bay",null,"This proposal would substantially complicate CMECS, because percent cover is  the basis for many CMECS decisions, but would not necessarily provide any added ecological insight.         "]
["PhotoScience Inc.","reastlake@photoscience.com",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Scale",null,null,"minimum threshold for patchy",118,"No minimum threshold for patchy",null,"Summary of Informal Pilot Results - Humboldt Bay",null,"Patchy is defined where applicable but it is no longer in the modifiers for biotic. "]
["U.S. EPA","ferraro.steven@epa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,"All","Scientific basis for standard",119,"The pivotal issue, I believe, is whether or not the scientific evidence is sufficient to\nadopt the classification system proposed in the CMECS as a “standard.”\nAs I explain below, I don’t think it is since the ecological relevance\nof the vast majority of the units in the classification has not been\nempirically validated.\n",null,"Ferraro email 12/9/10",null,"By building on existing systems whenever possible, the CMECS team hopes to reflect ecological relevance already established by the research community.  Additionally, our knowledge of ecological relevance is in constant development.  The CMECS team feels that there is sufficient relevance for the units as proposed to advance this as a standard acknowledging that updates can and will be made as necessary."]
["U.S. EPA","ferraro.steven@epa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Appropriateness of ecological units to various applications",120,"An appropriate definition of an ecological unit will depend upon the\nepistemological purpose of the study (Jax 2006: Ecological units:\ndefinitions and applications. The Quarterly Review of Biology 81(3):\n237–258).  According to the CMECS (p. 8–9), a major aim is to provide\ncoastal and marine planners and managers with the information and tools\nneeded to make well-informed decisions about habitat conservation and\nresource management.  As explained in Section 1.2, to this end they need\nto know (1) “what is out there?” (“species,” “communities,” “ecosystems”\nand “potential resource units”), (2) “where it is located?” (e.g., maps\nof (1)), and (3) “what is its [the CMECS’s ecological units]\ncondition?”.   The CMECS addresses the question: “what is it?”, where\n“it” are the “ecological units,” e.g., systems (marine, estuarine and\nlacustrine) and habitats, in which the “what is out there” live.\nAccording to the CMECS (p. 8), (1), (2) and (3) are topics being covered\nin other documents in preparation.  To conclude that the classification\nscheme in the CMECS is appropriate for its intended purpose, therefore,\nrequires a leap of faith that the information in the three documents in\npreparation confirm that the ecological units proposed in the CMECS can\nbe accurately and reliably matched with associative biotopes (def.:\n“Repeatable and characteristic assemblages of organisms together with\nthe physical habitats that support their existence” CMECS, p. 144),\nmapped, and assessed with respect to condition.  \n",null,"Ferraro email 12/9/10",null,"While there will always be a need for further"]
["U.S. EPA","ferraro.steven@epa.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Implementation",null,null,"Scientific evidence for biotopes",123,"I will confine the remainder of my letter to the question of whether sufficient\nscientific evidence exists to link the CMECS ecological units to\nbiotypes.  Statements in the CMECS, for example: “…substantial\nadditional work is needed to better define the physical/biological\nassociations that constitute regularly occurring biotypes” and\n“[b]iotopes have not been well catalogued as of this writing” (CMECS, p.\n49), suggest that it does not.   My understanding of the state of the\nscience is that for the vast majority of the CMECS ecological units the\nscientific evidence is weak at best.\n",null,"Ferraro email 12/9/10",null,"Assume the reviewer means \"biotopes\" instead of \"biotypes.\"  The biotope oncept is well established in Europe and well cited in the document.  This standard is one that we believe will help direct data collection and the state of information in the future.  CMECS prescribes a clear path in the absence of these data.  - Other commenters affirmed this is the way to go.  We've been clear that we need additional work to get there - but we are well defended by the science .  Other commenters agreed with with our approach.   See Mark Costello's comments for some of them."]
["U.S. EPA","ferraro.steven@epa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Adoption of unvalidated terms from other standards",124,"CMECS adopts or modifies operational definitions of ecological units\nfrom other classification schemes that have not been empirically\nvalidated.  It is unwise and counterproductive to adopt an ecological\nclassification system as a standard before its ecological relevance has\nbeen validated.  In my opinion, the interests of coastal and marine\nplanners and managers and science are better served by limiting the\nscope of the CMECS to those ecological units for which associative\nbiotopes have been validated.  The CMECS could be updated as more\ninformation becomes available.\n",null,"Ferraro email 12/9/10",null,"The classification systems that CMECS builds on  (Cowardin, Folk, Wentworth, Greene, etc.) have been used successfully by researchers and coastal managers for many years and thus are validated by their continued successful use.  While specific lower-level units may change based on new knowledge.  The CMECS provides the structure and format for adding new units as they are verified by science.  The dynamic content standard allows for improving the standard as knew knowlege is generated through application of the methodlogy."]
["U.S. EPA","ferraro.steven@epa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,null,125,"Ecological classification standards have much practical utility.  Their\nimportance dictates that they are not based primarily on scientific\nintuition or scientific consensus both of which can be and often is\nwrong.  They should be based on sound scientific empirical evidence and\nvalidated before put in general use.  Ferraro and Cole (2010: Ecological\nperiodic tables for nekton usage of four US Pacific Northwest estuarine\nhabitats.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:\n1957–1967) – pdf file attached – is an example of the kind of evidence\nneeded to validate a habitat classification.\n",null,"Ferraro email 12/9/11",null,"We agree that ecological classification standards have great practicaility and should be based on sound scientific methods.  CMECS is a framework that  organizes and standardized the units that are necessary to help one understand important ecological relationships.  We acknowlege that quantitative data will better inform the classification, and the dynamic content standard will support this over time.  We disagree that we should wait to define units until ecological relationships are validated, because there is great need for standard nomenclature now.  "]
["U.S. EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","pg. 221","Fig.","BBC","Editorial",null,null,"Appendix I","Secondary elements?",126,"He has caught us with sloppiness also in the labelling of the Fig on page 221, which we will need to fix.  That should I think be a \"Secondary Elements\" case, but the explanation of these gets lost where it is at the tail end of the Modifiers chapter.",null,"Cicchetti Email 11/17/10",null,"Co-occurring elements is now more fully addressed in the document as a modifier and in the section on mapping with CMECS"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"WCC hierarchy?",127,"We need to discuss whether the various subcomponents of the WCC  should be hierarchical.  This means asking the question “Do the levels above create splits in the units below that are ecologically meaningful?  For example. ... Should hydroforms that occur across several depth thresholds be split into different units?  Are jelly fish aggregations in different hydroforms or that occur at different depths considered different units – even if they are the same genera or species?   Do these things ever occur?  ","We should try to ask as many of these types of questions as possible to try to “break” the notion of hierarchy.  If it holds, great.  If not, we should consider alternatives to a hierarchical arrangement…..","Goodin Email 11/4/10",null,"Subcomponents have been clarified.  and in beginnings of each section."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Waves?",128,"CMECS only considers surface waves generated by wind or seismic energy. Some studies suggest habitat sites with waves generated by boating or human activities. ",null,"Goodin Email 11/4/10",null,"These types have been added."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Volcanic Ash substrate",129,"CMECS has no subclass for volcanic ashes which we think should be added to the Unconsolidated Bottom class",null,"Goodin Email 11/4/10",null,"Volcanic Ash is now included as a \"Surface Features\" modifier to Geologic Substrate."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Biotic Groups/Biotopes",null,"Duplicate names and database search functionality",130,"Duplicate unit names in BBC","Proposed new BBC units","Duplicate unit names_more.xls attached to email 11/18/10",null,"These have been cleaned up"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Duplicate names",131,"Duplicate units in WCC","Proposed new WCC subform names","Duplicate unit names_more-3.xls attached to email 11/18/10",null,"Duplicates have been removed or renamed."]
["EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC, WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Duplicate names",132,"I can see where a full listing of level-plus-classifiers is helpful and am with Garry on putting the level first, to follow biotic taxonomies.  But, on formally including the names of the levels except in certain circumstances, I think I am with Larry - that maybe we don't usually need to be so formal about it, but that we must then eliminate duplicated classifier names.  Looking back through the document, level names are used throughout, both before and after the classifiers (or are not used), in ways that sound good and are understandable.  It would be a significant rewrite and I think would make the document read less smoothly if we were to force the level name in with the classifier name (either before or after) in each case.  Or maybe thats not what we are talking about?",null,null,null,"Agreed. The names of units have been streamlined."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,"Appendix C and Section 5","New Seagrass Biotope",133,null,"New Biotic group =  Ruppia maritima-Zannichellia palustris seagrass bed","Goodin email 11/18/10",null,"Added."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","Hierachy",null,null,134,null,"the Reef Morphologies are not assigned to specific SGC subclasses.  Does anyone have the know-how to create a table of all of the Reef Morphologies that to with each of the SGC Coral Subclasses","Goodin email 11/18/10",null,"Reef mporphologies are now in the GC and reef zones are a specific modifier."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Editorial","Consistency",null,"Appendix I and Section 9","Mismatch between  appendix I and section 9 ",135,"Mismatch between modifiers in appendix and text",null,null,null,"Omitted the appendix and now have a list of the modifiers at the beginning of the chapter. "]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"GFC","Editorial","Units/Definitions","Nomenclature","Section 7","Name change for GFC",136,"Consider a name change to something like \"Non-living Structural Forms/Substrates\" (or something similar) ",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"Descriptive text in the GC makes it clear that structural forms are the focus of this component.  "]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"Section 7","Reorganization of GFC",137,"Make this component semi-hierarchical, as appropriate. ",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"The subcomponent concept and a loose spatial hieracy have been added to satisfy this."]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"Section 7","Reorganization of GFC",138,"Take 'sub-form' out of the 7 geoform categories currently listed","The other 6 could be the top/broad level of the hierarchy.","Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"Subform as described in version 3.1 has been removed."]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"Section 7","Reorganization of GFC",139,"The 2nd level could be called 'sub-form' and could include reefs",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"Reef morphologies now captured as biogenic geoforms."]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"GFC, SGC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"Section 7","Reorganization of GFC",140,"The 3rd level could include reef morphology and SGC class and subclass (the detail as far as as % grain size composition, etc. can be captured in the surface layer of the SBC). ",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"Grain size and substrate composition captured in the SC."]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","Nomenclature","Section 6","rename SBC",141,"There may also be a better name for the SBC. 'Sub' doesn't really intuitively go w/ inclusion of the 'surface' layer. I was circling around the idea of 'vertical sediment component,' but am not sure about it. ",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"The SBC has been removed, solving this problem"]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"GFC, BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,null,142,"These  changes would help reduce any overlap or redundancy between components. I think these changes would also help clear up that reefs in the 'new' GFC are non-living structures and that the BBC includes info on living organisms. The way it is right now w/ the SGC and BBC is likely to be confusing to some users. It is explained in detail in multiple place, which can sometimes contribute to confusion. I understand what is meant, as, I'm sure, do other people very familiar with CMECS development, but I do think there is a more streamlined way to do this and have a format useful for the more 'casual' CMECS user. ",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"In version 4 the shape of the reefs is in the GC, the composition of the reef is in the SC, and any living coral is reflected in the BC.  Each component is exclusive of the other but all can be used together to fully describe a reef."]
["URI","guarinel@umces.edu",null,null,"All","Editorial",null,null,"Appendix ","More information on example photos",143,"A small note about the examples in the appendices. It is clear to me that only the components that can be classified from the image provided have been classified. However this should be stated somewhere and I don't believe it is intuitive. Also it seems to me that just knowing where the sample/image is from or being albe to locate it on general maps, like the ecoregion one, provides knowledge that should be classified as well. For example there is one from Cape Cod, MA, yet the coastal region is not stated. The coastal region and physiographic province should be classified when easily determinable. I think we could expect that the average CMECS users would know that info or could easily determine it and include it in the classification.  To my mind if the idea of just classifying based on the provided image is to be used, then the location of that picture should not be included. [Also just noticed for the RI examples the physiographic province is given as Northeast, but should be 'coast.' The Northeast part should be in the 'coastal region' category.] ",null,"Guarinello email 12/6/10",null,"The example photos are presented to demonstrate how the user can use those CMECS units which their observational method allows and are not required to speculate about units or components beyond what their data supports.  Nevertheless the developers to encourage users to report on as many CMECS units as possible."]
["NGDC","susan.mclean@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Sediments",null,"Removal of subaqueous soils",144,"While excellent and well done in most areas, the marine geology community started contacting NGDC two weeks ago with objections to the standard in terms of the marine sediment classification component, which is based on the (dry land) Soil Data Standard.  The USGS, Marine Core Curators, International curators, and the vast majority of Academia use Udden-Wentworth classification (Wentworth, 1922) for grain size (gravel, sand, silt, clay).  This includes the NOAA Index to Marine & Lacustrine Geological Samples (Core Curators NSF-funded ~25 participating institutions US and International) and the Marine Geology Inventory at NGDC.  Adopting CMECS with the current extension of the dry land classification into the underwater environment puts virtually all of the existing marine geology and sediment databases in conflict with the \"standard\" and leads to certain confusion in terms of what is silt/sand/mud etc.","Follow Wentworth on sediment thresholds","McLean/Lavoi email 12/14/10",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical",null,null,"3.1.1","non-enclosed streams and rivers",145,"3.1.1 Marine definition needs to clarify what happens to streams and rivers that flow to the ocean but are not enclosed.  They aren’t estuaries, but they do have freshwater influxes.  This would have been in Freshwater Influenced previously and doesn’t seem to be anywhere now.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Marine with Freshwater modifier"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,"Figure 4","System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","Tidal Zone",null,"Add a Tidal Zone level",146,"Figure 4.  Doesn’t match descriptions in 3.2.1.  Suggest adding a level called “Tidal Zone” under Subsystem that lumps the Nearshore Subtidal, Nearshore Intertidal and Nearshore Supratidal that is described in 3.2.1.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Done."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Riverine, System",null,"Add a Riverine System",147,"I propose that you add a new Subsystem called “Riverine” that is equivalent to the Cowardin Riverine system.  This will allow Estuary definition to remain the same as Cowardin’s and provide users that are interested in head of tide for their studies to include this region in their study.  It wouldn’t all be called “Estuary”, but it would provide the users with the ability to include it in their studies.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"This Riverine System is defined in Cowardin but is not a part of the CMECS domain. It is referenced in CMECS to provide context for the other Systems."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Riverine, System",null,"Subdividing the Riverine System",148,"If you add the Riverine System, then it would be consistent to have two subsystems – Deep Water and Shallow Water and they would be consistent with the rest of the subsystems.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"This Riverine System is defined in Cowardin but is not a part of the CMECS domain. It is referenced in CMECS to provide context for the other Systems."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,"Figures 5, 23 & 24","WCC, System/Subsystem","Editorial",{"$nulls":4},149,"Figure 5 is very similar to the figures 23 and 24 in the WCC.  I think you should pick one style and modify it to work for both purposes.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Figures 23 and 24 were removed."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Unconsolidated, sediments",null,"Remove dichotomy between grain size thresholds",150,"The unconsolidated substrate solution is unworkable.  It is trying to make two constituencies happy, but will now result in a product that can be rolled up across studies.  It also has different levels of units in the two solutions, making database applications very difficult.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954).  This unifies the unconsolidated substrate and follows a clear logical path (Folk)."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Unconsolidated sediments, grain size",null,"Modifiers for grain size as in Cowardin",151,"Suggest the following,  using the Cowardin classifiers as modifiers. ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Now that Soils and the Sub-benthic  component of CMECS have been replaced  with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954), the use of Cowardin classifiers as modifiers is probably not necessary.  CMECS users who also favor Cowardin can use Cowardin in addition to CMECS."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Reef, form, ",null,"Move Reef morphologies to GFC",152,"The Coral Reef Subclasses appear to be defined by shape/form not by substrate.  These should be placed in the GFC and new, perhaps significantly more simple, Reef subclasses added based on substrate.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Coral substrate now in SC and shape in GC, living coral communities in BC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reef, substrate, form",null,"Overlap between reef morphologies and substrates",153,"There is potentially confusing overlap and lack of mutual exclusivity in several of the Reef Morphology values including Unconsolidated Bottom with Scattered Coral/Rock, Unconsolidated Sand, and Unconsolidated Mud, Uncosolidated Coral/Shell.  These classes aren’t needed in Reef Morphology  - they aren’t based on shape.  This is an application issue.  Users just need to be instructed about how to use the different components for their purposes",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Unconsolidated bottom with scattered coral rock removed from GC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Reef, ",null,"Rename and move faunal reef structural elements",154,"Likewise, the Faunal Reefs (consider changing the name to Non-Coral Reef) are defined as “extensive structural substrate…” suggesting it is better held in the GFC.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Faunal Reef morphologies now in GC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Names",null,"Duplicate names ",155,"There are multiple duplicate names that need to be made unique – including Coral Garden, Rhodolith Beds, and  Ophiurids.  SEE TABLE IN COMMENT DOCUMENT",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Addressed - All names should now be unique.  We modified similar names based to distinguish which part of the hierarchy they occur in. "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Boundaries","Tidal Freshwater, vegetation",null,"Need tidal freshwater vegetation units from NVC",156,"If the Estuarine system goes to the “head of tide” significant freshwater tidal vegetated communities will need to be included.  Either include them, or consider excluding Emergent Vegetation from CMECS and referring users to the NVC for Emergent Veg.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"NVC freshwater types added"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Implementation","Units, implementation",null,"Remove \"no known cover\"",157,"Class “ No Known Cover” is not a classification unit, it is a mapping convention and should not be included as a unit.   Consider putting this as a suggestion in the Mapping Applications section in order to keep the classification clean.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"This is a mapping convention and has been removed. "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Editorial",null,"Biotic Group, biotope",null,"Clarify redundant text in biotic group and biotope",158,"Biotic Group and Biotope discussion seems somewhat long and redundant in areas.  Simplify text.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"SBC, SGC","Editorial","Consistency","Consistency",null,"Consistency between SGC and SBC",159,"Make sure this is consistent with SGC changes that get made.  See above for suggestions for surface layer.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"All revisions are double-checked, and the Surface Layer concept has been removed from CMECS SC."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Coastal region",null,"Modify coastal region structure",160,"Coastal Region is redundant with the Ecoregion modifier and does not belong in the GFC as developed.  The proposed regions are really physiographically developed terrestrial landscape units.  It’s a mismatch.  The ecoregion modifier was developed for this purpose and more appropriate here.  I would not constrain users with this as an upper level because it suggests that units below are unique in each of the different regions.  Not a particularly robust hypothesis.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Coastal Region removed from GC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Coastal region",null,"Remove or update Alaska regions",161,"The Alaska regions are derived from an outdated and unused classification.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Coastal Region removed from GC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Subcomponent, hierarchy",null,"Apply subcomponent nomenclature to other components",162,"Should consider adding the concept of “Subcomponents” for all components that contain non-hierarchical units.  In the case of the GFC, Physiographic Setting, and Geoform would be “subcomponents” of the GFC.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Subcomponent concept applied in GC and WC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Units/Definitions","Zone, tidal, depth",null,"Remove confusion around use of zone in WCC",163,"Clean up confused concepts of depth zones, tidal zones and other zones like pycnoclines that are described in text, but not formal zones.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"This has been done. Ambiguous uses of the term \"zone\" have been clarified and only apply to tidal zones."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Coastal Geoforms, Marine Geoforms, anthropogenic, ",null,null,164,"Consider consolidating Anthropogenic, Coastal, and Marine geoforms into “Geoform”  Each can then have a  data tag as to whether it can be coastal, marine, or anthropogenic.  Makes it all cleaner and doesn’t constrain the situation where a geoform is both coastal and marine or coastal and anthropogenic (like a dock).",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Coastal and Marine distinction in GC removed.  Anthropogenic remains"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC, SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reef morphologies",null,"Different definitions of lagoon",165,"Lagoon is in GFC and SGC with different definitions.  Move  SGC to GFC to sort this out.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Lagoon in GC now based on its shape.  No longer in SC"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Subforms",null,"Subforms as modifiers",166,"Either develop a consistent set of subforms as classifiers or as modifiers.  The current incomplete list is problematic.  I recommend making subforms modifiers",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"The WC has been organized and complete lists of modifiers and  subforms have been developed."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Subform, Biotic Group, biotope",null,"Determine hierarchy in WCC levels",167,"It is unclear whether the WCC should be hierarchical (i.e.  System, Subsystem,  Depth Zone, Hydroform, Biotic Group, Biotope) or whether these should each be separate subcomponents that can be analyzed independently.  I’m not convinced that every jelly fish aggregation in a different type of hydroform is really a different Biotic Group (especially if they are the same species or genus).  That might cause a lot of unnecessary splitting.    I recommend keeping them as separate subcomponents until there is further research to warrant the hierarchical arrangement of this component.  Hydroforms and subforms should be hierarchical, and biotic groups an biotopes should be hierarchical, but the rest should stay separate.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Done as described in comment 408."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Editorial","Structure/Hierarchy","Organization, structure",null,"Reorganize modifiers",168,"Organize modifiers according to their concept, not alphabetically.  It’s confusing to have closely related modifiers spread all over this section.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"The modifier chapter has been reorganized by type."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Editorial","Units/Definitions","Slope, units, ",null,"Consistent slope units",169,"Use consistent slope measures throughout (decide on % or degrees and be consistent).",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Done.  Slope is now reported in degrees."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","Editorial","Mixes/Thresholds","Percent cover, ranges",null,"Consistent percent cover ranges",170,"Check percentage cover Range values to ensure that they are consistent with cover cut offs made throughout the document.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Modified cover scale to a 11 point scale. "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,"Table 15","Modifiers","Editorial","Units/Definitions","Megafauna",null,"Review whats meant by megafauna",171,"Table 15.  Seems strange to “Large Megafauna” as small as 3cm.  To me a tiger is large megafauna.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Name changed to Invertebrate Community Organism Size"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Secondary elements",null,"Separate chapter for secondary elements",172,"“Secondary Elements” should be it’s own chapter or placed in the Applications section.  It gets lost here in the modifiers section.  It’s really a mapping issue, I think",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Section on co-occurring elements more prominent in the modifier chapter now."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Spatial overlap, mapping",null,"Biotic group physical overlap",173,"It’s very confusing to say that “two biotic groups are present in the same physical location”  I think this is a n issue of scale and mapping convention as well.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"This language was deleted.."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Editorial","Consistency","Consistency","Appendices","Text/Appendix inconsistencies",174,"Many inconsistencies between text and appendices.  Make sure to comb through after text is complete.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Technical and grammatical editing have been done to remove these inconsistencies."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Consistency","Appendix J","GFC/Appendix inconsistencies",175,"Appendix G, while informative, suggested that the estuary types are part of the GFC, but they aren’t listed in the GFC consistently.  It’s confusing why these are here.  Seems like apples and oranges – it’s another type of classification at a more macro scale.  Needs to either be integrated better, explained how it is different and how it can be used, or deleted.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Estuary types have been fully integrated into the GC and this appendix has been deleted."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"Sytstem/Subsystem, SGC, BBC","Editorial","Implementation","Comparability, Cowardin","Appendix J","Cowardin crosswalk differences",176,"Crosswalk to Cowardin needs to clarify the subtle differences between the two.   Like the Head of Tide issue in Estuarine.",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"These issues were clarified either in the crosswalk or in the introductory text in section 1. 5"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","Editorial","Implementation","Examples","Appendix L","Illustrative examples Good",177,"LOVE the Example Photos.  Very illustrative and useful.  ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Additional photo examples are planned for a CMECS website which will be updated on an ongoing basis."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC, SGC","General","Implementation","Examples","Appendix L","Reefs to GFC",178,"Examples – The Garden Eel communities demonstrates why reefs need to be put in the GFC (I know it causes a hierarchy problem, but I think we can deal with that.  That’s unconsolidated sand (substrate) in a reef flat setting – i.e a geoform.   ",null,"KG_CMECS_Comment_Summary.docx attached to email 11/3/2010",null,"Reef mporphologies now in GC."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Adoption, implementation",null,"Concerns with this standard",180,"The team expresses reservations in recommending the implementation of CMECS as a mandatory standard at this time because of concerns regarding unknown scientific implications. The implications of applying this standard in terms of the reliability, precision, accuracy, and resolution of habitat science remain to be fully tested. The HAIP team is supportive of a trial period in which further testing could be done to: 1) Identify necessary changes to CMECS; 2) Develop the process for the acceptance of new categories; 3) Implement CMECS as a non-mandatory standard to build acceptance and familiarity amongst habitat scientists; and 4) Develop mechanisms for translating data from other standards in order to minimize transition costs. The HAIP team also recommends that if CMECS is implemented, that the mandatory requirement applies only to broader categories (e.g. class) to minimize improper classification.",null,null,null,"The proposals by HAIP regarding further testing, a process for revision, and guidance for implementation are key elements of the CMECS maintenance plan in development.  The CMECS development team feels that there has been sufficient pilot testing (over 20 studies) to advance version 4 of CMECS as an FGDC standard, especially based on it's incorporation of several successful existing systems.  "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Units/Definitions","Bins, habitat units",null,"Concerns with bins and gradations",181,"There were several overarching concerns with the CMECS scheme. The first is that habitats don’t necessarily fit into clearly defined bins; there are continuous gradations between physical, chemical, and biological components and this information may be lost by forcing them into a particular category. For example, how would data on temperature, dissolved oxygen, or light penetration be represented in the CMECS scheme? ",null,null,null,"More text discussing gradations and transitions between units?"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Dynamics","Temporal, dynamic",null,"Impact of temporal change",182,"The second is that temporal changes may have significant impacts on habitat at multiple time scales. Whether the changes are due to tidal fluctuations, seasonality, land use change, or global warming, the classification given to a particular location may be affected by the dynamic nature of habitat. Examples might include temporal changes such as oxygen fluctuations, water depth, and community composition. ",null,null,null,"More text explaining how we approach temporal phenomena"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Scale","Spatial, resolution,",null,"Unrsolved spatial resolution",183,"Third, the question of spatial resolution is unresolved. It is unclear whether a location would be classified similarly when classified at the scales varying from centimeters to kilometers. ",null,null,null,"The spatial resolution has been left for the user to determine based on project needs.  CMECS allows the use of co-occurring elements when an observation contains multiple units."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Flexibility",null,"Flexibility for crosswalkers",184,"Enhanced flexibility in the standard is important . ",null,null,null,"Flexibility is provided through the use of modifiers, and the ability to add additional comment information.  Longer range flexibility is provided through the maintenance and update process"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Testing",null,"Need for more testing",185,"There is a strong need for more testing. One question that should be addressed is consistency among different scientists, during different seasons, and using any of the common tools available.  ","The HAIP team proposes more rigorous testing of the comparability of CMECS data products across scientists, techniques, scales, and regions. In order for users to have confidence in other scientists’ application of the classification, as well as their own application, a test should be run to identify classification consistency amongst scientists. Such a test could provide a group of habitat scientists with pictures and/or other information on habitats at various scales, and ask that they classify them down to the lowest CMECS order (e.g. biotope, subform). A possible performance measure could be the average percent agreement with the remaining scientists for that category. By investigating the assumed decrease in classification agreement at the lower levels of the scheme, the CMECS team could provide users with conclusions on the reliability of CMECS at various levels. This information could be used to inform a required minimum classification (e.g. “To comply with CMECS, users must classify habitats to at least subclass in each category”) and to inform scientists as they compare data across scientists. A similar test could be used to investigate the effects of scale, techniques, and regions.",null,null,"Further piloting of CMECS is desired and anticipated.  The results of these pilots will inform future updates."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Applications",null,"Applicability to various needs",186,"Another major question is usefulness of the system for users in answering their specific question(s), as many have modified or generated habitat classification systems to meet these needs. ",null,null,null,"The hierarchical structure of CMECS should allow users to apply very general or specific units based on their needs.  Cross-walks have demonstrated general success in translating from existing classifications.  "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC, Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Anthropogenic, wetland",null,"Impounded wetlands",191,"“Impounded” wetlands may not fit into any category well.",null,null,null,"Impounded' is a value in the anthropogenic impact modifier."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,null,1.1000000000000001,"Rationale for standard needs better justification",201,"The rationale and the need for such a classification should be more clearly stated in the Introduction.  The first two sentences of Section 1.1 are not convincing in this regard. Approaches might include 1) a brief discussion of the value and use of other classification systems (e.g., the Cowardin Classification) and 2) a discussion of what bad things happen when you don't have such a classification.  There also are reasons why such a broad classification has not been attempted, and a thorough discussion of these is warranted in the Introduction.  In addition, this document proposes to add bureaucracy (CMECS Review Board) and budget requirements for NOAA (page 136), making it especially important to justify the need for such a classification standard. ",null,null,null,"Section 1.1 was rewritten to clarify and strengthen the need (now section 1.2).  "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","Page 9-10",null,"All","Editorial","Consistency",null,1.4,null,203,"One place where the metric standard was not followed due to a quote.  Also should the Standard to be only metric or are standard units also acceptable?",null,null,null,"We  converted all units to metric except when referencing an existing federal standard or quote.  We provide metric conversions for these as practicle. "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 131",null,"Modifiers","Editorial",{"$nulls":4},204,"One paragraph on turbidity is repeated.",null,null,null,"Repeated paragraph was deleted."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Adoption timeframe",205,"I would not recommend that this classification system be proposed as a FGDC standard at this time, where compliance will be forced.  My recommendation would be to have the scheme reviewed thoroughly, perhaps simplify the classification to include fewer levels, and publish it as a suggested approach.  Let the scientific community decide whether it is useful as a classification scheme before making it a FGDC standard.",null,null,null,"CMECS has been reviewed and piloted thoroughly over it's development process.   Revisions necessary after adoption as an FGDC standard will be made thorugh the maintenance process."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Application beyond nomenclature",206,"I do not recommend adopting CMECS as a mandatory standard for characterizing, sampling, inventorying, and mapping all recognized marine ecological units. I do believe CMECS could perhaps facilitate communication as official habitat-related nomenclature.  If CMECS's reach goes beyond simple nomenclature, then I think we need to be proceed very carefully and consider all the ramifications.",null,null,null,"Although one of the benefits of CMECS is a common nomenclature, it has already demonstrated value as a mapping scheme."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,null,null,"Approach is useful",207,"In principle, this approach is useful. ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC, SBC, System/Subsystem","General",null,null,null,"Alignment with other FGDC standards",208,"I applaud the efforts of the CMECS working group to align the CMECS classifications with existing FGDC standards (wetland, upland, etc.)",null,null,null,"Acknowledged"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Comparabiity to other systems",209,"CMECS has been in development for about 15 years.  In earliest stages, staff including Becky Allee reviewed other international standardized classification systems, such as EUNIS.  That was smart.  It now would be advisable to evaluate (probably already done) how comparable the current version of CMECS is with other well-known well-used habitat classification systems. From what I know, CMECS is indeed very similar to other systems (again like EUNIS), and this would promote a more global and ecosystem approach to habitat classification and spatial management. That should be a strong selling point to mgrs and scientists. ",null,null,null,"The adoption of existing systems whenever possible and successful pilot testing support this observation."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Application beyone US waters",210,"The supporting materials mention that although CMECS was developed for the U.S., it is applicable world-wide; however, this was not discussed in the document. How applicable is it outside of the U.S.? How well does it integrate with existing global marine classification standards? Will adoption of CMECS as an FGDC standard have any implications for international collaborations?",null,null,null,"Although developed primarily based on U.S. systems CMECS is applicable internationally and has been recommended as the classification standard by the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN)"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Comparabiity to other systems",211,"Some additional information about other existing classification standards in use in the U.S. and how they relate to CMECS would be useful. i.e. How much overlap/differences are there? How difficult would it be to cross-walk CMECS with other standards? Why is CMECS preferable to other standards?",null,null,null,"An example cross-walk between CMECS and the FGDC wetland classification standard (Cowardin) is included in the document.  Further examples will be posted on the CMECS web site."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 10, P. 13, P. 135",null,"All, BBC","General","Implementation",null,"1.4, 1.6, 10","Updating dynamic content",212,"More information is needed on the process for adding classifications to the CMECS structure. This process is not yet fully defined, but additional details should be made available before moving forward. For instance, what is \"a reasonable time frame\"? At this point the process is too open-ended to garner much support from people that will likely be affected by adoption of CMECS by the FGDC. Every effort should be made to streamline this process as much as possible to prevent missing classifications from delaying projects or data integration.",null,null,null,"A general maintenance plan for CMECS is presented in the document.  A more fully developed plan with full details and a process for suggesting revisions will be completed in 2012 and will be available via the web."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,1,"Implication that CMECS implies a methodology",213,"I have been assured that the CMECS standard was intended to establish standard nomenclature and not to impose a single method for describing/characterizing habitat.  (I think the Introduction reads differently.)  ",null,null,null,"We are not certain what the reviewer means by \"imposing a single method for describing/charactizing habitat,\" but CMECS provides standard names and definitions for all units and is intended to be flexible and support a number of sampling and mapping applications.   We believe this is now clear in the guiding principles.  "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,null,null,"Need for classification ",214,"A classification standard is needed. ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Flexibility and ability to incorporate exceptions",215,"To encourage and facilitate widespread acceptance and adoption of the standard, enhanced flexibility is key, as is a clear mechanism to deal with exceptions. ",null,null,null,"Flexibility is provided through the use of modifiers, and the ability to add additional comment information.  Longer range flexibility is provided through the maintenance and update process"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"Techncial","General","Implementation",null,null,"Testing needed",216,"If it has not already been done, I suggest that a test be developed to determine whether CMECS operators consistently classify geographic areas in the same way.  Over different strata, randomly selected locations should be given to different scientists for classification.  The time of year and the spatial resolution of imagery should be varied as well.  If the researchers do not classify the areas similarly, the system should be changed.",null,null,null,"This is an idea with merit but is best pursued in the context of implementation guidance. Although there will always be individual variation in any two mapping efforts, the units have been used effectively by researchers and managers for some time without this being an undue hinderance.  The unit definitions should be unique enough to keep individual interpretation difference to a minimal level."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,null,null,"Standard needed",217,"The need for a standardized classification system has been recognized for some time, and many iterations have been suggested. Widespread acceptance and implementation have not been forthcoming. ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged; however, acceptance is increasing quickly as the standard has developed and been demonstrated."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Habitats do not follow unit boundaries",218,"The primary deficiency is fundamental - the suite of (a)biotic factors that comprise habitats vary continuously and thus do not reduce to discrete classes without unnecessarily compromising the information content (utility) of the data.  As such, habitat classes are not particularly useful to the process of refining Essential Fish Habitat descriptions when individual species occupy multiple habitat types and each habitat type is occupied by multiple species.   I also think that boundaries associated with classification schemes are artificial, important variability within classes is obscured and, as a result, classifications do not adequately represent the continuous nature of environmental variability (and the associated responses by fish). \n\n In particular, would CMECS be sufficient to characterize the relatively subtle environmental variability underlying complex spatial/temporal variability of fish/inverts in the uniformly \"cold, shallow, sandy, high-energy\" (admittedly simplified) Bering Sea or the similarly \"uniform\" Middle Atlantic Bight?",null,null,null,"Acknowledging that habitats are variable and consist of biotic and abiotic elements, CMECS, unlike most classification systems includes both biotic and abiotic units from which habitats (biotopes) can be assembled.  CMECS units and observations are considered a snapshot-in-time and through repeated observations trend information can be developed.  Although any classification system imposes somewhat artificial boundaries, CMECS units do represent coherent landscape elements that are useful for habitat characterization work."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Scale",null,null,"Spatial resolution issues unresolved",219,"It is not clear how the problem of spatial resolution (e.g., the power of ten) will affect habitat classification with this system.  For example, 1 ha of salt marsh seen from a satellite may appear as solid marsh.  As you get closer, the marsh is seen to be a complex of water and vegetated substrate.  Getting closer yet, you may classify the habitat as unvegetated substrate (between vegetation stems).  ","CMECS should be more specific about how the spatial resolution of an observation is considered in the classification of habitats",null,null,"Because spatial scale/resolution is not explicit in CMECS users are free to apply whatever resolution is appropriate for their project.  Acknowledging that certin features will become visible as scale changes, The different levels of the CMECS structure acccomodate those features.   It is important for data sharing that researchers doucment the scale at which they are working in their project metadata."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"All","General","Dynamics",null,null,"Temporal variability",220,"Habitats need to be fixed spatially, and characterizing them based on things that change over time (e.g., motile organisms, water temperature, or current speeds) is obviously a problem.  It was not clear to me how this temporal variability would affect habitat classifications using CMECS.  How is the time that the observation is taken considered? It is difficult to immediately see the benefit of classifying the water column for some of the reasons stated above with regard to the lack of mutually exclusive categories and temporally changing characteristics.",null,null,null,"By following the snap-shot-in-time approach users can record useful information for a single observation and use the Temporal Persistence modifier to add information on how quickly that observation is likely to change.   Users should also record the time and duration of any observation to enhance the useability of their data."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","p. 121","Table 16","Modifiers","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Oxygen classification",221,"The oxygen classification (Page 121-122) used as a modifier for the water column could be misleading. There needs to be some recognition that dissolved oxygen levels naturally change in a dramatic way over daily time scales in systems such as estuaries.  They easily and often go from hypoxic at night to saturated during the day.  In addition, I thought that hypoxia was generally recognized to occur below 2 ppm (mg/L) rather than 4 ppm as indicated here in Table 16.  ",null,null,null,"This clarifying language was added to the text. Hypoxic was split into two categories; hypoxic < 4 and severely hypoxic < 2."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 15-18",null,"All","General",null,null,null,"Need to discuss change (climate)",222,"Recommend more discussion of looking forward to how important drivers like climate change and anthropogenic modifications may shift units from one classification to another. This was covered to a very limited extent.",null,null,null,"The intent of this document is to define the units.  Discussions on condition and variability due to human impacts is beyond the scope of this document. "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 131, for example",null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Compatibility with various equpment",223,"In several places, the document states that the CMECS structure is compatible with a variety of sampling methods and observational tools. If CMECS if going to be adopted as a national standard, flexibility to accommodate a range of sampling gears will be necessary. However, it appears that in some cases this flexibility does not exist within the current CMECS structure. For example, modifiers for turbidity are classified using Secchi disk depths (a cheap and easy way to measure turbidity, but certainly not the only, or best, way). Although modifying the classifications to encompass a range of data acquisition technologies is not simple (how to ensure data is comparable?), this will make CMECS more applicable and easier to adopt.",null,null,null,"CMECS has sought to avoid tying observational units to a technology unless it is widely used and technically sound.  In some cases this has been necessary.  Implementation guidance on translating observations from one technology to another often already exist and if necessary additional ones will be developed and included in subsequent implementation documents."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 131",null,"Modifiers","Technical","Implementation",null,null,"Turbidity measurement",224,"The classification of water turbidity using a Secchi disk is troubling.  In addition to turbidity, Secchi disk readings are dependent on the observer's eyesight, the sea state, the sun angle, the cloud cover, and the time of day.  Turbidity needs to be measured with a transmissometer or nephelometer.  ",null,null,null,"Added a statement recognizing that NTU is frequently used, but they are difficult to standardize nationally because of regional variability in background measures. "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Estuarine definition",225,"For practical purposes, the definition of an estuarine area is a problem. The CMECS definition is from the head of tide (where the mean range is less than 0.2 ft) to an imaginary line closing the mouth of the estuary.  In many locations this imaginary line is so arbitrary or temporally unstable that huge discrepancies can occur in defining the estuary.  In addition, I assume that tidal range refers to daily mean range (seasonal tidal ranges can be much different), but the location of this point is difficult or impossible to determine.  Therefore, the spatial area of any estuary will be unclear.",null,null,null,"There is some subjectivity in the delineation of the downstream boundary of the estuarine system, but this is a practical and easy to apply boundary.  Any differences will not be ecologically meaningful.  The upstream boundary has been calculated into the upstream boundary of the NOAA national shoreline and is a fixed line.    These boundaries are consistent with FGDC Standards 001.2 and 004."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Editorial","Consistency",null,"Appendix I & J","Building off Cowardin ",226,"The Benthic Biotic Component (BBC) still needs some improvement.  In several places in the text (pgs. 10, 40), the document indicates that departures from the Cowardin Classification are discussed in Appendix I, but this appears incorrect and should be Appendix J.   ",null,null,null,"Done"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,null,227,"Within the BBC, the Classes and Subclasses seem reasonable",null,null,null,"Nice to hear."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","p. 39",null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Mutual exclusivity of lower units",228,"but identifying lower groups (biotic groups and biotopes) seems problematic.  I can envision habitat types easily and legitimately being classified into several different of these subgroups because the criteria identifying the subgroups are not mutually exclusive.  Some additional thought should be given to the confusion that may result when this happens",null,null,null,"These should all be mutually exclusive now.  If not, then the biotic community is unique if it occurs in multiple classes or subclasses. "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","p. 14",null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Component structure good",229,"I liked the idea of classifying habitats through five generally independent components and then combining these to provide additional information.  ",null,null,null,"This approach gives users maximum flexibility to record features of interest but not be constrained by landscape elements they cannot detect."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","p. 14",null,"BBC, WCC","General","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Excessive detail ",230,"The detail in the classification, however, seems excessive in the Benthic Biotic Component and the Water Column Component.  Because of this detail, I could easily see different people classifying areas differently which is a problem.",null,null,null,"We don't agree that detailed description and definition of the units would cause inconsistent classification.  Definitions have been crafted to make units mutually exclusive. "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","p. 23",null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Boundaries",null,null,"Estuarine depth level",231,"In the Estuarine Subsystem, the arbitrary distinction at 4 m water depth between shallow and deep water may cause problems in some systems.  First, this water depth needs to be set at some tidal datum, because many areas easily have a 4 m tidal range.  Second, highly turbid estuaries may well have an aphotic zone in waters much less than 4 m deep.  Similarly, the water column break at 4 m depth seems arbitrary.",null,null,null,"Although any depth cut-off will be somewhat subjective, the -4m line was agreed to by a inter-disciplinary team of scientists seeking a line that met most research and management needs."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Impounded wetlands",232,"In addition, I could not determine how you would classify impounded wetlands.  In Louisiana for example, there are millions of acres of wetlands that are impounded (i.e., have a restricted tidal connection) either manually or naturally.",null,null,null,"Use \"Impounded\" Anthro Impact modifier"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Philosophy/Approach",null,null,"Vegetative cover and dominance",235,"Vegetative cover has been historically used to define dominance in a habitat, but the measurement of this variable is not always straightforward and it should be defined clearly in the document.  In addition, some consideration should be given to whether this measure of vegetation is the one that best describes the plant function for other organisms.  As an example, when nekton use submerged or emergent wetland habitats, a broad leafed plant with low stem density but a high percent cover may not provide important functions.  In contrast, a narrow leafed plant with high stem density and low cover may provide more protective structure from predators and more stem surface area important for feeding.",null,null,null,"Purpose of CMECS is not to show function – we need to defer to NVC methods for vegetation – which are based on percent cover estimates."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 36, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2",null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Platy hermatypic corals",236,"black corals, sea fans, and sponges should be included with \"platy hermatypic corals\" ",null,null,null,"See \"Colonized shallow and mesophytic reef."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 36, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2",null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Coral nomenclature",237,"recommend changing \"... corals.\" to \"… hard corals, soft corals, black corals, and sponges.\"",null,null,null," The term hard corals is used to describe the units in the shallow and mesophotic coral reef biota subclass and the deepwater/coldwater coral reef biota subclass.  Soft corals, black corals  and sponges are included in the colonized shallow and mesophotic reefs as biotic communities - using those names and also in the Attached Corals Faunal Bed and  Sponge Bed in Faunal Bed."]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 36, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2",null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"high latitude reefs",238,"\"high latitude\" is not necessary, because they cap low latitude banks, too, and steep walls.",null,null,null,"Reference to high latitutde reefs removed"]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","p. 90",null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Classifying Geoforms",239,"A number of classifications exist for describing geoforms based on landscape processes.  This may be a useful way to improve CMECS geoform descriptions.",null,null,null,"Landscape processes do add information to the Geoform units, users are encouraged to add this information when possible.  However the focus in CMECS is on the morphological aspects of the seascape that are relevant to biota and this has guided the selection of the units. "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov","P. 109-130",null,"Modifiers","Technical",null,null,null,"Modifiers splitting classes",240,"It appears some of the most interesting aspects of landscapes will fall into the many, varied, and dynamic modifiers.  I am concerned this aspect of the classification could overshadow the other sections and result in lots of \"splitting\" even within a single site.",null,null,null,"No action taken. Splitting may occur with use of modifiers, but if used correctly, the units can always be \"rolled back up\" to report to the standard units.  "]
["Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team","kristan.blackhart@noaa.gov",null,null,"SGC, Modifiers","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Rugosity in SGC",241,"In this section, it reads \"The vertical features and surface roughness above 1 meter are addressed in this level. Smaller vertical features should be expressed as part of the SGC.\" Even after a careful examination of the SGC protocols, I could not find a meaningful way to describe what I consider to be one of the most important features of the benthic habitat, which is rugosity. Much of the important rugosity in both coral reef systems and in deep water bottomfish systems occurs at less than a meter scale, and is the result of biogenic and physical erosion and deposition, geologic origin, and substrate type. These holes and cracks and depressions and mounds in the substrate provide both shelter and forage opportunities for fishes and other lifeforms. Although there is a rugosity modifier offered in table 3, I cannot adequately describe the substrates that we encounter using SGC and BBC.  ",null,null,null,"Removed \"1 m cutoff\" between SC and GC.  Built up Rugosity as a modifier for application at any scale."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Overall support for structure",242,"In general, we strongly support the overall structure and the use of “components” in the CMECS system  ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"System/subsystem","General","Units/Definitions","Levels, tidal height",null,"More detail needed in system/subsystem",244,"Another limitation of the broad classes used in the system/ subsystem components is that other physical variables such as tidal height are lost.  Within the shallow water intertidal, the relative distribution of tidal height can have a dramatic effect on the distribution of habitat types (aquatic bed, infauna bed) which is not included in the classification system.  Although we recognize that this may be more detail than is intended for CMECS (and more detail than is in many habitat classification systems), it does have an impact on the types and areal coverage of faunal communities and habitat types found in a given system.  This highlights an overall issue that all habitat classification systems run up against: How much do the broader classes ignore smaller scale patterns or variability that may be important in structuring communities, ecological functions, and ultimately ecosystem services found in a given system?",null,null,null,"Smaller scale patterns can be included if users desire and should be made compatible with higher level and  larger scale components of CMECS"]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"System/subsystem","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"More detail needed in estuarine system",245,"The classification within the estuarine subsystem may be too broad to be used effectively by some users.  For example, the estuarine shallow water subsystem is essentially divided into three zones: subtidal, intertidal, supratidal.  These may be useful broad classes to describe aquatic settings but are not as useful from a practical standpoint.  On a regional or state level, other aspects of estuary type (e.g. size, geomorphology, tidal exchange, freshwater inflow) are important when considering distribution of habitats.",null,null,null,"Acknowledged that there are many attributes of estuaries that are important to user applications, many of which are included in modifiers and various components. In combination, they should cover many applications, and the dynamic content feature of the standard will accommodate new  aspects."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Support for Wentworth",246,"We support the use of the Wentworth scale for sediment grain size instead of the FGDC-STD-006 standard, for the following reasons----\nThe classification system our agency’s Marine Program has used since 1998 is based on the Wentworth scale [for visual surveys using scuba divers and ROVs]\nThe Wentworth scale is a commonly used system for marine habitat classification, and has been used by other entities doing research on the US West Coast. Compatibility with these existing data and entities is a priority for our agency.",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"SGC","General","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Percennt Cover vs. Volume",247,"We don’t support the use of volume (instead of % cover) to distinguish between the subclasses of unconsolidated substrate (p. 31). Volume is extremely difficult to determine when reviewing visual survey data, and seems like it would also be impossible for most sediment grab samples to determine (unless the sediment core or grab instrument was extremely large-sized in order to capture cobbles and boulders). ",null,null,null,"Done - Volume was removed as a criterion."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Boundaries",null,null,"Surface Layer Threshold",248,"We suggest considering the “scope” of the SGC be reduced from 15 cm depth to approximately 2 cm so that visual survey techniques can be used to inform surficial geology classification. However, we understand that cores and grabs are a (the) common technique for characterizing surficial geology also. We do not have a suggestion for resolving this method-based conflict.",null,null,null,"The CMECS philosophy is to be \"method-free\", and allows classification based on either a surface observation or a grab."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"More general classes better than detailed ones for some applications",249,"The core issue with this section is whether functionality is effectively incorporated into the benthic biological component.  There are always trade-offs (time, staff, money) in mapping and classifying habitats. Thus, having fewer biological classes that represent key ecological functions rather than numerous classes with species (or groups of species) that perform similar functions is a more useful tool to scientists and resource managers.",null,null,null,"We appreciate the comment, but opted against a functional classification because a structural/taxonomic classification is easier to implement by a wide variety of users for a broader set of objectives. "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General",null,"Biotic Group, Biotope",null,"Biotic Group/Biotope concept good",250,"We support the Biotic Group and Biotype classification scheme, but foresee that defining biotopes may be problematic and somewhat arbitrary in many cases, in part because component species have their own respective geographic ranges that often don’t match with the other species in the community they are a part of.",null,null,null,"The reviewer is right.  The standard calls for rangewide data for biotic communities when possible that sort through these issues.  In practice, these data are not available and we feel that it is better to go with dominance types as an approximation in the absence of full species assemblages.  "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Philosophy/Approach","Biotic Group",null,"Need for functionality",251,"There seems to be little functionality integrated into the biotic groups within the infauna subclass.  Instead, biotic groups and biotopes seem to be based on what can be seen or may be commonly seen.  For a habitat classification system to be truly useful, particularly if ecosystem based management is one of the goals, then biotic groups and biotypes should incorporate function as well as structure.  For example, page 59 lists a number of representative biotopes for the Small Surface-Burrowing Fauna and Deposit Feeders biotic groups.  The species (or group of species) present may be different but some of these biotopes are functionally similar within a given ecosystem (i.e., there is some functional redundancy).  In addition, recent work in bioturbation and ecosystem engineer ecology has demonstrated that not all species are created equal and some species can have a proportionally greater impact on how a particular ecosystem functions.  Thus identifying changes in these key groups/functions would be more important than just biotic groups or biotopes based on the species seen.  This approach is explicitly described for the macroalgae but not anywhere else. Is there a reason for this inconsistency?  The real utility of any classification system to a broader audience (researchers, agencies, managers) is when the nomenclature used in the system has ecological relevance.  Thus, we would recommend an incorporation of function into the biotic group-biotope component of the classification system",null,null,null,"The intent of CMECS is to identify what is present in the environment.  Any given landscape unit or biological feature may be performing many functions and it would be limiting to tailor CMECS units to any particular one.  Users are encouraged to add functional aspects to CMECS units as needed for their work."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Philosophy/Approach","Infauna, function",null,"Instrument driven classes",252,"It seems that some of the classifications are perception- or instrument-driven rather than driven by biotic classes that represent ecological functions within the system.  For example, epibenthic fauna can be identified from video/photos/divers more readily than infauna yet some key habitat/ ecosystem functions (organic matter turnover, community structure, food webs, nutrient cycling, and sediment structure) can be driven by the latter.  ",null,null,null,"Classifying according to ecological function is not the primary objective of CMECS.  Easier to identify taxonomic and structural aspects that are important ecologically, but  more practically identified were chosen as the major classifiers of benthic biota.  The distinction between infauna and epifauna was removed at the biotic subclass level to de-emphasize the importance of one over the other to address this issue.  "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Philosophy/Approach","Function",null,"Function for Biotic Grp and Biotope",253,"As noted above, we feel the system would be most useful if ecological function is incorporated into the biotic groups and biotopes.  An example of this functional approach from a regional perspective was recently completed by the US EPA for Pacific Northwest estuaries (Lee and Brown 2009).",null,null,null,"We appreciate the comment, but opted against a functional classification because a structural/taxonomic classification is easier to implement by a wide variety of users for a broader set of objectives. "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Biotope, Pacific",null,"Pacific Biotopes Incomplete",254,"Even though the comprehensive regional biotope descriptions are not included in this draft, the included list of biotic groups is not very representative of West Coast species. Specifically, the subclass Infauna biotic groups and biotopes in the document have a heavy east coast focus with only a handful of the biotopes listed being applicable to Pacific estuarine and nearshore habitats. If the full list of biotopes is not representative for Pacific species and communities and the outlined peer review process will be necessary to add new biotic groups/biotopes, then it will be difficult to promote the use of this system due to the initial effort involved for the approval of West coast groups.  If the peer review process outlined in the document is necessary to update or add new biotic groups or biotopes, then much of the initial effort in adopting the system would involve getting approval of these biotopes.  \nSEE COMMENTS DOCUMENT FOR EXAMPLES\n",null,null,null,"Additional Pacific types were added, but the peer review process allows for \"provisional\" types to be added without much review.  We may also consider expediting Pacific Coast types in the review process. "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Biotic Groups, validation",null,"Plan needed for validating biotic groups",255,"Is there any plan to validate or verify the biotic group-biotope classifications as ecologically informative measurements?  This may be important considering the upcoming volume 3 of the CMECS is anticipated to document how to monitor the condition of habitat classes, and establishing the biotic group-biotopes is presumably a pre-requisite to this exercise.  Without the validation step or a greater integration of ecological function, we may not know if the the biotic groups or biotypes currently defined are the appropriate ecological units to track. Additionally, there may be large time lapses between designating a biotic group (based on species composition) and gathering enough data to determine ecological relationships between classes.",null,null,null,"The validation process will have to be completed through the scientific peer review process.  As more data are developed, we will get smarter.  Users should publish their results so the community can validate the relatiohships.  "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Biotic Group, Tunneling megafauna",null,"Change in Biotic Group",256,"In the Tunneling Megafauna biotic group, there are some inaccuracies that should be corrected.  First, the use of Callianassa communities as a biotope needs to be changed.  Although using the Callianassa genus name was formerly acceptable for describing ghost shrimp populations in general it is now taxonomically incorrect.  The phylogeny of the Callianassidae have been re-described (e.g., Felder and Robles, 2009, pp. 327-342, In Martin et al. (eds.), Decapod Crustacean Phylogenetics, CRC Press) and now include 18 genera rather than the single genus implied in the use of the genus Callianassa.  For example, in west coast estuaries Neotrypaea is the common genus for ghost shrimp. Similarly, in gulf coast estuaries, Lepidophthalmus and Callichirus are the common genera making up the burrowing shrimp communities found there.  Thus the biotope list should be expanded to include the appropriate genera or generalized as Callianassid (family-level) or Thalassinid (infraorder) communities.  We would recommend including the regionally-appropriate genera since at least one of the genera listed as a biotope, Upogebia, would be subsumed in the thalassinid classification and they are functionally different than the deposit feeding callianassids",null,null,null,"Fixed as per comment"]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us","p. 59",null,"BBC","Editorial","Units/Definitions","Biotic Group, ",null,"Change in Biotic Group",257,"Second, there needs to be a clarification on what “Thallasia communities” (Page 59) represent.  Thallassia is an invalid genus and Thalassia, the closest valid genus, is a seagrass not a tunneling megafauna unless “Thallasia communities” is referring to burrowing shrimp or other tunneling megafauna that are found in tropical Thalassia beds such as Corallianassa or Axiopsis.  This would be a departure from other biotopes which simply list the dominant species found",null,null,null," Corrected - this was a cut and paste error."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Thresholds, ",null,"Inconsistent classification",258,"There seems to be some arbitrary guidance in the Benthic Biota Component in defining primary and secondary subclasses which may lead to inconsistent classification.  For example, if there are aquatic bed species with greater than 10% cover, the aquatic bed is the primary subclass used even though other fauna classes may compose a majority of the cover.  This is also the case with Epifauna where 10% is also the cut-off for that as the primary subclass.  This guidance essentially places infauna as a secondary element in all but bare ground cases.  ",null,null,null,"New dominance approach addresses this problem"]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Biotic Groups, Mixes",null,"Mixed Biotic Groups",259,"In addition, it may be difficult to appropriately classify biotic groups and biotopes under high aquatic bed cover depending on the sampling approach used.  For example, if using video or similar digital approaches to classify habitat within a moderate to dense Zostera marina bed, it may simply be classified as an aquatic bed since you would not see underneath the plant blades.  However, many of the eelgrass beds in estuarine systems also have dense bivalve, epifauna, and/or other infauna communities.  If these same sites are surveyed on foot, then aquatic bed and epifauna/infauna subclasses are likely to be classified at the same site.  This may be overcome by defining a set protocol for classification such as only classifying what can be seen on the surface.  In the example above, both methods would classify the habitat as a moderate-dense Zostera aquatic bed.  However, missing the other biotic groups co-occurring in the system may lead to a classification that is less useful in tracking ecological function of the sampled habitat.",null,null,null,"In the new dominance based system, assuming the zostera is more dense than the bivalves beneaith,  users would classify as Zostera bed, but users that can detect the bivalves are free to identify a co-occurring element."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"BBC","Technical","Implementation","Biotic Groups, mixes",null,"Crosswalking limitations",260,"The classification issues highlighted above describe one of the potential issues with cross-walk between classifications used in established field surveys, mapping efforts, and individual projects, and the proposed CMECS standard.  Our hope is that clarifications and better guidance will be a component of the subsequent documents that deal with mapping and assessing ecological condition.",null,null,null,"A guidance document for effective cross-walking has been incorporated into CMECS and further guidance is planned in implementation."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"GFC","General","Soils/Sediments","Grain sizes",null,"Spatial Scale in GFC",261,"It seems like the same sediment grain size system should be employed for the SGC and the SBC (my understanding from page 69 is that the SBC does not incorporate the concept of mud or related classifiers). ",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a single, simple, and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"GFC","General","Scale",null,null,null,262,"We strongly disagree with the decision to not include explicit spatial scale thresholds within the GC. A given geoform designation would essentially be meaningless without an associated spatial scale (e.g., a small bedrock patch reef a few square meters in extent vs an exposed bedrock outcrop covering several square miles are very different habitats). Instead, we prefer Greene’s (2007) classification system (although not his proposed coding system) that incorporates spatial scale at levels of megahabitat, mesohabitat, macrohabitat, and microhabitat. The other Components could “branch” off of this hierarchy where applicable (e.g., a mussel bed in the faunal reef class in the Benthic Biotic Component could branch off of the “macrohabitat”, a localized upwelling zone in the Water Column Component that is associated with a seamount could branch off at the “mesohabitat” category, etc). ",null,null,null,"Spatial scale has been incorporated along wth the subcomponent concept to give structure but not constrain the user"]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"GFC, SGC, SBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Merge SGC, SBC, GFC",263,"We strongly recommend that the Physiographic Setting and the GC, SGC, and SBC should be merged and incorporated into a single hierarchical system",null,null,null,"The GC has been modified to reflect the shape of the landscape and the SC has been modified to reflect the composition of the substrate.  A single hierarchy accomodating both is unfeasible."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Adopt Greene's units",264,"All geoforms identified by CMECS should be combined with Greene’s categories into a master list, while retaining the hierarchical structure of Greene (and his use of geological units as modifiers).",null,null,null,"All of the morphological units in Greene and his spatial framework have been largely incorporated into the GC."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,"Tables 6 & 24","Modifiers","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Thresholds for biogenic modifiers",265,"It is not clear why/how the threshold values were chosen for biogenic modifiers in Table 6 and for SGC and SBC modifiers in Table 24. The various values (10%, 35%, etc) seems rather arbitrary. We need more information to assess their validity.",null,null,null,"Biogenic modifier as referenced in this comment is no longer found in the document."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,"Table 8","Modifiers","Technical","Implementation","Enclosure",null,"Enclosure uncertainty",266,"It is not clear how the Inside Passage of SE Alaska and British Columbia would fit into the “enclosure” category described in Table 8. There are significant areas of open water within the inside passage that are exposed to wind fetch, which result in a degree of wave exposure that doesn’t seem captured by the category “very enclosed” (which describes the inside passage on a larger scale).",null,null,null,"A modifier for wave amplitude has been added. This, along with a number of modifiers for various sources of energy, should be sufficient to address this concern."]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,"Table 10","Modifiers","Technical","Units/Definitions","Energy levels",null,"Quantiative energy levels",267,"We suggest that quantitative energy ranges should be used as descriptors for the relative energy intensity modifiers described in Table 10. There are quantitative values for current speeds, but not for gravity waves. Time-averaged maximum energy levels (e.g., during the winter season) could be determined for a given wave climate using historical wave data (eg, amplitude, period, and direction) and hindcast models. Maximum surge current would be an especially useful measure for nearshore subtidal habitats. Furthermore, the adaptation and response of biota can be quite different to wave energy vs current energy (e.g., wave-exposed nearshore rocky reef habitats in the Pacific NW vs. current-exposed rocky reefs in the SE AK inside passage), so the Energy Intensity modifier should be a secondary modifier of Energy Type.",null,null,null,"We quantified wave energy by adding a quantitative wave amplitude modifier  and clarified that the energy intensity is for currents.  Users are free to use more detailed estimates of energy to meet their needs.   "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Disturbance level",null,"New modifier",268,"Related to the last comment, another potentially very useful modifer for the BBC would be “disturbance level”. The “intermediate disturbance hypothesis” introduced by Joe Connell in the 1970s is a well-supported hypothesis in ecology. Disturbance level would have to be a subjective relative scale, but could be useful nonetheless. Recent work by Connell et al. (1997) and Sousa (2000) have defined some uniform terminology related to disturbance agents, disturbance regime, and spatial scale that may be useful in defining appropriate modifiers that can be used.",null,null,null,"Additional modifiers will be added as the standard is applied as part of the dynamic content standard based on what users indicate that they need. "]
["Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife","michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us",null,"Table 23","Modifiers","Technical","Scale","Rugosity, scale",null,"Need scale for rugosity measures",269,"The “rugosity” modifiers in Table 23 are meaningless without an associated spatial scale. The rugosity values Greene proposed were presumably based on input from multibeam bathymetry data, which is generally gridded to 1-2 m cell sizes in shallow water (and increases in size with depth of seafloor). However, rugosity values would need to be reported according to a standardized resolution (e.g., 2m) of the grid cells in order to be meaningfully compared. It is always possible to aggregate highly resolved grid cells (e.g., 1m grid to 4m grid), but it is impossible to de-aggregate finer than the grain of the data",null,null,null,"Users assessing rugosity should do so at the applicable scale of their project and record the scale in the metadata. "]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 39, p. 94",null,"SGC, GFC","Editorial","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Mudflat to Flat",270,"The term mudflat is used twice within the document, on page 39 under Reef Morphology: Patch Reef [ps] and on page 46 in the 3rd paragraph of Subclass: Coastal Salt Marsh [1].  It is not defined in the Glossary.  Recommend changing “mudflat” to “flat” since “flat” is defined in the Geoform Component (p. 94).  ",null,null,null,"Mudflat has been removed in favore of Flat in the GC and Mud in the SC."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"Appendices","Editorial","Consistency",null,null,"Standardized format for Tables/Appendices",271,"We anticipate that the tables will a primary step for many users of this standard, so we recommend standardizing the table structures and adding headers indicating the key limitations of the tables and the appropriate sections in which to find further information.  ",null,null,null,"Tables for each component have  been added as appendices to allow a quick view of the units and structure of the  component."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"Appendices","Editorial","Consistency",null,null,"Inconsistent hierarchy in Appendices",272,"Appendices C and H have a consistently hierarchical format, but Appendix B is inconsistently hierarchical and is inconsistent within the table.  For example, the Mixes Subclass is divided into coarse and fine mixes, but it appears that the various options under the Reef Morphology column could be used to define any of the Divisions.  Appendix F, the Geoform Component, is also not hierarchical but this is not clear by looking at the table alone.  ",null,null,null,"The appendix tables have a solid line dividing non-hierarchical units from hierarchical ones into subcomponents.  Ths concept and the rules for hierarchy in each component are more fully described in the text."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC/SBC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Combine SGC/SBC into Substrate",273,"Since the CMECS component is named “Surface Geology,” this could set up confusion with the existing “Surficial Geology” maps.   In order to reduce potential confusion, we recommend either renaming the Component “Substrate,” or combining with the Sub-Benthic Component as a “Substrate and Soils” Component.  This terminology is less likely to be confused with a true surficial geology approach.   ",null,null,null,"Done.  It is now the Substrate Component."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 27-29",null,"SGC","Editorial","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Rewrite SGC for clarity",274,"The text in the SGC section generally unclear and misleading, particularly pages 27-29.  We recommend the entire section be rewritten for clarity, replaced with the Sub-Benthic Component Surface Layer section, or completely subsumed by the Sub-Benthic Component.  At the very least, the two sections should be placed together with SGC first.  ",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC/SBC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Consolidate grain size text",275,"All of the grain size description material, including the Shepard diagrams (Figures 13 and 14) should be included in the SGC section.",null,null,null,"Done. Removed the SBC section."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 29","Figure 6","SGC/SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"More complete adoption of Soils Standard language",276,"The selection of the FGDC-STD-006 (USDA) standard is sensible.  However, we recommend adopting the full standard, including the terminology as described under USDA in Figure 6 (p.29).  ",null,null,null,"Agree that FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) is a sensible system, but the clear majority of Reviewers were strongly supportive of Wentworth/Folk."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Specific grain size range for gravel",277,"The term gravel is so commonly utilized in the vernacular that it would greatly simplify our work with colleagues and stakeholders to be able to use that term referring to a specific grain size, as opposed to the Wentworth approach of using it to refer to a very broad set of grain sizes that are alternately defined as pebble, cobble, stone, and boulder.  This would result in the elimination of the term “pebble.”",null,null,null,"We put forward a version that did this, but reviews by Geologists were not favorable to the idea.  Re-instated \"gravel\" and \"gravelly\" at request of  geologists (e.g., JK, ES) and to more closely follow Folk."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Mud vs. silt/clay",278,"We recommend the term mud supplant silt and clay, be removed, or silt and clay should be modifiers or groups of mud (as fine and coarse mixes are included).  Utilizing multiple terms for the same substrate at the same level in the hierarchy stands in opposition of the goal to develop a common language for classifying marine habitats.  ",null,null,null,"Agree.  Folk (1954) is now used for mixes, and deals with mud in a clean, hierarchical classification."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SBC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Shpard/USDA works",279,"In general, the utilization of the Shepard/USDA breakdown as defined in the Sub-Benthic Component works",null,null,null,"Based on strong input from the clear majority of Reviewers, removed the SBC."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC, Modifiers","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Unconsolidated substrate divisions too general",280,"During a seafloor mapping exercise in Massachusetts, the Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) applied version 3.1 to the dataset and found that it was too general with respect to the major Groups of Unconsolidated Substrate (e.g. Fine and Coarse Mixes) were too general and the modifiers for the Sand Category were too general (e.g. “gravelly” didn’t allow us to be specific enough).  ","Therefore, the modifiers section should be further expanded to include smaller percentages of gravel, and/or the Shepard-like approach to mixes should be standardized in the SGC hierarchy for sand-silt-clay mixes and gravel-sand-silt/clay mixes.  (Note that the Folk classification has two ternary diagrams.)",null,null,"Agree.  Folk (1954) is now used for mixes, and provides a more detailed  classification with better  resolving power."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC/SBC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Compatibility with Wentworth issues",281,"There will be significant challenges in implementing the USDA grain size standard with past datasets due to the widespread use of other standards, particularly Wentworth in geology and oceanography.  ","Therefore, we recommend prioritizing the development of a standard method for converting Wentworth particle sizes to USDA particle sizes.  The importance of this issue is significant enough that we recommend including this conversion method within the SGC section.  ",null,null,"This problem is solved by removing FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) and using Wentworth (1922)."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 27",null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Reef morphologies inconsistent with surface layer",282,"The text in the SGC section states that the purpose of the SGC is “characterizing the upper layer of hard substrate, or the upper 15 cm of soft substrate” (p.27).  However, the inclusion of the various reef morphotypes in this section suggests an unresolved focus of this Component.   ","We recommend that the focus of this component be consistently applied and that morphological approaches to classification be confined to the Geoform Component.  ",null,null,"Done."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC/GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reef morphologies",null,"Comingling biotic and abiotic substrate",283,"The text descriptions (i.e. the formal definitions) of reef morphologies under Faunal Reef Subclass sound like they are primarily describing live reefs, as opposed to reef substrates (p.39).  The geologic setting (geoform or morphology), substrate, and benthic biota are being mingled.  We fear this could introduce confusion for the user and errors when combining separate Component Classifications.   W","We recommend that all definitions within a category, whether it be a class, subclass, division, group, or morphology, be clearly linked to the substrate relevance.  ",null,null,"Done."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reef morphologies",null,"Review of all biotic elements of SGC needed",284,"Further consideration should be given regarding how “live substrates,” including Coral Reefs, Faunal Reefs, and Faunal Beds, are classified under the SGC.  ","We think all of these substrates should be considered under the Rock Substrate Class (a less preferred alternative is to create a Biogenic Substrate Class).  Essentially, they should be treated as a grain size, which is more true to the purposes of the SGC.",null,null," We adopted the \"less preferred alternative,  to create a Biogenic Substrate Class\" (Actually, Substrate Origin) because of our belief that dead coral is fundamentally different from rock or bedrock (different composition, rugosity, etc.)"]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC/GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,null,285,null,"Reef rubble, unconsolidated sand, unconsolidated mud, and unconsolidated coral/shell should all be captured under the Unconsolidated Substrate Class.",null,null,"The new hierarchical level \"Substrate Origin\" provides this same resolution but in a different way."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,null,286,"It’s unclear why “Faunal Reef” Class and Subclasses are identical in the BBC but “Coral Reef” is not.","The Coral Reef Subclass and Morphologies really belong under Geoform.  ",null,null,"Agree - Done."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 38",null,"SGC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,null,287,null,"We recommend not using Faunal Reef as a Class in the SGC. The definition in the SGC text reads, “Importantly, this class within the SGC describes the structural component of faunal reefs, as a class of surface substrate. The SGC does not consider the living component that currently colonizes the substrate; live reef-building fauna may or may not be present” (p.38).  Therefore, it is more consistent to consider a Faunal Reef as a Subclass of the Rock Substrate Class.  ",null,null,"The new hierarchical level \"Substrate Origin\" provides this same resolution but in a different way."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 36, p. 38",null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,null,288,"In the reef morphology definition for Subclass Deep/Cold water reef, it states “reefs or biogenic substrate” (p.36).  This overlaps with the definition of Faunal Reefs (“structural substrate is largely composed of biogenic materials” p.38).  ","These two definitions should be clarified to eliminate any potential overlap.",null,null,"Agree - Reef Morphology is now relegated to the GC."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC. GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Anthropogenic rock substrate",289,null,"We recommend adding a Subclass Anthropogenic to Class Rock Substrate to include structures such as shipwrecks, pipelines, and wharves.  We assume man-made rip rap structures should be classified as pavement.",null,null,"Added an Anthropogenic Substrate Origin level to provide a home for these features."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Rename Rock Substrate",290,null,"Consider renaming the Class Rock Substrate to Hard Substrate, to better identify that substrates within the Class can consist of rock, wood, metal, concrete, or carbonate.",null,null,"Added a Substrate Origin level to provide a clear home for  features with this composition."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Rock substrate to include cobble boulder",291,null,"We recommend considering the Rock Substrate Class include grain sizes cobble and boulder, as well as bedrock, carbonate, and anthropogenic subclasses.  We believe this will enable more specific classifications under the Unconsolidated Substrate Class, as well as enable more specific classifications of cobble and boulder (and mixed cobble-boulder) seafloors.",null,null,"We believe that our new \"Rock Substrates\" class together with Folk (1954) provides the specificity requested."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","Editorial","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Substrate undefined",292,"The word substrate is never defined.  ","We recommend being more deliberate with the terms substrate and surface geology.  ",null,null,"\"Surface Geology\" no longer used as a CMECS term; \"Substrate\" is now defined as  the  non-living materials that form an aquatic bottom or seafloor.  Substrate may include rock, bedrock, other hard items, or soft sediments,  and may be composed of any material, natural or manmade.\" "]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","Editorial","Implementation","Volume, tools",null,"Volume problematic in SGC",293,"It is stated that the SGC is “designed to be compatible with a range of observational tools” (p.27) yet all sediment thresholds rely on mass and volumetric data.  This is not possible with plan-view camera viewing.  Technically, non-consumptive methods of sampling cannot use this standard to generate the data necessary to utilize the standard as it is written.  ","Recommend addressing this by considering area as equivalent measurements for percent grain size and removing references to weight and volume.  If such a solution is acceptable, a section should be included that describes the equivalency, in effect warning users to understand the source of their data.",null,null,"Removed all references to Volume and added an area = % grain size sentence, as recommended."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us","p. 74, p. 185",null,"SGC","Editorial","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Inconsistent terms",294,"In the SBC, the text uses the terminology Unconsolidated Mineral (p.74) and the table uses the terminology Unconsolidated Substrate (p.185).  ","We suggest the use of the term “Unconsolidated Substrate” in the SBC and SGC.",null,null,"Used \"Unconsolidated Mineral Substrate\" as a class."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Merge SGC/SBC",295,"This section was very well written and clearer than the SGC.  It is unclear why the two components aren’t completely nested as a single component (as a “Substrate and Soils Component”, for example).",null,null,null,"Thank you!  SC/SBC concepts are now consolidated into one Component."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"BBC, SGC","Editorial","Implementation",null,null,"Each component a separate system",296,"The BBC “is intended to be used together with the Surface Geology Component” (p.39).  As mentioned in our comment letter for version 3.0, CMECS should consider each component as an individual classification system.  Essentially, we view each component as a unique layer.  ","For example, a faunal bed can occur on a mudflat.  The SGC component would classify the substrate (unconsolidated mud), the Geoform component would describe the setting (flat), and the BBC would classify the faunal bed (faunal bed, sessile infauna, clam bed, Mercenaria community).  This separation allows individual users to combine components as relevant to their needs, but greatly clarifies what individuals are referring to in text descriptions, on maps, etc.",null,null,"CMECS language was clarified to preserve the individuality of the Components."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"Handling mixes and secondary elements",297,"We appreciate the clear text description in the BBC including the descriptions of how to handle mixes in biotic communities with Secondary Elements.",null,null,null,"Glad it works."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"BBC","Editorial","Implementation",null,"Appendix C","Text/Appendix consistency",298,"In the BBC is a class of “No Known Cover.”  ","We recommend placing it in the table in Appendix C. ",null,null,"Removed - because it represents a mapping convention rather than an ecological classification unt. "]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"All","Technical","Implementation",null,null,"Use of \"Unknown\" in all components",299,"The use of the term “Unknown” was referred to in the BBC (p. 48).  ","A similar discussion should occur in all Components. ",null,null,"The \"Unknown\" value in the BBC was removed because it reflect a mapping/application value, not a defined unit.  It should be discussed in future mapping/application guidance, but is not appropriate for the scope of this document. "]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"GFC, SGC","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Move reef morphologies to GFC",300,null,"We recommend including the Coral Reef morphological features in the GFC and removing them from the SGC.",null,null,"Done."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"New anthropogenic Geoform",301,"We appreciate the inclusion of more anthropogenic geoforms from version 3.0.  ","We recommend adding the additional geoform of “Dredge Disturbance” to identify areas of impact as a result of hydraulic clam dredging.  If the gear type is unknown, “Scar” would apply.",null,null,"Done."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,"Figure 25/26","WCC","General","Implementation",null,null,"Depth threshold justification",302,"We recommend explaining how the various depth thresholds were established.",null,null,null,"Text has been added to provide rationale."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC/SBC","Editorial",null,null,"Applying CMECS","Figure misnumbered",303,"Figure 25 as referenced on p. 137 bottom paragraph should be “Figure 26.”",null,null,null,"This has been fixed."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,"Figures 28, 29","All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Combining layers in a GIS",304,null,"We recommend describing how the individual data sets are generated (Figure 29), and then how they can combined in a GIS (Figure 28).  This order would clarify the proper order in which to conduct a workflow to be consistent with how the CMECS components are used for classification.  ",null,null,"Some guidance on this topic is included in chapter 12.  "]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,"Figure 29","Alll","Editorial","Implementation",null,null,"No reference for figure",305,"Figure 29 was not referenced in the text.",null,null,null,"Resolved"]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,"Figure 28","All","Editorial",null,null,null,"Figure 28 confusing",306,"Figure 28 was confusing since the Sub-Benthos and Water Column were not listed as components.",null,null,null,"Figure 28 has been eliminated"]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Each component a separate system",307,"CMECS should consider each component as an individual classification system.  While this is clear in Section 11, it is not clear in the SGC and BBC text.",null,null,null,"We inserted table 2.1 and the other tables at the beginning of each section to clarify these relationships.   Also clarified in section 12. "]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Integrate SGC and SBC",308,"The integration of the SGC and the SBC should be considered.  If they are not combined into one, they should be placed together in the text and the Surface Layer section of the SBC should be used to define the SGC.",null,null,null,"Done - SGC and SBC concepts are combined into a single Component."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Revise grain size thresholds",309,"The Mud, Silt, Clay, and Mixes Sublcasses need reconsideration to ensure that everyone will be able to utilize a common language.  Adding additional detail to the mixes (in the way of Shepard ternary diagrams) is recommended.",null,null,null,"Went with Folk mixes based on strong input from the clear majority of Reviewers, which solves this problem."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Reef morphologies",null,"Reef morphologies to GFC",310,"The Coral Reef morphologies should be included in the Geoform Component, not the SGC.",null,null,null,"Done."]
["Massachusetts Dept. of Marine Fisheries","kathryn.ford@state.ma.us",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Review SGC anthropogenic and live bottom definitions",311,"How the SGC incorporates live bottom and anthropogenic features warrants further consideration.",null,null,null,"These features are totally restructured in the current version."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pam_dryer@fws.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Boundaries",null,null,null,312,"Freshwater coastal classes or zones not defined",null,null,null,"These classes are covered in the Cowardin wetlands standard"]
["University of Michigan","criseng@umich.edu ",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions","Zones",null,null,314,"concerned that she did not see coastal classes that would relate to freshwater coastal system.",null,null,null,"Addressed in comment 312."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Seiche",null,"Need for seiche in Great Lakes",315,"There is a need to include seiche effects of the Great Lakes",null,null,null,"Seiche has been added as a hydroform, applicable to all water bodies in lacustrine, estuarine and marine systems."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,null,316,"there is not a balance between hydrology, geomopholgy, andbiotic approaches.",null,null,null,"Chapters have been modified to establish as much balance as possible, but there are cases where more information is needed for one component."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Scale","Spatial",null,null,317,"A spatial framework for the classification components are missing.  ",null,null,null,"A spatial framework has been established for the GC based on many comments, but generally the spatial reference for CMECS is determined by the user."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Dynamics","Biotopes",null,"Variability of biotopes",318,"The biotope definitions are interesting, but quite subjective and will change in any location as (and if) the associated physical habitat changes.",null,null,null,"The lowest level of the BC now is biotic community, acknowledging that biotopes are a synthesis of all the components and as the reviewer points out are place-based."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"Modifers","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Modifiers",null,"Potentially excessive modifier list",319,"The Modifiers seem to be an attempt to accommodate all possible needs and I could foresee the list of habitat types becoming excessively long and detailed",null,null,null,"The modifiers have been developed to address the widest possible set of conditions and although there may seem to be many of them, the user is free to select those that are meaningful for their work.  We agree that a fully described habitat would inevitably include many modifiers. "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","Editorial","Implementation",null,null,"More example maps needed",320,"a few maps showing examples of implementation of CMECS at multiple scales would greatly help the reader envision how the system works -- figures 27 & 29 provide only a partial picture of the capabilities. ",null,null,null,"This is more appropriate for an implmentation and mapping guidance and was not addressed at this time. "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Compoenent structure logical",321,"I have one comment specific to the five Components. They seem logical and generally useful, ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Surface layer redundancy ",322,"the surface layer of the Sub-Benthic Component is redundant with the Surface Geology Component ",null,null,null,"Removed SGC: No longer redundant."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"SBC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Soil layer of little use",323,"I’m not sure that the Soil Layer of the Sub-Benthic Component will get much use. The Soil Layer is below the level of bioturbation and is probably anoxic with little movement of water through it. The historic record it provides of buried organisms and previous chemical conditions are of value to paleogeologist, as the example states, but I don’t see it as a critical component of a habitat classification. ",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comment.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,null,null,"CMECS useful",324,"In general, I believe that this system will be a useful aide to managers, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in coastal conditions and issues",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Boundaries",null,null,"Need for spatial boundaries",325,"boundaries of spatial units are not defined independent of habitat and biological characteristics that may also define implementation of the classification and the distinction between spatial scales is not clear. This is a basic flaw in the system, because spatial unit boundaries will change as, for example, the extent and composition of a biotope changes or as, in the example, phytoplankton blooms develop and disperse (caused by natural or anthropogenic factors). Clearly, it is important to be able to delineate the boundaries of such patches of space. ",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comment.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,null,"General","Dynamics",null,null,"Spatial reference needed to integrate components",326,"However, the CMECS system requires (as pointed out in the document) an enormous amount of maintenance and constant revision to accommodate these dynamic spatial units. Also, such amorphous units cannot be subdivided and the units of difference Components will be of different size, shape, and extent, making overlays of conditions in different Components complex and difficult to work with. The nice standardized set of habitat types provided by CMECS is compromised by not having a similar set of standardized spatial units that can be compared and contrasted",null,null,null,"We believe the flexibility of having consistent units in multiple components and the ability to use them independently or in an integrated fashion outweighs some of the complexity that may be encountered when overylaying units with variable spatial footprints. "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Finer scale spatial units needed",327,"The Systems, Subsystems, and Zones incorporated into the CMECS system appear to have fixed, relatively well defined boundaries and are valuable at the broadest scales. However, a finer set of spatial units defined from the bottom up is required for practical implementation of the system. ",null,null,null,"Users are free to employ local data to create more detailed depth zones within the CMECS units.  They should report their process and the source data used in this process. "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"WCC","General","Scale",null,null,"Fixed hydroscale",328,"I believe that the CMECS system could be improved by use of a hydrospatial framework to define fixed spatial units at several scales, like the C_Gap framework recently demonstrated in Western Lakes Erie (McKenna et al. 2010. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36:757–771).",null,null,null,"Major elements of the hydrospatial framework are incorporated in the WC, including multi-scale, grid. Mapping can use the this framework in an implementation process, but a rigid spatial framework should not be part of the standard as it will constrain and reduce flexibility."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Boundaries",null,null,"Current systems work well in Great Lakes",329,"Many of the oceanographic unit boundary definitions apply quite well within the Great Lakes. For example, the shallowest coastal zone (with an offshore boundary of ~10 m – 30 m) represents the area where wave action is sufficient to influence benthic sediments and fits the definition of Nearshore; the 100 m isobath (akin to the Shelf Break) is approximately the maximum light penetration depth (~1% isolumen) and fits the definition of the Neritic zone; all remaining areas would be deeper and could be defined like the marine Shelf Slope (our lakes do not descend to deeper zones) and might best be labeled the Offshore zone. ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged.  Many of the other CMECS units should also be applicable to Great Lakes waters."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","jim_mckenna@usgs.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem, WCC, Modifiers","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Consider existing Great Lakes depth zones.",330,"The depth zones for large lakes were established by limnologists long ago (Epilimnion, Metalimnion, and Hypolimnion).  The C_Gap hydrospatial framework is being developed for the entire Great Lakes system and, with habitat types generated by on-going Great Lakes research, CMECS could be implemented within that framework.",null,null,null,"Acknowledged. It is intended that CMECS work in concert with other classifications or conceptual frameworks."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Rationale for systems/subsystems",331,"The subsystems listed seem reasonable and commonly understood; however no clear rationale is given for why/how they were chosen.  ",null,null,null,"This suggestion will be built upon as the Great Lakes application is further developed."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Need for seiche in Great Lakes",332,"(Lacustrine) These need to include some recognition of the strong seiche influences on embayments and lower rivers.  Quite similar to tidal influences covered under “estuarine”.",null,null,null,"Additional text has been provided to present this rationale "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,null,"Proposeed new depth zones for GL",333,null,"Zones typically recognized in the Great Lakes are: 1) surf zone (I’m not sure about this name) 0-3 M depth; 2) nearshore zone 3-20? M depth; and 3) deepwater >20 M depth.  Catherine Riseng has just synthesized common practice related to these zones; contact her.",null,null,"Seiche has been added as a Hydroform in the WC that addresses this need."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Are components best indicators of ecological function",334,"But I’m not convinced that these 5 accomplish the stated objectives.  Are these the best indices of key processes and scales (given available data)? ",null,null,null,"Great Lakes units and zones will be "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Compoenents biasted toward benthos",335,"They seem heavy on geology and benthic conditions--  I feel this reflects some bias towards these topics—rather than a balanced hydro-geomorph-biotic approach.  And there is no climate; perhaps this could be a water column attribute but it is probably more fundamental than that.",null,null,null,"We believe they are. "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Units/Definitions","Oceanography",null,"Need for simplification",336,"The classification needs to simplify and clarify.  I don’t feel like these 5 components do this for the marine environments.  It appears to be based on paralleling terrestrial ecological classifications, with the addition of the water column as a third dimension:",null,null,null,"The Water Column component has been fleshed out and better organized based on input from experts at a workshop on this topic in Jan, 2011."]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","Technical","Implementation",null,null,"Need to ldescribe ecological principles",337,"The report does not lay out principles of ecological classification, per authors like Barnes, Rowe, and some Europeans (sorry don’t have these handy); e.g.,",null,null,null,"Chapter 2 has been written to more clearly outline the ecological foundations.  In fact many of the guiding principles and foundations were modeled after the EUNIS classification framework - a well established standard.  "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Need to lD system drivers",338,"Must first ID key physical system drivers and be attentive to functional hierarchy of these.  Want to capture the higher-level drivers; these should be orthogonal.",null,null,null,"Drivers and forcing functions"]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Use biology to interpret boundaries",339,"Include biology to help interpret relevant boundaries, categories along continua of the physical drivers.  E.g., this is why we include the biology.",null,null,null,"We revised the definitions of the units to ensure mutual exclusivity and better identify conceptual boundaries among the units.  "]
["Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership","pseelbach@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General","Implementation",null,null,"Need to use all components together",340,"The multiple components must be taken TOGETHER to describe the ecological nature of specific “places”.  And  yes these places can experience fluxes and variation of their attributes, but they are still fundamentally mappable places.  The report seems to view each of the components as kind of separate classification tools for various users; and doesn’t recognize the power of their combined information. [this gets back to my concern in #3 about selection and relationship of the 5].",null,null,null,"While each component can stand alone the intent of CMECS is to combine them whenever possible.  Some examples of this are presented in Chapter 12."]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 21 para. 3",null,"System/Subsystem","Editorial","Boundaries","Distance, Marine","3.2.1","Offshore distance may be needed in addition to depth",341,"The nearshore component as defined by the 30m depth contour can vary greatly in its \"nearness\" to the shore.  Assuming that coastal processes have an impact on the nearshore processes, a maximum distance from shore value might be helpful.",null,null,null,"The 30 m depth contour represents an ecological boundary that is more appropriate than identifyig a consistent, but arbitrary distance from shore.  "]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 31 para. 2",null,"SGC","General","Scale","Scale",4.3,"Scale needed to define units",342,"Do these classes depend on the scale at which you are looking?  One area could be defined as rock substrate at one scale but, if looked at at a different scale where the rock is not greater than 50%, it would not be classified as rock substrate.",null,null,null,"Scale does matter; Practitioners should report the scale of observation, the scale of reporting, and the mmu.  This is discussed in the SC intro:  \"While the SC and other CMECS Components are intended to be scale-independent, the reported scale of substrate “patchiness” is determined by the scale of observation, and so is somewhat method-dependent .  To enable maximum comparability, practitioners should always report the scale of observation and the scale of reporting in project metadata.\" "]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 49 para. 2",null,"BBC","General","Dynamics","dynamic",5.2,"How dynamic are biotopes?",343,"How dynamic are biotopes?  For example, kelp forests would probably make up a biotope but they are dynamic in their spatial location.  Depending on conditions, they can be in one area one year and gone the next.  Does the biotope move with the species that defines it?",null,null,null,"Biotic communities and biotopes are ecological concepts.  The same point on the seafloor may have different biotic communities and different biotopes at different times. There is no specification in CMECS that the same area is always the same biotope.  "]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 49 para. 2",null,"BBC","General","Implementation","variablity",5.2,"How much variability can a biotope have?",344,"Should look into how variable the community of organisms that are supported by a biotope are.  Kelp forests are spread throughout the California coast but do they support the same or similar communities or does this biotope vary?  How \"regularly occurring\" is the biota?",null,null,null,"The answer to this worthy question will take a considerable amount of data and statistical techniques to answer.  CMECS identifies that this is something to strive for, but cannot identify these sort of rigid boundaries given the current state of available data.  "]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 50 para. 1",null,"BBC","General","Implementation","predictability",5.2,"How predictable are the current biotopes?",345,"Have studies looked at how predictable these physical and biological associations are across large spatial scales?",null,null,null,"Yes.   The European and MESH approaches have identified biotopes that recurr in similar biophysical environments.  "]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 90 para. 5",null,"GFC","General","Scale","dynamic",7.3,"How dynamic are fine scale geoforms?",346,"Some of the small scale geoforms that I have seen while mapping the seafloor are very dynamic such as ripple scour depressions (RSDs).  How will CMECS handle dynamic geoforms?  Sometimes entire fields of RSDs disappear from one year to the next.",null,null,null,"Dynamic features in the GC and elsewhere in CMECS are handled through a temporal persistence modifier. Each CMECS observation is a snapshot in time."]
["Cal State University-Monterrey Bay","myoung@csumb.edu","p. 125 para. 3","Table 23","Modifiers","Technical","Implementation","Rugosity",9,"Vector ruggedness vs. rugosity",347,"A measure similar to rugosity that I find to be more consistent is vector ruggedness measure or VRM (Sappington et al. 2007).  Rather than looking at surface area:planar area, it analyzes variation in the three-dimensional orientation of grid cells (i.e. seafloor maps).  It is useful for \"rugosity\" measures in sloping terrain because it accounts for the slope, whereas rugosity finds all sloping areas to have \"high rugosity\".",null,null,null,"Additional modifiers will be added as the standard is applied as part of the dynamic content standard based on what users indicate that they need.  In the meantime, users are free to user their own modifiers to meet their own needs.  We anticipate that these will be shared with the Implementation Team so they can be considered to be added to the standard. "]
["University of Tasmania","g.edgar@utas.edu.au",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Biotic Group Mixes",null,"Secondary elements",348,"One thing that was unclear was whether Biotic Groups are limited to a particular set that are generally applied or whether the user modifies and makes these as he/she goes along. I had assumed the former but with the examples at the end I saw Thalassia/Halimeda included as a biotic group while not mentioned anywhere above (the image also seems to include a lot more Caulerpa, Penicillus and Avrainvillea than Halimeda regardless). There was no discussion of Caulerpa as a biotic group in the text, although this is quite an important one (particularly with Caulerpa taxifolia on the increase). ",null,"Edgar email 11/16/10",null,"Biotic groups represent the Biotic Communities as currently presented in CMECS.  It is likely that additions and modifications to the Biotic Communities will take place as research continues.  These changes are likely to result in changes to Biotic Group as well."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",29,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds",null,null,"100m is shallow on global scale",349,"Globally, this (100m) is very shallow; the shelf break is typically around 200 m but is as deep as 600 m in Antarcitica (where the continental weight of ice has pushed down the plate)",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2010",null,"The shelf break is no longer a fixed depth but a change in gradient and a depth at which this often occurs has been added as a guide."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",39,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Unconsolidated Substrate - 90% figure",350,"I guess this is consistent with elsewhere, but the 90% figure seems very high. If say 85% of the substratum comrprises coral fragments interspersed with 8% sand and 7% mud, then this gets classed as sand? This will be very difficult to assess visually (eg from photoquadrats).",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2010",null,"This cut-off no longer applies; Folk cut-offs are set more logically."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",39,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"Separating sediment classes by weight vs volume",351,"Separation of finer sediment classes described below is by weight ",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2010",null,"Removed volumetric separations from all CMECS SC classifications"]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",42,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","mixes, thresholds","Surface Geology","Separating sediment classes by weight vs volume 2",352,"As above, does this mean the sediments technically need to be processed both by volume to assign classes and weight for subclasses?",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2010",null,"Yes - removed volumetric separations from all CMECS SC classifications"]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",44,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","atolls","Surface Geology","Atolls rarely have shores",353,"for atolls, there is rarely a shore, and the lagoon lies between two reef crests",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2011",null,"No conflict with current Atoll definition."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",47,null,"SGC","Editorial","Units/Definitions",null,"Surface Geology","define extensive and largely",354,"How are extensive and largely defined?… the mix of such qualifiers introduces subjectivity ",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2012",null,"True - went through and replaced these terms with % values wherever possible."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",48,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef, unconsolidated","Surface Geology","Can Washed Shell be unconsolidated?",355,"Can these be unconsolidated? If so, then difficult to determine when this definition applies and when the unconsolidated substrate category applies",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2013",null,"\"Consolidated\" (Rock) vs. Unconsolidated substrate split has been completely reworked; the term \"pavement\" has been removed."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",51,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","algae","Biotic Cover","drift algae in macroalgae subclass",356,"Above it says only ‘attached macroalgae’ can generate the class",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2014",null,"Drift and attached macroalgae are now clearly separated into the two separate biotic settings, so drift algae is available too. "]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",51,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","seaweed","Biotic Cover",null,357,"Halimeda beds may be problematical. They are included amongst the coral reef class but are equally important interspersed amongst sparse seagrasses with no coral nearby",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2015",null,"Moved to attached alga - so can be identified wherever they occur"]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",53,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Microbial mat","Biotic Cover","stromatolites in Microbial Mat subclass",358,"If this includes stromatolites, then probably worth specifically mentioning that group, or perhaps even worth elevating stromatolites to a subclass as so distinctive a habitat",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2016",null,"Stromatolites are now a biotic group of their own. In the Microbial Communities Class"]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",72,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","clam","Biotic Cover","which biotic group do Nucula Communities, Yoldia Communities, Macoma Communities belong to?",359,"These are part of the clam biotic group (above) – how do you decide which biotic group they belong to?",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2017",null,"They are all in clam Bed in FB attached"]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",72,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Nemertean communities","Biotic Cover","mention enteropneusts in deep-burrowing fauna biotopes",360,"Enteropneusts are probably the most conspicuous element of this group, so could usefully be mentioned",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2018",null,"Put Enteropneusts into appropriate Biotic Groups and Communities.  "]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",73,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Aquatic bed","Biotic Cover","Where do Caulerpa beds fit in this scheme",361,"Where do Caulerpa beds fit in this scheme; they can form monospecific beds in some areas (anchored with rhizoids rather than rhizomes on sand)?",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2019",null,"Caulerpa beds are biotic communities in \"leathery leafy attached macroalgae\" biotic group"]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",74,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","macroalgae","Biotic Cover","include \"enteromorpha\" based on morphological grounds",362,"Enteromorpha has been synonymized with Ulva, so technically does not exist anymore, although the tubular morphology differs from the sheets of Ulva so could be left in on morphological grounds if called something like “Enteromorpha” (ie with apostrophes)",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2020",null,"The reviewer is from Australia, where Enteromorpha must be the accepted species.  We consulted an Ulva/Enteromorpha specialist from the US and she indicated that Ulva is the preferred name in the US.  This we retained Ulva."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",74,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","rockweed","Biotic Cover","More Fucales are subtidal than intertidal",363,"More Fucales are subtidal than intertidal – eg Sargassum, Cystoseira – are these included as rockweeds or is intertidal a condition for this biotic group?",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2021",null,"Macroalgae were restructured so this decision does not need to be made.   Sargassam are now classified as biotic communities under the  \"Algal Rafts\" biotic group."]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",74,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","kelp, macrocystis","Biotic Cover","raise macrocystis communities to biotic group level",364,"These are so different in terms of ecosystem structure to other kelp beds because of the closed surface canopy that they could usefully be raised to biotic group level",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2022",null,"Macroalgae were restructured based on growth morphology which allows separation of canopy forming kelps from other kelps at the biotic group level.  Macrocystis is now in the canopy forming group. "]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",76,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,"Biotic Cover","Where to include Syringodium?",365,"Are Syringodium beds included here, or where?",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2023",null,"These Syringodium seagrass beds were under Cymocedea sp in NVC based on some disagreements in taxonomy.    All now changed to Syringodium in CMECS.  "]
["University of Tasmania","G.Edgar@utas.edu.au",76,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Seagrass","Biotic Cover","additional freshwater growing Ruppia",366,"Outside the US there are other freshwater-growing Ruppia, also Lepilaena",null,"Commented CMECS doc attached in Kathy's email 11/16/2024",null,"These may be added by users outside the US, but for the purposes of this publication, we have restricted ourselves to types known in the NVC. "]
["EPA","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Editorial","Boundaries",null,null,null,368,"Yes, we should spell out that 4 m is at MLLW and write this in to the Deep water text on page 24.  I think we had some discussion about this before too, that we never provide a tidal datum for the 4 m cut-off.",null,null,null,"Need to be explicit about which datum we're referring to everywhere in the document"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",14,null,null,"Technical","Consistency","estuarine, system, subsystem",null,"Estuarine systems match diagram, not subsystem text",369,"These four match the diagram, but not the text in the Subsystem section. ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Fixed"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",21,null,"System/Subsystem","Editorial",null,"classifiers, attributes","structure","Get rid of \"classifiers\" distinction",370,"I think we can g rid of this distinction now. ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Yes.  This was included in the definition of Marine System"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",25,null,null,"Technical","Units/Definitions",null,"system and subsystem","Define whether non-enclosed river and stream influxes are marine",371,"Are areas of river and stream influxes considered Marine if there is no enclosure?  If so, we should say this here.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Addressed as per suggestion."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",28,null,null,"Technical","Consistency","subsystems","system and subsystem","Conflicting subsystem text and tables",372,"The text conflicts with itself and with tables and appendices so there is no definitive list of subsystems.  See inserted table below for my suggestion about how to fix this. ","See table on page 28","CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"This was not implemented."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",28,null,null,"Technical","Units/Definitions","riverine","system and subsystem","Elevate \"riverine\" to system consistent w/Cowardin",373,"I would like to see “Riverine” elevated to a system to be consistent with Cowardin’s classification.  Those wanting to extent the estuary to the head of tide would simply deal with the riverine portion and the estuarine portion of their body of water.  ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Riverine areas are already well addressed in the Cowardin system and including them in CMECS would extend the CMECS domain too far away from the coast.   CMECS has instead sought to be seamless with Cowardin."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",29,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","zone","system and subsystem","Zone as level in classification",374,"Zone is then has to be a level in the classification – This should be another heading or section.  Or should these be avoided here and addressed in the water column?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Tidal Zone has been separated out as a level in the Aquatic Setting"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",30,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","neritic","system and subsystem","No zones for Neritic",375,"No zones for Neritic",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Agreed and Neritic has been removed as a system."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",30,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","pycnocline","system and subsystem","pycnocline zone in oceanic or water column?",376,"Are these zones for Oceanic ?  Or will they come out in the water column?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Pynocline is reflected as the divide between upper and lower water column except in the deepest depth zone where it does not typically occur."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",32,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","tidal, riverine","system and subsystem","Tidal Riverine distinction",377,"This distinction does not match other text.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Resolved"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",32,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","tidal, riverine","system and subsystem","Tidal Riverine Subsystem zones",378,"Are these (deep and shallow) zones or really subsystems?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"The depth zones are now captured in the WC "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",32,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"system and subsystem","Deep water tidal riverine name is confusing",379,"This name is confusing because in the non-tidal subsystems,deep means greater than 4 meters and Subtidal means continuously submerged.  Isn’t this really Subtidal Riverine?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"The water colum depth terms are meant to reflect layers in the water column not zones of the bottom or shore"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",32,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy",null,"system and subsystem","Shallow water tidal riverine name confusing",380,"See above – wouldn’t this be Intertidal Riverine?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"The water colum depth terms are meant to reflect layers in the water column not zones of the bottom or shore"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",34,"Fig 5",null,"Technical","Consistency",null,"system and subsystem","Figure 5 comparison to WCC figure",381,"Compare this figure (Figure 5) with the very similar figure in the WCC – should these be the same?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"The WCC figures were eliminated - leaving only this figure. "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",40,null,"SGC","Technical","Soils/Sediments","mixes","Surface Geology","Distinguishing between silt and clay",382,"This ability to choose is very confusing and very hard to track hierarchically.  Suggest eliminating this distinction and following the FGDC 006 classification.  Cowardin’s sandy mud, muddy sand, etc can be handled as a modifier of “mixes”.  See inserted table below for a proposal on how to deal with this.","see table on page 40 ","CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",43,null,"SGC","Technical","Structure/Hierarchy","corals","Surface Geology","move coral reef types to Geoform classification",383,"Most of the Coral Reef types in the SGC seem to be structural units that are determined by shape – meaning they are actually geoforms.  They should be moved to Geoform classification and add a simple ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",44,null,"SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","reef lagoon","Surface Geology","Reef lagoon exclusive from unconsolidated sed class?",384,"Is this mutually exclusive from the Unconsolidated Sediments Class?  Is this a biogenic structure or a geoform?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Lagoon removed from SC, now in GC."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",45,null,"SGC","Editorial",null,"reef   ","Surface Geology","reef morphologies and subclasses",385,"We need to build out the tables that show the subclasses in which all of these reef morphologies fall.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Reef Morphologies removed from SC, now in GC."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",46,null,"SGC","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds","reef","Surface Geology","make unconsolidated bottom with scattered coral/rock exclusive from unconsolidated sand with coral modifiers",386,"Need to make this mutually exclusive from the Unconsolidated Sand with Coral Modifiers  - it may be, but the rules need to be clear. ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done - Corals and sand are treated entirely differently from the past version."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","46, 47",null,null,"Technical","Consistency",null,"Surface Geology","Unconsolidated sand, mud, coral/shell, reef rubble are duplicate from uncolidated above.  ",387,"The following are duplicate from Unconsolidated Above.  This will be messy because they fall under different Subclasses. (seee comments klg 24 - 27)",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Duplicates were all eliminated or given unique names if similar types occur in more than one subclass or class."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","46, 47",null,null,"Technical","Consistency",null,"Surface Geology","Unconsolidated sand, mud, coral/shell, reef rubble are duplicate from uncolidated above.  ",388,"See comment above (387)",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Addressed as per suggestion."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","46, 47",null,null,"Technical","Consistency",null,"Surface Geology","Unconsolidated sand, mud, coral/shell, reef rubble are duplicate from uncolidated above.  ",389,"See comment about the duplicates w’ Unconsolidated Sediments above (387).  ","I’d just provide guidance on how  to combine these.  ","CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Duplicates were all eliminated or given unique names if similar types occur in more than one subclass or class."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","46, 47",null,null,"Technical","Consistency",null,"Surface Geology","Unconsolidated sand, mud, coral/shell, reef rubble are duplicate from uncolidated above.  ",390,"Still one more – shell/coral unconsolidated sediments",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Addressed as per suggestion."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov","47 & 48",null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","faunal, reef","Biotic Cover","change to non-coral reef, take out faunal",391,"I’m not a fan of this name since it suggest that corals aren’t fauna.  This worked with Faunal Bed because we were contrastin it with Aquatic Bed (vegetated) I think “non-coral:” reef is fine.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"No longer needed. - Got rid of Faunal Reef."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",47,null,"BBC. GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions",null,"Biotic Cover","move non-coral reef to GFC",392,"Move these to GFC along with the coral reefs.  Even the text says they are structural components.    Simplify the SGC for Reef into texture or provenance of the substrate itself.  Is it corally, shelly, or wormy?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,null,null,393,"See comment above – I’m not a fan of this name.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"The new terminology clarifies the coral morphologies and they are now located in the GC along with other structural features."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",49,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","dead, reef","Biotic Cover","dead mollusks only in SGC?",394,"Is this true – only SGC if all dead, right?",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Reefs removed from SGC - except for substrate.  So now all is clear. "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",50,null,"BBC","Editorial","Consistency","coral garden","Biotic Cover","duplicate names for coral gardens",395,"See table below to clafiy duplicate names for Coral Gardens.  ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Duplcates have been removed and the Coral reef settings have been reorganized."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",50,null,"BBC","Editorial","Consistency","coral garden","Biotic Cover","provide unique names and discussion of differences between different types of coral gardens",396,"Update to incude unique names  - and discussion of them as different types.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Unique names have been established for each unit."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",51,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Aquatic bec","Biotic Cover","rename Aquatic Bed SAV",397,"Consider renaming SAV – it’s used more widely, makes a more descriptive term, separates it more clearly from faunal beds and Emergent veg,  and we’ve gone so far from Cowardin, it shouldn’t matter if the name is different.",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Decided on the term \"Aquatic Vegetation Bed\" to unambiguosly include vegetation that is rooted but floating on the surface - thus not strictly \"submerged. \""]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",51,null,"BBC ","Technical","Mixes/Thresholds","thresholds","Biotic Cover","10% cover rule",398,"I’m not sure how to interpret the 10% cover  rule.  What do you do with >10% seagrass and >10% sea cucumbers?  Is it faunal bed or aquatic bed",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"New dominance approach addresses this.  10% cover rule is no longer applicable "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",57,null,"BBC","Technical","Boundaries","emergent wetlands","Biotic Cover","delete Emergent Wetland from CMECS and defer to NVC",399,"Consider deleting this entire Class from CMECS and deferring to the NVC for emergent veg.  Deleting it would also eliminate the problem of inconsistency of Cowardin and NVC in the shrub class.  ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"No - will keep, but will be consistent w' NVC Groups and associations"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",57,null,"BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","emergent  vegetation","Biotic Cover","How to deal with FW tidal vegetation now that CMECS goes to head of tide",400,"Now that system goes to the head of tide, there will either need to be additional subclasses defined for freshwater tidal vegetation, or CMECS should not include any emergent vegetation and suggest going to the NVC for that.  Either is fine with me – eliminating emergent vegetation is the easiest solution.  ",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"NVC types added"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",59,null,"BBC","Technical","Implementation",null,"Biotic Cover","take out no known cover",401,"This isn’t a “class” at all.  It’s only needed as a mapping convention.  IT DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS VOLUME OF CMECS .",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",65,null,"BBC","Editorial","Units/Definitions","rhodolith ","Biotic Cover","Update Rhodolith Beds",402,"Update with new name",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",65,null,"BBC","Editorial","Consistency","coral garden","Biotic Cover","Fix Coral Gardens",403,"CoralGardens are listed four times.  Names need to be made unique to distinguish them if in fact they are different types.  See inserted table for a possible solution and new names for coral gardens, ophiurids and rhodoliths","see table page 65","CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",66,null,"BBC","Editorial","Units/Definitions","coral garden","Biotic Cover","update coral garden name",404,"Update with new name",null,"CMECS_Official_FGDC_Comments_from_Kathy_Goodin.doc x attached to email from Kathy 11/16/2010",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"BBC","Editorial","Consistency",null,null,"update coral garden name",405,"Coral Garden  again -",null,"Attached CMECS doc in email from Kathy 11/4/2042",null,"Done"]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Technical","Units/Definitions","units, database",null,"Naming CMECS Units",406,"On our Friday call we had a brief discussion about a few rules for naming units.     This came about as a result of me having to spell out all the units as we create the database.  We talked about whether the name of the level  = System,  Subsystem, Tidal Zone, Class, Group etc. should be the first part of the name or at the end or included at all.  I’d like your opinion on how to do this.  Should we put the name of the level first? Last?  Or not at all?  See several response emails for further discussion on this (Garry, GC, Larry, Mark 11/16 - 11/17/2010)",null,"Kathy email 11/16/2010 ",null,"Unique names have been established for each unit."]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"WCC","Editoral",null,null,null,"WCC application examples",407,"Can we develop several (or many?) specific examples of how the WCC may be used.  I think working through some of the use case scenarios will help us answer the question about whether it’s too broad to be useful.  Continued discussion (Kathy's reponse email): For use cases, I don’t think we have to have worked out any actual examples or pilots (ok maybe one or two), but I think at the meeting, we can brainstorm a million other uses that people would like to use the WCC for and then prioritize those uses and evaluate the existing WCC based on them.  For example…\n\n \n\nScientist wants to understand the WCC habitats that a focal species is using for different parts of its life history.\n\nManager wants to know where the oil spill will go and what species will be impacted by it based on their affinities for different parts of the WCC.  What hydroforms and depth layers will contribute to dispersal?\n\nManager wants time series maps of algal blooms in an estuary and wants to model future blooms based on WCC attributes.\n\nScientist wants to map upwellings to help model krill populations and impact on fish populations.\n\nBlah blah blah…. \n\n",null,"Kathy email 11/4/2010 (2)",null,"Examples are generally outside the scope of this document but are provided where necessary to illustrate a point. "]
["NatureServe","nos.csc.cmecs_ig@noaa.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","Editorial","Consistency","system, subsystem",null,"System subsystem and Tidal Zone names spelled out",409,"need to consistently name the Systems, Subsystems and Tidal Zones.  In the attached document I propose to include the name of the levels above to clarify the name of each unit (eg. Estuarine Shallow Water Intertidal Zone).  The attached document has them all spelled out.  Please take a look to make sure they work and that I got them all. We will need to clarify that the deep water subsystems are 4m at MMLW – so they can’t, by definition, be intertidal or Supratidal.  That seems to make sense to me.  Does it make sense to the rest of you? - Kathy\nYes, we should spell out that 4 m is at MLLW and write this in to the Deep water text on page 24.  I think we had some discussion about this before too, that we never provide a tidal datum for the 4 m cut-off.\n \nYour list is good  One point: as I understand it, \"Estuarine Shallow Water Tidal Riverine Supratidal Zone\" does not exist - the supratidal is defined as wave spray not wind spray, and so no distinct ecological \"spray zone\" exists in tidal rivers.\n \nG.\nThis looks good to me and it looks like you've got them all.  In checking back against our document I think we'll need to do some re-organizing of section 3.2 to make the existing content more intuitive and also add a section 3.3 on tidal zone.  Appendix A will also need an update.\nMark\n\n",null,"email exchange between GC and Kathy and Mark 11/16 and 11/17/2010; Kathy's word doc: Systems subsystems tidal zones.docx",null,"This has been done; subcomponents are now clearly defined; in the WC only hydroforms are hierarchichal."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Biodiversity",null,"CMECS beneficial for biodiversity",410,"This 'classification' could benefit biodiversity informatics ",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"Thank you.  We agree.  Biodiversity informatics is just one of the applications for which CMECS is suitable.  Users are encouraged to supplement CMECS units with other metrics as appropriate for their applications."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General",null,"Databases",null,"CMECs beneficial for database development",411,"I believe this classification could help us immensely while creating species and other ecological component databases. For example, many times I have created species databases using the Dawin Core schema but it is too simplistic and incomplete. I see that CMECS is the perfect complement while expanding species databases or coupling them with other ecological/environmental databases.",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Hierachy",null,"Are components structurally equivalent?",412,"are all structural components (of CMECS) hierarchically matching or equivalent? I think they are not and thus is an efficient level in the hierarchy to what interactions can be mapped (linked) efficiently? ",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"Hierarchies within each component trend generally from more general to more specific and from larger spatial scales to smaller ones, however, the levels are not equivalent across components due to their different nature."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Environmental Processes",null,"Can CMECS map processes?",413,"Is there an example in which CMECS has been used to map functions (processes)? ",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"Not at this time"]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General",null,"Ecosystem Services",null,"CMECS able to map ecosystem services",414,"I think the classification is very useful in mapping the provisioning and flow of  ecosystem services that build benefits to citizens. It would be interesting to try to link it to a ‘human dimensions’ classification of benefits that relate to constituents of well-being, such as those proposed/used by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"This linkage is interesting and could be pursued most effectively using the standard in conjunction with other systems rather than incorporating those elements into CMECS."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General",null,"Standardization",null,"CMECS should help standardize structure",415,", I believe this classification will help us in standardizing the elements, structure and function of natural infrastructure responsible for providing ecosystem services to humans. ",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Databases",null,"CMECs beneficial for database development",416," I believe CMECS could help TNC in developing more efficient restoration databases. We are just in the process of developing some restoration needs and priorities databases , such as http://gulfmex.coastalresilience.org/. and I see that CMECS would help us standardize our data for others to be able to assimilate it to other CMECS-based projects.",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["TNC - Corpus Christi","jbrenner@tnc.org",null,null,"GFC","General","Implementation","Restoration",null,"CMECS potentially useful for restoration planning",417," I specially think that the Geoform Component could bring a new dimension in looking at restoratiuon viability and thus priorities. It is not clear to me at this point how difficult would be to implement this Component in the Gulf bays and estuaries to inform restoration needs at relatively large scales (one bay or estuary).",null,"Jorge Brenner email 1/30/11",null,"This will be handled through implementation guidance."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,null,"General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Beneficial for mapping",418,".  I believe that CMECS has the potential to greatly improve our habitat mapping efforts along the west coast which in my opinion has suffered given the narrow surficial geologic habitat code that we currently employ (Oregon and Washington) in our SGH maps. ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged, and pilot opportunites are being discussed."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Structure",null,"Improves accuracy",419,"...it is clear that due to the multi-layered or component structure of CMECS the task of linking mapped habitats to documented species preferences will become easier and less error prone.  ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,null,"General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Crosswalks should be simple",420,"I don't think that it'll be all that difficult to translate our current habitat maps over to CMECS.  ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,null,"General",null,null,null,"Generally good ",421,"In all honestly it was difficult to find much fault with the current standard over the first read.  ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,null,"General","Implementation",null,11,"Expansion of Section 11",422,"Section 11 (11.1 & 11.2) are absolutely necessary and I'd like to see them expanded at some point (perhaps as the standard is applied and case studies become available this section could be expanded).",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"We expanded this section and anticipate development of a mapping guidance in the future. "]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"WCC","General","Dynamics","Dynamic ",null,"WCC Variability",423,"...however in my opinion the WCC (section 8) would benefit from more explicit or more direct treatment of variability.",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Acknowledged. Variability is a major issue in water column units and processes.  The main treatment of variability will follow in an a impelemntation and application document.  Represent average expression. Boundaries are best derived statistically and user/application driven."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"WCC","General","Dynamics","Dynamic ",null,"WCC Variability",424,"I think that this variability (in temp. chl, O2, salinity, etc.) is an important factor driving patterns in organism distributions at scales we don't want to generalize or overlook.  Perhaps this is what the Hydroform and Subform Class and Subclass are meant to describe.  I am however, having trouble with the concept of actually trying to map a hydroform or subform that might persist for less time than it would take to actually map the hydroform. ","I would think that it's more important to describe areas where these hydroforms typically exist and then give measured ranges for their specific attributes.  Basically, the desired case is to map the hydroform from a Eularian perspective.  I could see where the Lagrangian mapping could be used (which to me is how these hydroforms are described in CMECS) in classifying characteristics of a real variable and moving hydroform but I don't think that's something that would ever be put on a map.","Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Agreed.  This has been addressed via the Biogeochemical Features, which can be mapped. Hydroforms can be mapped as well, and if time scales are problematic, appropriate technology, such as RS, may be considered."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"WCC","General","Dynamics","Dynamic ",null,"Mappability of Hydroforms",425,"the WCC subsystem Horizontal and Vertical Structures are easy to understand and map, they have an ordinal nature.  Hydroforms and Subforms are by nature variable and ephemeral and as defined in CMECS categorical not ordinal.  I understand the need to describe these hydroforms and subforms but I think additional work should be done, perhaps at regional levels to describe what a mappable representations of these hydroforms and subforms would look like.  ","Hydroform or subform definitions should include min, max, mean ranges that would allow you to map hydroform zones.  For example; maybe I've missed something but I don't understand how Upwelling would be mapped currently.","Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"The purpose of this document is to define the conceptual boundaries of units.  Any issues of variability or fuzzy boundaries would be addressed in an implementation document or by the user."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Grain sizes/classes",null,"Pebbles term problematic",426,"Overall I think the SGC is very good.  I think you'll probably get some grief about using the term \"pebbles\" instead of gravel but that really doesn't matter.",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Thank you!  We now use \"pebble\" and \"gravel\" as Wentworth does, so hopefully that will help."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Grain sizes/classes",null,"Conflict with Soils terminology",427,"I also know that some reviewers will have issues with the adoption of FGDC-STD-06 given its class differences with the Wentworth Scale.  Much previous work has been completed using the Wentworth classes and it could be problematic for many to make the switch.","It seems reasonable that CMECS could provide for including these previous classifications, grandfathering them in.","Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Grain sizes/classes",null,"Mud a useful term",428,"In my work that is regional in scope I often need to use datasets that are sparse, dated, and summarized.  For these reasons it was good to see a description and inclusion of a mud category in section 4.3.  ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Thank you!  We agree on the importance of \"Mud\"."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"SGC","General","Scale","Thresholds",null,"Volume estimation difficult",429,"Another regional scale issue that will come up relates to subclass distinctions measured in volumes.  Much of the data being used to do classifications comes from video (or is visual).  Volume estimation of sediments is not a common video practice.  I fear that if I needed to adopt CMECS right now, I’d violate these subclass rules and I wouldn’t have any means to fix that. ",".   I’m sure that’s not the intent, so we need to provide definitions of SGC Subclass that enable video estimation techniques (% cover?).","Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Done!  This is distinctly spelled out in each \"Substrate Origin\" discussion."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Scale","Scale",null,"Geoform needs scale",430,"I think that there will be much concern about the treatment of scale in the GFC Geoforms.  ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"A spatial, scale-based framework has been developed for the GC."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Scale","Scale",null,"Consistency with Green",431,"There is heavy investment along the west coast in the Green classification scheme which does use scale to discriminate units.  I can understand the concern that CMECS won’t use scale below Physiographic level, however at present I don’t really share that concern.  ","1) Scale of any mapped units can be determined easily from the map.  Thus, any subsequent analysis isn’t limited by some choice of scale in a prior step.  If one wants to run some analysis of varying patch size on the distribution of organisms, that analysis is still possible by post-classification stratification by patch size.   ","Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"The spatial framework in the GC now is aligned with the Greene system and Greene's morphological units have been added to the GC."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Scale","Scale, Mapping",null,"Scale and Mapping in Geoform",432,"2) Scale in terms of mapping unit (such as the scale of datasets used during a mapping process) is however important.  Often underlying data is patchy and of varying granularity.  When one has the ability to map units at any scale the result might be detailed mapping in data rich areas and simplified mapping in data poor areas.  ","Setting some mapping scale and minimum mapping unit is helpful in this case but I do believe that the latter notion of scale is something that can be addressed on a project by project basis (and described in section 11).  So, I’d accept the Geoform definition in terms of scale as written.","Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Scale has been incorporated in a way that helps organize the geoform units but does not constrain the user.  The minimum mapping unit for any project can be defined by the user as long as it is reported as part of normal best practices for metadata."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"SGC","General","Implementation","Mapping, Technology",null,"Technology independence good",433,"I think the strength of the SGC and CECS in general is that it's not concerned with mapping or measuring techniques.  ",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"Thank you!  We agree."]
["Oregon State University","cromsos@coas.oregonstate.edu",null,null,"All","General","Units/Definitions","Mapping, Technology",null,"How to deal with sparse data ",434,"Some treatment of how to deal with or acknowledge sparse or poorly understood regions is necessary.  I didn't see that covered in CMECS but it's something that we routinely get questions about in our work.  People take classifications and think that the underlying knowledge is uniform when it rarely is.  Some accounting of this knowledge within the classification could help.",null,"Romsos_CMECS_Review_OSU.docx",null,"It is true that information density is often not the same across an area.  However, that information is best conveyed through the use of additional comments in the data itself or through the metadata.  Units that in a particular study may be very sparse may be dense in others so it would not be helpful to include that information in the  unit definition itself."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com",null,null,null,"General","Boundaries","Geographic limits",null,"Is this for outside CONUS?",435,"the final version should state that the product covers only the 50 states and not the sovereign terrotories of the United States. It's a shame that its coverage omits these territories because virtually all of them support coral reefs. In case you know where these Territiories are located, I've compiled a list for you by archipelago, but the list does not include secondary offshore islets. Also the habitat definitions in the review text are all essentially continental, and these do not apply to the foillowing islands:","Additional territorial islands and structure listed in Jim's email message (Recommendation 435","Jim Maragos email 1/24/11",null,"While CMECS has been designed primarily based on U.S. environments, Most of the units are transferrable to all U.S. territories and internationally.  Revisions are anticipated as users apply the system globally."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com",null,null,"GFC","General","Boundaries","Oceanic ",null,"More basaltic and oceanic reef geoforms needed",436,"Since Hawaii is one of the 50 states, more effort is needed for the definititons of the oceanic basalt and coral reef habitats and geoforms. ","For example, there is no definition for a coral atoll of which there are at least 5 in Hawaii (French Frigate, Lisianski-Neva, Pearl and Hermes, Midway and Kure. ","Jim Maragos email 1/24/12",null,"Atoll is captured in the GC and the composition of coral is captured in the SC."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com",null,null,"GFC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Atoll definition needs checking",437," A definition for an atoll is a coral reef cap atop a subsiding extinct volcano that reaches the sea surface, supports at least one island (vegetated), whose perimeter reef partially or wholly encloses a lagoon, and where there is regular surface seawater exchange between the ocean and lagoon.","There is one atoll reef in Hawaii, Maro Reef.  The definition is the same as for an atoll except that there are no islands.  Also Laysan is a coral reef island, which is similar to an atoll except the perimeter reef encircling a lagoon. \n","Jim Maragos email 1/24/13",null,"These requirements are captured in the GC definition of Atoll, Submerged Reef/Atoll Reef type, and Coral Reef Island type."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 2","l. 68","SGC","General","Boundaries","Geographic limits","Table of Contents","Territories listed",438,"The organized U.S. territories are not covered including Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.Also unincorporated U.S. territories not covered: Johnston, Midway, Palmyra, Rose, and Wake atolls; and Jarvis, Baker, Howland Islands; and Kingman Reef plus other Caribbean equivalents",null,"CMECS_Document_JimMaragosEdits1-24-11.docx",null,"This is not an SC Issue.  This is now addressed in \"Ecoregion\"."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 35","l. 1206","SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Lagoon definition needs work",439,"This definition of a reef lagoon is incorrect and what is instead described is a moat. True reef lagoons are are not found along fringing reefs and are only found behind atoll and barrier reefs. Depressions associated with fringing reefs instead may have moats (between reef crest and shoreline or embayments which are associated with reefs lining bays or riverine systems. True lagoons are formed from the subsidence of tropical islands which shrink in size as they sink with the space created being the expanding lagoons.",null,null,null,"Reef lagoon is no longer a unit.  The definition of lagoon has been generalized to fit coral reef settings as well as others.  The geoform Atoll includes the reef crests and lagoon in a commen feature."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 35","l. 1212","SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Back reef definition",440,"Backreefs are the reef slopes within a true lagoon and are not exposed to the open ocean as are fore reefs",null,null,null,"No conflict with definition in Coral Reef zone Modifiers"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 35","l. 1223","SGC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Reef crest definition",441,"Highest part of the reef, either submerged or emergent. Not all reefs are submerged at low tide and thus the definition is flawed as defined",null,null,null,"Inclusion of \"nearly emergent\" in the definition accomodates the submerged reef crest."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 35","l. 1231","SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Embayment Reef instead of Lagoon",442,null,"Replace lagoon with embayment reef",null,null,"Lagoon in association with reefs are included in the Atoll geoform."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 36","l. 1250","SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Include non-reef building corals",443,null,"…and non-reef building corals",null,null,"Non Reef building corals have been added through the term colonized in reef biota"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 36","l. 1256","SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Include non-reef building corals",444,null,"Non-reef building or hermatypic corals",null,null,"Non Reef building corals have been added through the term colonized in reef biota"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 36","l. 1271","SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"More reef subclasses needed",445,"Additional subclasses are reefs are needed including atoll, atoll reef, barrier reef, reef, and bank",null,null,null,"All these units added except atoll reef which in CMECS is considered part of the atoll.. "]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 36","l. 1292","SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Patch reef definition ",446,"Where’s the definitition of patch reef? E.g. e.g.one that is not aggregated? Patch reefs are lagoon reefs that reach upward to the lagoon surface and spread out to form flattened reef crests.  In contrast, reef pinnacles, bommies and mounds are lagoon reefs growing above the lagoon floor that do do not reach the lagoon surface to create flattenend reef crests",null,null,null,"Patch reefs are included in biogenic geoforms definition"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 37","l. 1299","SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Lagoon definition needs work",447,"Or within the body of a reef lagoon. Reticulated lagoon reefs form when there are numerous linear reefs in atolls with shallow lagoons",null,null,null,"CMECS has drawn strongly from the NOAA CCMA coral reef classification, definitions and units which are in common use."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 37","l. 1325",null,"General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Channel definition",448,"Channels are open only a one end such as those found on fringing reefs. In contrast passes are open at both ends, such as between the ocealn and lagoon within atolls and and barrier reefs",null,null,null,"Pass/Lagoon Channel has been added to the GC as a Channel Type to accommodate this."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 38","l. 1377",null,"General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Include giant clams",449,"And giant clams (Tridacna)",null,null,null,"Added"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 84","Figure 15","GFC","General","Boundaries","Geographic limits",null,"CONUS only",450,"This covers only the continental United States",null,null,null,"CMECS is intended to include all US territories and to be useful at the global level.  Pacific coral morphologies have been included from the NCCOS project classifications."]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 88","L. 3278","GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Basalt islands",451,"Non-continental or oceanic basalt volcanic islands",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 88","L. 3278","GFC","General",null,"Reefs",null,"Active volcanoes",452,null,"Two, Hawaii and Maui, with volcanoes that have erupted in historic times (past 2-3 centuries)",null,null,"Comment acknowledged"]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com","p. 88","l. 3284","GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs",null,"Atoll defnition",453,null,"One atoll reef (Maro); one reef island (Laysan); and five coral atolls (French Frigate, Lisianski-Neva Shoal, Pearl and Hermes, Midway, and Kure; and 30 submerged banks (with submerged crests within the photic zone) and numerous sea mounts (with crests below the photic zones)",null,null,"Added Atoll Reef and Coral Reef Island "]
["USFWS Hawaii","jimmaragos@yahoo.com",null,null,null,"General","Boundaries","Geographic limits",null,"CONUS only",454,"All other U.S. territories are not covered.",null,null,null,"Biogeographic Setting now includes US territories.  "]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 25, para. 2",null,null,"Editorial",null,"Writing",2,"Awkward writing",455,"The writing here is awkward as the word users is repetitive.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Writing revised through the technical editing process."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 17","Figures 2&3",null,"Editorial",null,"Figures",null,"Missing figures",456,"Seems to be figures missing here?",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Figures added"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 19","Figure 4",null,"Editorial",null,"Figures",null,"Poor figure quality",457,"Reference, it looks like it was scanned.  The left side axis has inconsistent font (looks like “CMECS” doesn’t belong.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"New figure has been added"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 25","Figure 5",null,"Editorial",null,"Figures",null,"Citation needed",458,"Believe this came from a textbook?  A proper citation of the original source shoud be provided (e.g. year)",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"The figure has been improved and is sufficiently modified to no longer require a citation."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 26, para. 1",null,null,"Editorial",null,"Writing",4,"Awkward writing",459,"Awkward writing makes for a difficult read, most sentences begin with “The SGC”.  Minor editing required.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"These problems were solved by the technical editor."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 27","Table 1","SGC","Editorial",null,"Format",null,"Table formatting ",460,"Tables should be formatted  minimizing lines as you would see in a scientific journal.  There appears to be different font sizes/types in this table",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Old Figure 1 was reformatted by our professional Editor."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 28","Table 6","SGC/SBC","Editorial",null,"Format",4.0999999999999996,"Figure format",461,"Some of the text on this figure is a little too small",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Enlarged and bolded the text on old \"Table 6\", now Figure 14."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 29, para. 3","l. 1007",null,"Editorial",null,"Reference",4.3,"References needed",462,"Key references should be noted here.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 1","l. 1624","BBC","Editorial",null,"Reference",5.0999999999999996,"References needed",463,"Reference?",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Done - FGDC STD 004 reference added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 3","l. 1636","BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Saline ",5.0999999999999996,"Saline not correct term",464,"Do not believe that any species are classified as “saline”, halophyptic or halophytes is sufficient.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Delete \"saline\" from coastal marsh definition"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 3","l. 1642","BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Marsh",5.0999999999999996,"High and Low marsh not specific enough",465,"The terms “high marsh” and “low marsh” are non specific and do not apply to all salt marshes so was deleted. ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accepted Rasser's changes as recommended in edited word document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 4","l. 1645","BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Marsh",5.0999999999999996,"Term does not apply to all marshes",466,"This is a general statement that is not applicable to all salt marshes so added “may”.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accepted Rasser's changes as recommended in edited word document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 4","l. 1645","BBC","Technical","Boundaries","Salt flat",5.0999999999999996,"Not all salt flats at tidal edge",467,"It is inaccurate to state that salt flats occur at tidal edge.  They actually usually occur in areas of intermediate tidal flushing.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accept Rasser's changes as recommended in edited word document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 4","l. 1646","BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Salt flat",5.0999999999999996,"Not all salt flats at tidal edge",468,"remove tidal edge.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accept Rasser's changes as recommended in edited word document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 4","l. 1647","BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Tidal",5.0999999999999996,"Drawdown wrong term",469,"Drawdown is a not technical term.  Tides are  the determining factor that “drawdown”.  Daily, implies once per day which is generally inaccurate.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accepted Rasser's changes as recommended in edited document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 4","l. 1647","BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Herbs, vegetation",5.0999999999999996,"Term herb has other connotations",470,"The terms herbs is more often used for plants with medicinal qualities.  Forbs is more technical and covers all of the herbaceous plants except for grasses.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accepted Rasser's changes as recommended in edited document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 4","l. 1648","BBC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Herbs, vegetation",5.0999999999999996,"Graminoids better term",471,"Graminoids is a more technical and appropriate term here as it includes grass like plants.  Many plants that people call grasses such as sedges, are not actually grasses",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Accepted Rasser's changes as recommended in edited word document"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 45, para. 5","l. 1658","BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Panne",5.0999999999999996,"Confusing use of Pannes",472,"The inclusion of pannes here is confusing as these contain little vegetation.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null," Deferred  to NVC  standard groups -Used pannes, but indicated that these only indicate the biota of those that are sparsely vegetated. "]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 46, para. 1","l. 1676","BBC","General",null,"Reference",5.0999999999999996,"Refernce needed",473,"It is important to provide a reference for this.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Done"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 65, para. 3","l. 2538","BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Panne",5.0999999999999996,"Remove panne from biotic",474,"The inclusion of salt panne here is awkward as they are not vegetated.  They are also listed under geoforms in section 7.3.1.  Suggest removing Panne from a biotic type.  Pannes should be notes as common within the biotic communities where they occur. ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Deferred  to NVC  standard group names, so we retained this term, but identified that we are talking about the spaseley vegetated biota on this geoform.  If there is no vegetation on a panne, then only the GFC would be used.  "]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para. 1","l. 3779","WCC","General","Dynamics","Spatial/temporal",8,"Use spatio-temporal terminology",475,null,"spatio-temporal environmental conditions (e.g., regional, local, seasonal, interannual)","CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"This language has been added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para. 1","l. 3782","WCC","Editorial",null,"Writing",null,"Confusing writing",476,"THIS SENTENCE IS NOT CLEAR (THE WCC IS DESIGNED?? BY WHO? ABOVE IS DEFINED AS AN “ENVIRONMENT” AND NOW IS DESIGNED?” ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"The water column is an environment; the water column component, or \"WC\" is designed by the CMECS development team to characterize units in the water column environment.  The text has been updated to clarify this distinction."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para 2","l. 3789","WCC","Editorial",null,"Writing",null,"Confusing writing",477,"into [THE WATER COLUMN HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH VERTICAL CONCEPTS ONLY, SO REMOVE HORIZONTAL NEXTè] ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"The horizontal references all pertain to the Aquatic Systems level, in which systems (Estuarine, Marine) are separated by depth and reference to horizontal structure have been move there and removed from the WC. All of these references to horizontal structure have been moved to the Aquatic System chapter."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para 2","l. 3794","WCC","General","Consistency","Logical consistency",null,"Water Column defining water column",478,"[YOU CAN’T USE WATER COLUMN TO DEFINE WATER COLUMNç è] vertical environment which are r",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"The term \"water column\" is used to define the Water Column component, which is appropriate use."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para. 2","l. 3797","WCC","General","Boundaries","Water Column",null,"Remove term horizontally",479,"Remove... and horizontally from the land-sea margin to the deep oceans. ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Removed. "]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para. 3","l. 3800","WCC","Editorial",null,"Writing",null,"Rewording ",480,"Reword to treats",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Done. Reworded to \"treats\""]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 101, para. 3","l. 3803","WCC","General","Units/Definitions","Horizontal ",null,"Remove references to horizontal dimension",481,"THIS DEFINITION SHOULD EXCLUDE ANY MENTION TO THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSION. INCLUDING IT CREATES A CONFLICT WITH A HISTORICAL CONCEPT IN OCEANOGRAPHY. ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"These references to horizontal structure have been removed or if appropriate, moved to the Aquatic System chapter."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 102, para. 1","l. 3812","WCC","General","Units/Definitions","Horizontal ",null,"Remove references to horizontal dimension",482,"ç AGAIN WATER COLUMN AND ANY CONCOMITANT REFERENCE TO THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSION IS CONFUSING. I WOULD RE-WRITE ALL THIS MAKING THE REFERENCE TO, FOR INSTANCE, “HORIZONTAL VARIATIONS OF THE WATER COLUMN PROPERTIES” INSTEAD OF ASSIGNING A HORIZONTAL NON-UNIFORMITY TO THE WATER COLUMN WHICH GOES AGAINST THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT.. ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"These references to horizontal structure have been removed or if appropriate, moved to the Aquatic System chapter."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 103, para. 1","l. 3843","WCC","General","Units/Definitions","Horizontal ",8.1999999999999993,"Conflict with previous use of horizontal layering",483,"NOW THE WATER COLUMN IS UNIFORM IN THE HORIZONTAL? NOW THIS SEEMS CORRECT WITH THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT BUT IN CONFLICT, OR AT LEAST IS CONFUSING WITH THE TEXT IN 8 AND 8.1 ABOVE. ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Conflict has  been removed."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 106, para. 1","l. 3877","WCC","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology",8.3000000000000007,"Confusing list",484,"THE LIST ABOVE IS CONFUSING AND/OR  REDUNDANT (E.G., GEOSTROPHIC AND CORIOLIS) AND DOES NOT FOLLOW A RULE. THESE CURRENTS SHOULD BE LISTED/CLASSIFIED USING A SINGLE CONCEPT, E.G., RESTORING FORCE: A) GRAVITY B) CORIOLIS C) CROSS-SHORE SHEAR. ALSO, THERE ARE NO CORIOLIS CURRENTS. THE LIST SHOULD CLASSIFY CURRENTS BY SOME STANDARD",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Comments here and elsewhere about hydroforms are useful.  The hydroforms have been reorganized and additional types have been added.  While the level of detail in the Wave hydroform does not include a subform defined as Gravity Waves, all examples of such waves (internal, topographic, etc.) have been grouped together."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 106, para. 2","l. 3991","WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Terminology",8.3000000000000007,"Internal waves vs. gravity waves",485,"INTERNAL WAVES ARE GRAVITY WAVES",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 106, para. 2","l. 3992","WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Terminology",8.3000000000000007,"Standing waves vs. gravity waves",486,"STANDING WAVES ARE ALSO GRAVITY WAVES",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 106, para. 2","l. 3993","WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Terminology",8.3000000000000007,"Tsunamis vs. gravity waves",487,"A TSUNAMI IS ALSO A GRAVITY WAVE",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 106, para. 2","l. 3998","WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Terminology",8.3000000000000007,"Subform topographic",488,"SUBFORM: TOPOGRAPHIC ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Added."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 106, para. 2","l. 3999","WCC","Technical","Units/Definitions","Terminology",8.3000000000000007,"Subform topographic",489,"SUBFORM: HYBRID(TOPOGRAPHIC-KELVIN)",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"This hybrid form can be identified as the predominant wave form with an additional modifier to indicate a mix."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 113, para. 2","l. 4138","Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Community state",9,"Inconsistent consideration of community state",490,"It is interesting that concept of community state is included here for infaunal communities but not for other communities.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Community state is included here because this type of analysis is often conducted as part of a Sediment Profile Imaging project and is in use by many practitioners of this technology."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 113, para. 2","l. 4140","Modifiers","Technical","Units/Definitions","Succession",null,"A successional state is a sere",491,"The concept is succession.  The succesional stage is a sere.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Text resolved"]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 114, para. 1","l. 4174","Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Succession",9,"Infaunal status instead of community stage",492," Good, this makes sense.  Would it be appropriate call these modifiers “infaunal status” rather than “Community stage”.K46",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Community stage was chosen because it reflects prevailing environmental conditions rather than the condition of infauna."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 116, para. 2","l. 4194","Modifiers","General",null,null,9,"Reference",493,"Spaulding reference is K.",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Reference has been fixed."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 116, para. 2","l. 4198","Modifiers","General",null,null,null,"Reference",494,"Is there a reference for these values determined for the modifier?",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"No."]
["BOEMRE Env Division","michael.rasser@boemre.gov","p. 203","Appendix K",null,"General",null,null,null,"Poor graphic ",495,"This is a poor graphic.  Perhaps one or more maps could be provided with the appropriate cartographic elements (e.g. north arrow). ",null,"CMECS_Document_BOEMRE.docx",null,"Graphics have been improved, but their purpose is not to serve as a map but rather an example of component unit integration."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Mapping",null,"Five components aids seamless mapping",496,"The five CMECS components cover the broad spectrum of what exists in the water column, benthos and sub-benthos.  I think that these being linked to other FGDC standards is a wise decision and could lead to ‘seamless’ resource mapping.",null,"CMECS_Review_palandro.pdf",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Modifiers key to system",497,"I believe that modifiers are a key component to the system.  I would urge that CMECS allows for individuals to build their own set of modifiers to meet their specific ecological or mapping needs.  This will be especially important when ranges of benthic coverage are needed, eg, dense coverage or 75-90% coverage.",null,null,null,"Text has been added to sections 10 and 12 that encourage users to add their own modifiers as long as these do not conflict with the CMECS units"]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Structure/Hierarchy",null,null,"Share out the modifiers",498,null,"I would further suggest that any modifiers produced be shared out with the larger user community.  I did not see this specifically stated in the text.  However, I believe that this may be inferred from Section 10 (Dynamic Content within CMECS Standard). ",null,null,"A Community of Practice is envisioned for CMECS users to encourage this type of information exchange."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Mapping underconsidered",499,"I still feel as though mapping was an afterthought to this process.  ",null,null,null,"While the focus of CMECS is on ecologically meaningful physical and biotic features, the importance of being able to map, or develop spatial data with these units has been given serious consideration.  Pilot projects have demonstrated that version 4 should present no difficulties to mapping."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Does spatial dominance determine unit?",500,"When using CMECS to map, is the classification based on dominance of the specific class over the prescribed MMU? ",null,null,null,"This is correct.  Simple spatial dominance over the MMU is what determines the primary attribute.  Co-occurring elements can also be recoreded."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"SGC, BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Reef",null,"Confusion btw SGC and BBC Coral Reef Class",501,"There is a Coral Reef SGC Class and a Coral Reef BBC Class.  This could lead to confusion; ",null,null,null,"We have clarified the names of these units and identified the issue in the text to clarify the different aspects of the reefs that are addressed by the different components. "]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"SGC ","General","Units/Definitions","Reef",null,"Suggest Reef-Coral for SGC",502,null,"I would consider changing the SGC class to Reef-Coral.  This would also relate to Annelid (Worm) and Mollusk Reefs. ",null,null,"In new SC, Coral Substrate is the class with reef being those coral substrates that are consolidated and hve some rugosity."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"SGC ","General","Units/Definitions","Reef",null,"Remove \"live\" from SGC",503,"The word Live should not be added to the SGC CR Reef Morphology Hardbottom and Hardbottom with Channels.  Live crosses into the BBC and is not strictly a geologic component. ",null,null,null,"The reference to \"live\" has been removed from the SC.  The SC only includes dead or non-living materials.  If they are alive they are in the BC."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"SGC ","General","Units/Definitions","Reef",null,"Use linear vs. fringing for oyster reef",504,null,"Consider changing the term Fringing for the Reef Morphology Class of both Worm and Mollusk Reef to Linear Reef.  Fringing holds a specific definition based on formation for coral reefs, linear can be used more ‘freely’, ",null,null,"Fringing has been kept for mollusk reefs since it best describes their setting in intertidal marshes."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Reef",null,"Remove 10% living threshold from coral reef",505,"Under the BBC CR Class, Living Stony Coral Communities, it states 10% or more of living cover.  I understand where this came from (NOAA BioGeo).  ","However, they have done away with the 10% or greater classification and are now mapping based on dominance.  I would do the same here",null,null,"We are now mapping based on dominance."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Reef",null,"No need for mixes if you use dominant ",506,"The Mixed Hard and Soft Corals Subclass is not necessary if you map to dominance of cover. ",null,null,null,"Dominance approach should address this.  This class was elminated"]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Reef",null,"Add soft coral subclass",507,null,"Consider adding a Soft Coral Subclass. ",null,null,"This is a valid approach, but we took  an alternate approach that highlights their ecological habit by placing them in 1)  in shallow or mesophotic reefs or in Faunal Bed as either  2)Attached corals on hard substrate,  or  3) Soft sediment corals."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Reef",null,"Coral garden as catch all?",508,"I see the Coral Garden Subclass as the ‘catch-all’, is that correct? ",null,null,null,"Now in colonized shallow and mesophotic reef"]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Reef, Mapping",null,"Coral patches in seagrass?",509,"How do I map patches of coral in a seagrass bed? ",null,null,null,"Application issue - depends on minimum mapping unit.  If interest in both corals and seagrasses, use co-occurring element modifier"]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Biotic Groups",null,"Biotic groups in both faunal bed and coral reef?",510,"Can any of the Biotic Group classes from the Faunal Bed Class also be used in the Coral Reef Class? ",null,null,null,"This is now clarified - only a faunal bed if no live reef building coral present.  The dominants may be the same, but are considered different biotic communities. "]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Algae",null,"Non calcareous algae in coral reef setting?",511,"How are non-calcareous algae mapped on a coral reef (eg,Dictyota)?  Might be a need for another Subclass under CR to handle. ",null,null,null,"IF live coral is also present, but not dominant, then macroalgal colonized reefs are in \"Colonized Shallow and Mesophitic Reef.   IF no live coral are present, then use Macroalgae in Aquatic Vegetation Bed - and indicate the reef using the GC.  "]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com","pg. 179",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Reef, Biotic Groups",null,"Reconsider Coral Reef Biotic Groups",512,"The Biotic Groups listed for Coral Reefs on page 179 should be rethought.  The classes used are based on geomorphology not necessarily BBC ",null,null,null,"Done - moved to GFC"]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Boundaries","Nearshore",null,"Why 30m nearshore boundary?",513,"Why 30 m to describe Nearshore?  Seems random and does not seem to fit an ecological setting.  For example, 30 m on the West Florida Shelf extends nearly 120 km from land and does not meet the remaining Nearshore criteria of ‘The proximity of land and the effects of nearshore processes strongly influence waters and benthos of these areas’ (p 21). ",null,null,null,"A few sentences were added to explain the rationale for 30m cutoff."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Boundaries","Neritic",null,"Shelf break or 100-200m?",514,"It is stated that the Neritic subsystem extends from the 30 m depth contour to the continental shelf break.  However the next paragraph states that the boundary generally occurs between 100 and 200 m.  These statements seem contradictory and confusing. ",null,null,null," These sentences are not contradictory.  The boundary seaward boundary of this system is the shelfbreak.  The depth of the shelfbreak varies in depth from 100-200m. Made a slight change to text to clarify."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com","pg. 14",null,"SGC, BBC","General","Implementation","Integration",null,"Doubts about SGC/BBC combination",515,"With the concerns stated above, I am leery of the statement ‘The BBC and the SGC can be used together to comprehensively describe 100% of the features that constitute benthic cover (p. 14).   ",null,null,null,"Agree, but for other reasons.  That statement was removed."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Integration",null,"Testing needed",516,null,"Suggest mapping each ecosystem stated to be covered by CMECS as a test case and as a proof of concept ",null,null,"Demonstration products are planned as part of the implementation process."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Develop photo key",517,null,"Produce a map key for each class to allow for photo-interpretation. ",null,null,"Example maps and photos are planned as part of the implementation process."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Develop mapping extension",518,null,"Produce a mapping extension for ArcGIS to promote usage ",null,null,"Some spatial tools have been developed and more are anticipated as part of the implementation process."]
["Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute","david.palandro@myfwc.com",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"Support research mapping",519,null,"Have a mechanism for ‘research’ mapping to allow for very specific questions to be addressed from a possible outside classification scheme ",null,null,"The CMECS maintenance process will include mechanisms to foster applictation of the standard.   Funding mechanisms will be considered as part of this process."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,"All","General",null,"Components",null,"Hierarchical structure",520,"The system developed employs clearly recognizable large-scale classification components  (Water Column, Benthic Biotic, Surface Geology, Sub-Benthic and Geo-Form), and utilizes a complex hierarchical  set of classes, sub-classes, modifiers, biotopes and biotic groups for classification with increasing specificity.",null,"CMECS Review Zajac.pdf",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Terminology",null,"Straightforward terms facilitate classification",521,"A portion of the categories in each level of the main classification components  are fairly straightforward in terms of their usage and recognition by users and practitioners, thus making the system accessible and manageable relative to the  classification objectives",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Terminology",null,"Also confusing and inappropriate terms",522,", there are a significant number of these which are counterintuitive or stray from common usage [specifics given below],  thus comprising the utility of the classification system.",null,null,null,"Definitions have received additional vetting and a technical editor has reviewed the document to reduce confusing or ambiguous language."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Detail",null,"May be too complex",523,"CMECS as currently configured may be too detailed and complex for regular usage,  and the application of increasingly detailed classifications may detract from the intended purpose of having a classification system that informs coastal and marine research and spatial planning by being easy to comprehend and apply to related activities such as sea floor mapping and habitat identification.",null,null,null,"The upper levels of CMECS are not unlike many commonly used classifications and should not present a challenge to most data development or cross-walking processes."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Detail",null,"May encourage users to exceed what their data supports",524,"My concern is that users of the system may try to a too detailed to a level that may go beyond the data that they have available, or even if available it may be too detailed to be able to be utilized easily as a management tool. ",null,null,null,"Highly detailed CMECS units are provided for those researchers capable of identifying them reliably.  Users are not required to report on units beyond their abliity to report with confidence.  Implementation guidance will convey the message that users should not attempt to apply units beyond their capability and are not required to."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Implementation, Mapping",null,"Suggest a mapping level and a detailed level",525,null,"I would suggest that the developers consider modifying CMECS so that the classification system is comprised of two levels; a) a less complex one that can be easily applied to the kinds of mapping products that are currently being generated (e.g. maps of sea floor geomorphology and sediment texture based on acoustic technologies and some amount of ground-truth grabs / visual technologies (e.g. video, photography) and b) one that provides a framework  and guidance for classification at more detailed levels of ecological structure (e.g. biotopes) as appropriate data becomes available for more detailed classification.  ",null,null,"Users can establish these levels based on their individual projects and technologies.  A structural distinction along these lines would soon have many exceptions as some features would only be identifiable at general levels while others could be identified at very specific (lower) levels, often in the same data set."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Framework is valuable",526,"CMECS as currently developed provides a valuable framework for focusing ideas regarding workable and ecologically applicable and informative (and accurate) classification schemes and the structure to apply such a scheme.  ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 15",null,"WCC","General","Dynamics","Mapping",2,"Will people map dynamic water column features?",527,"Are pycnoclines, turbidity maximums  and other such water column components mappable units that will actually be mapped? ",null,null,null,"They are mappable units in the Biogeochemical Features."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 15",null,null,"General","Implementation","Mapping, Structure, GIS",2,"How will CMECS enhance existing GIS approaches?",528,"The overlaying of different data layers in GIS is something that is already regularly done; how will CMECS enhance those efforts? ",null,null,null,"CMECS would enhance this primarily through the use of common terminology and unit definitions that will allow various GIS data sets to be integrated across larger regions.  "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 15",null,"Modifiers","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Modifiers, Implementation",2,"Subjectivity is potentially a problem in modifiers",529,"The aim of the modifiers is to better characterize, but this must be very carefully done as there can be high subjectivity in applying these modifiers and natural variability , especially temporal variability, a modifier appropriate one season may not be for another - if the data is collected and the modifier used to map based in that data, there is a concern that may be seen as a constant case. ",null,null,null,"Users are encouraged to document their use of modifiers and all the spatial, temporal, and technical aspects of their data so that any subjectivity in a data set can be understood and evaluated by others as they apply the data."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 15",null,"BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Habitat",2.1,"Maybe mismatches between habitat and ecological dynamics",530,"The matching of reproduction, resource utilization and population and community dynamics to availability of suitable habitat components is not always the case and population and community dynamics can be quite mismatched depending on, for example, disturbance events and seasonality of reproduction. For example, disturbances that may occur in the late summer in soft-sediment systems may provide excellent open habitat for species that have been characterized as opportunistic. However , they may not respond and proliferate in the habitat because there are few available colonists due to seasonality of reproduction....I do not think that one has to argue this one to one matching to make a classification system like CMECS valuable. I t can be valuable despite mismatches in habitat and ecological dynamics , if there is not a predilection to try to map to very low levels that do not acknowledge the extent of temporal dynamics that occur in a habitat and indeed change the potential modifiers considerably over the seasons.",null,null,null,"CMECS acknowleges that the same area may be classified differently at different seasons or other times due to dynamic processes.  It is the responsibility of the researcher to apply CMECS over the appropriate time scales to capture and document the variability that is important  for their objectives.  The temporal persistance modifier can be used in mapping applications to identify temporally variable units.  In cases where the temporal dynamics are crucial to the study, the user will want to create multiple maps to capture the variability. "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 16",null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",2.1,"Tension between mapping processes vs. characteristics.",531,"There appears to be a tension between CMECS attempting to map a physical and characteristics and dynamic processes that affect those characteristics.  I think it is important to be careful in trying to do this because dynamic processes and their outcomes are difficult to map depending on if the poor old nature of those outcomes, i.e. whether they are ephemeral to various degrees or in fact relatively permanent.  Thus, the classifiers and modifiers that are used to try to capture this may in fact burden the classification and its usefulness at these lower levels of the classification hierarchy.",null,null,null,"CMECS units are intended primarily to capture features and communities in the landscape.   CMECS does not describe the processes per se, rather they are understood by analyzing CMECS units. "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 16",null,"All","General","Dynamics","Mapping, Implementation",2.1,"Need guidance on mapping dynamic features",532,"While it is recognized in the CMECS text that repeated assessments may be necessary to capture the temporal variability within a particular classification, in reality repeated assessments may be the exception rather than the rule and perhaps some cautionary text should be put in that would guard against users trying to classify two to low-level without a firm understanding of the dynamic nature of a particular unit. ",null,null,null,"This is largely an implementation issue that will be addressed in subsequent guidance materials."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 17","Figure 2",null,"Editorial",null,"Reference",2.1,"Fix reference",533,"On figure 2, the citation for Zajac et al. 1998 is not in the References cited section. ",null,null,null,"This has been added to the references"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 29",null,"SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Soils",4.0999999999999996,"Soils nomenclature not widely used",534,"Please provide examples of “excellent results” in terms of applying soil taxonomies to shallow coastal environments. I think it is also worthwhile to note that many benthic ecologists do not use the soil taxonomies at the present time. ",null,null,null,"Soils have been removed from CMECS"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 29",null,null,"Editoral",null,"Typo",4.0999999999999996,"Typo",535,"There is a typo in the legend for Figure 6 - should be Schoeneberger  2002",null,null,null,"This has been corrected"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 30",null,null,"Technical","Implementation","Mapping, Technology",4.2,"Underwater cameras better than text implies",536,": I don’t think that underwater camera systems these days are necessarily crude, and in fact can give very high resolution imaging that in fact provide more information with regards to lower level classifiers. ",null,null,null,"The text has been modified to remove this"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 30",null,"SGC","General","Scale","Mapping, Scale",4.3,"What scale for dominance?",537,"Over what spatial extent should the percent covered dominance of the geologic or biogenic upper layer of the substrate be considered for determining the SGC class and subclass? ",null,null,null,"This is now better described: it is based on the observational tool used (% cover, % weight, % composition)."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 31",null,"SGC, BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Mapping, Scale, Thresholds",4.3,"Thresholds need reconsideration between components and units",538,"Regarding  the subclasses,  I question whether the threshold of 50% cover is a reasonable one. Indeed it may be very difficult to determine percent cover if it is a mixed habitat where you may have 40 to 60% pavement.  Indeed if there was 55% pavement mixed with some other substrate that would have potentially a very different set of ecological communities and related dynamics between the pavement and non-pavement areas, if it was 90% pavement. However within the classification system it would still be called the pavement.  Overall I think that the developers need to reconsider their percent cover thresholds used for the various classifications. [Also, I think you want to refer to “areal” cover and not “aerial” cover, i.e. percent cover based on the area.] ",null,null,null,"Most thresholds in the SC have now been changed to those proposed by Wentworth (1922) or Folk (1954).  \"> 50%\" thresholds do still exist in the SC and elsewhere in the document, as is common in many classification schemes.  But CMECS suggests that Modifiers \"Co-occurring Elements\" be used to identify the \"< 50%\" feature, thus providing a mechanism for users to resolve the issue.  Also, \"Pavement\" no longer exists in CMECS, and the areal/aerial issue has been fixed."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 31",null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Implementation ",4.3,"May be too complex",539,"Some of these classifications strike me as an exceedingly complex. As noted above, the usage of the classifiers, subclasses and modifiers for the unconsolidated substrate, is difficult to follow, but more importantly maybe open to an accurate interpretation based on the thresholds given (example on p. 34). Some of this may be partly learning/getting used to the lexicon (e.g. I do not see boulders as being “fragments”), but 35% to 90% is a pretty wide range with potentially different ecological dynamics existing along that spectrum of mixes. Also missing I think is how to apply the classification where it would be impossible to calculate volume. This could be done on small sediment samples, but not from habitats as pictured in “Appendix L - Buzzards Bay Massachusetts” , nor from underwater video imaging as for example on boulder fields on Stellwagen Bank (Figure 1).  Habitats such as the latter are not necessarily bedrock or pavement. The habitat in figure 1 would be classified as Unconsolidated; Fragments (Boulders); but not based on volume but rather on areal coverage in the image. Thus basing the subclasses referring to shells/corals and fragments on volume is really not practical. ",null,null,null,"Earlier language was complicated by the challenge of accomodating multiple existing sediment classifications.  Since subaqueous soils are no longer part of CMECS this has allowed definitions to be simplified and standardized according to Folk."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 39",null,"BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Detail, Implementation",5,"Can use of diagnostic species actually be used to determine BBC units?",540,"The premise for the Benthic Biotic Component classifications needs to be carefully considered.  The intent that BBC biotopes, to be identified by a dominant or diagnostic species, would provide a detailed reporting of the biological and physical components, is a good one but is it realistic? When we talk about diagnostic species we generally imply some kind of ecological state, and this may be very tricky.  For example many soft-sediment opportunistic species such as the polychaetes Capitella spp. and Streblospio benedicti are considered diagnostic of disturbed conditions. However there are many areas where Streblospio occurs in very high numbers that are not at all disturbed and are in fact non-impacted, natural coastal habitats. ",null,null,null,"The assumption that \"diagnostic\" implies ecological state is false.  We're refering to  \" Diagnostic species\" in the classification literature  - meanint species that occur in one or just a few types .   See NVC literature.  The new biotic community does not infer the environment - I believe this issue is moot.  A user is free to develop the biotopes that properly reflect the disturbance regime that is described. "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 39",null,"BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Thresholds",5,"10% threshold not ecologically meaningful",541,"The 10% cutoffs in this section on Faunal Beds (and others) would likely not match the or be indicators of benthic ecology / dynamics.  In a sedimentary area that had, for example, 20% cover of snails, their effects on the dynamics may not be large and indeed they may be the least abundant and have the lowest biomass of the epifauna and infauna. Consider Figure 2; if we quantified replicate quadrats I would estimate that there was about 10-15% cover (or more) of mud snails on the flat. Even though mud snails are important in the dynamics of the tidal flat, I think most benthic ecologist would not classify this habitat as Faunal Bed - Epifauna.     ",null,null,null,"Dominance approach should address this"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 42",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Defintions",5,"Tube-dwellers not epifauna",542,"The idea that tube dwelling benthic organisms would be considered epifauna I think is anathema to the majority of benthic ecologists and contradicts basically how these organisms are characterized ecologically. Calculating if the tube protrudes greater than its width may not be possible and indeed difficult with all but say sediment profile imaging; and then there is the problem that on certain portions of the tidal cycle or with strong winds and resuspension, tubes may become exposed or covered and then day later they are covered or exposed again or may not change. Infauna are infauna, this aspect of the classification is ecologically unrealisted and would be very misleading.  I would strongly recommend modifying this. ",null,null,null,"Epifauna distinction removed"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 42",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology",5,"Aquatic bed not best term",543,"I think that a better term can be used for The Class “Aquatic Bed”  in that all of these habitats in a sense are aquatic beds. I would suggest “Vegetated Bed” although I suspect that the present term is being used in order to catch microbial mats. I would not worry about that and possibly work that in as a modifier somehow. Also, again the 10% cover threshold is problematic.  Consider Figure 3; this is a sedimentary patch that  may meet the ; 10% level of seagrass by area, but it is mainly a sedimentary bed and not an aquatic (vegetated) bed. ",null,null,null,"Changed name  to aquatic vascular vegetation to address this issue.  The 10% cutoff was abandoned and dominance of the lifeform is now used to distinguish the class.   Co-occurring elements can be used to identify non-dominant, but important lifeforms. "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 42",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology",5,"Microbial mat needs to be better defined",544,"A microbial mat, needs to be just that, i.e. comprised of microbes. Allowing microbial mats to be composed of benthic microalgae such as diatoms is inconsistent because they’re not bacteria. Also, the idea that a microbial mat may be a white cluster of decaying bacteria dead macroalgae as shown in Figure 10 is not consistent with what a microbial mat is considered to be by benthic microbial ecologists and benthic ecologists in general.  What is shown in figure 10 is decaying macroalgae, not a microbial mat; indeed the microbes along the fronds of the decaying macroalgae are not mat-like. ",null,null,null,"We consider diatoms and other microscopic algae, as well as fungi, viruses and bacteria to be microbes because they are too small to see without microscopy.  All such groups are included in the microbial mat subclass.  The guideline we used for the upper size limit is 200 µm and diatoms, the most prevalent mat-forming marine autotroph, generally range up to 150 µm.  We added a new Class to address the issue of decaying biota covered by a microbial mat:   \"Biotic Group: Bacterial Decay - Colonies of bacterial decomposers and other decay organisms seen covering and rotting larger organic matter such as macroalgae.  See figures 8.8 for examples of bacterial decay."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 48-51",null,"BBC","General","Dynamics","Dynamic features, Biotopes",5.2,"Change within biotopes not well captured",545,"Although the use of biotopes and biotic groups are still being developed within the CMECS framework, several aspects of what is presented in the current version need to be considered. The biotopes concept is an old one and indeed for soft sediment systems dating back to some of the ideas of Gunnar Thorson and parallel-level bottom communities, in terms of the concepts of having physical habitat and high fidelity plant or animal species. The idea of “fixed” is defined within the span of movement within a day within the boundary of the patch, but indeed some habitats show extensive change in their community composition on a seasonal basis and as such defining static biotopes and biotic groupings must proceed with caution or devise a system by which seasonally changing community structure can be incorporated into the characterization of a specific biotope for a specific type of habitat.  Not only do the biotopes need to be repeatedly recognized but that recognition has to be accurate",null,null,null,"The reviewer doesn't seem to understand that a biotope can change from season to season in the same location.  CMECS provides a list of all potential biotopes (and biotic communities), the user must be responsible for the appropriate time series to indicate that the biotope at a given location may shift from season to season.  This issue is addressed in section 12 in a discussion of temporal variation."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 48-51",null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Classification, Mapping, Biotic Group",5.2,"Text implies that sampling method will influence biotic group determinations",546,"Although different types of sampling the equipment may provide different types of information on habitats and component species in communities, what a classification system should strive for is that no matter what the technology being used, the habitat being characterized is consistently identified and characterize accurately amongst the different types of information provided.  As such, the statement that “biotic groups identified with a video camera are not comparable to biotic groups identified with the grad sampler” leaves the impression that within CMECS the classification system for a specific habitat may be different based on the technology being used, and as noted in that document the scale and the extent over which the samples are taken.  ",null,null,null,"This statement has been removed.  The point stands that these methods have a different spatial footprint and are not sampling the same exact observation.  If the footprint of the video and the grab sample were the same, the result should be the same - assuming the important fauna are observable with the video.  "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 48-51",null,"BBC","General",null,"Reference",5.2,"Reference needed for biotope theory",547,"The section of the document refers to “biotope theory” but no references are given. I would suggest: Olenin, S. and J. Ducrotoy. 2006. The concept of biotope in marine ecology and coastal management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 53:20-29.  The last paragraph on page 50 is  confusing, and that may be due to the integration of the concepts of biotope and biotic group, and the potential for having to use secondary element modifiers.  This makes the entire classification system potentially unruly and a simple, understandable classification of the habitat and the organisms that are present may get lost in the lexicon. ",null,null,null,"That paragraph was removed.  The reference to Olening and Ducrotoy was added in new discussion of biotopes.   "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 48-51",null,"BBC","General","Scale","Scale, Mapping",5.2,"Biotopes may not be finer than biotic group",548,"On page 51, it is suggested that biotopes are a finer level of classification. In fact they may not be if the classification works towards using the concept of biotope as encompassing of the various populations and communities that generally inhabit a specific type of seafloor in a specific area, incorporating any seasonal fluctuations in their presence and abundance fluctuations which would affect how we might classify based on a particularly dominant group at a specific time. ",null,null,null,"The footprint of biotic group and biotope may be the same, but conceptually, when defined properly, biotopes should be finer."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 54-55",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Reefs, ",5.4,"Potential confusion between molluscan beds vs. reefs",549,"The differentiation between oyster and mussel beds and reefs, I can understand the potential reason for doing this however impracticality it may be difficult to make that differentiation. For example, situations arise when oysters are in fact growing on oyster shell, but much of that shell is buried due to sedimentation, and as such what is visible may be classified as an oyster bed.  Also there are situations when oysters are attached to cobbles and they may be comprising 10% - to 20% of the area, but should we classify this as an oyster bed? My reading of the various biotic classes and subclasses indicates that it would be. ",null,null,null,"This is indeed a problem, with any classification of \"reef\" vs. \"bed\".  Yet there is a need to classify as one or the other for resource protection.   We defend the CMECS split, that a living reef \"contains reef-builders in a density sufficient to construct living substrate\" as a solution that leaves enough flexibility to characterize different local situations, while still repeatably defining  \"reef\"."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 54-55",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology",5.4,"Mixed colonizers term too broad",550,"The distinction of a biotic group of “mixed colonizers” is a little odd because all the organisms that attach to hard substrates (e.g. barnacles, sponges, anemones) are in fact “colonizers”. Perhaps mixed fouling community might be better and would follow much of the regular usage in terms of what these types of communities are called. ",null,null,null,"This was done to emphasize \"mixed\", not to emphasize  \"colonizers\".  Mixed Fouling Communities might be more commonly used, but we feel that it attaches an \"undesireable\" perception to these beautiful and important communities.  "]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 57",null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Implementation, Biotic Group, Mapping",5.2,"Hydroids, tunicates too small to map",551,"in the case of biotic groups such as hydroids and bryozoans and tunicate beds, the question arises whether we’ll be able to actually map them in any fashion, probably only by extrapolation from small-scale samples onto large scale known patches of appropriate habitat. ",null,null,null,"Mapping may be difficult, but that isn't our main objective - they do qualify in the \"what is it?"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 59",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Biotic Groups, Definitions",5.2,"Deposit feeders definition has exceptions",552,"Areas that are dominated by deposit feeders are not always distinguished by a fluid, fecal rich pelletelized surface layer.  For example, areas dominated by communities of maldanid polychaetes (such as Clymenella) usually do not have this type of surface layer, particularly where currents are high.  Thus the description in terms of being a general one is not accurate. ",null,null,null,"Added text (last sentence) to the definition:  \"Areas distinguished by a fluid fecal-rich pelletized surface layer typically 5 to 15 mm thick (Rhoads and Young, 1970) that is characteristic of deposit-feeding polychaetes, deposit-feeding clams, and/or other fauna. This layer is not always present in deposit feeding communities, particularly when currents are sufficient to remove the layer.\"   KATHY NOTE"]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 69",null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Surface Layer, Components",6,"Surface Layer in SGC and SBC redundant",553,"The statement that the surface layer of the SBC is largely interchangeable with the SGC is confusing and can suggest that we question why we have both? ",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",7,"Terrestrial parts of GFC not relevant to marine env.",554,"The Geoform component ostensibly uses a terrestrial system of classification which may not have any relationship to the seafloor classification and mapping other than providing a connection to the coast. ","Why not use marine geologic/geographic regions?  For example, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, etc.? Several marine ecoregions have also been suggested (See: Longhurst, A. 2007. Ecological geography of the sea. Academic Press). ",null,null,"Coastal region has been removed from the GC.  An ecoregional settng has beed addded to address this suggestion."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 113",null,"SGC, SBC","General","Units/Definitions","Successional stage",9,"Other successional stage approaches should be considered",555,"The community stage modifier is based on one specific successional model developed by Pearson and Rosenberg 1978 , Rhoads et al. 1978, and subsequent modifications by these researchers and their colleagues.  This particular model, which employs stage 1 to stage three communities, and associated successional changes, is based on work in deeper water, muddy sediments and with respect to several specific types of disturbances, namely organic pollution and hypoxia (which may be related in certain instances).  Other research in other types of sedimentary environments indicate that these successional processes are not universal (e.g. work by Zajac, Whitlatch, Thrush, Norkko and colleagues). [for an alternative soft sediment successional model see: Zajac, R.N. 2001. Organism - sediment relations at multiple spatial scales: Implications for community structure and responses to disturbance. In: J. Aller, S.A. Woodin & R.C. Aller (eds) Sediment-Organism Interactions. University of South Carolina Press. Columbia, SC.] Thus using these as modifiers may be misleading with regards to interpreting the dynamics that are going on within the habitat.  ",null,null,null,"The community stage modifier is appropriate for soft sediment and turbid conditions.  Users are free to apply other models in environments where they may be suited."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 133",null,"SGC, BBC","General","Mixes/Thresholds","Mixes, Scale",9,"Approach for Mixes and patch sizes needs consideration",556,"The discussion of evaluating mixes and the question of determining patch size is extremely critical, and indeed may provide an important cornerstone of the whole classification system. The seafloor mapping as is occurring now provides us the opportunity, be it through acoustic approaches or high-resolution aerial photography and LIDAR, or other systems, to be able to recognize and map patches.  Those patches may be associated with specific biotopes and biotic groups, and relatively consistent with regards to their physical characteristics at the mapping scale. We need to recognize that often times within that patch there will be mixes of sub habitats, as there are different kinds of patches and gaps in forests which are clearly mapped and identify/classified.  I would encourage CMECS developers to tackle this issue first taking a top-down approach in developing a framework so that the classification scheme can be tailored to the mapped seafloor environments",null,null,null,"This will come out in mapping guidance - but two options - map patches if above mmu or identify co-occurring elements."]
["University of New Haven","rzajac@newhaven.edu","p. 133",null,null,"Editorial",null,"Figures",null,"Figures misnumbered",557,"[Note at this point in the document to figure numbers are off] ",null,null,null,"Figure numbers have been reviewed and fixed."]
["Virginia Institute of Marine Science","pg@vims.edu",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Components logical",558,"Overall this standard is obviously well thought out.  The overall structure and components seem logical and applicable/approachable from multiple disciplines.",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Virginia Institute of Marine Science","pg@vims.edu",null,null,"SGC, BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Good to separate physical and biological elements",559,"I like the fact that the underlying reef is classified separately from the overlying biological component(s).  This has significant application to mapping oyster habitats that we are currently involved with and the entire classification system is appropriate for our work.  ",null,null,null,"CMECS component structure allows this."]
["Virginia Institute of Marine Science","pg@vims.edu",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Anthropogenic geoforms good",560,", I like the fact that Anthropogenic Geoforms are part of the classification, especially aquaculture.  Additionally, we classify oyster reefs as natural, man-made commercial, man-made restoration (with these further delineated as private vs. state/federal).  I think these types of local/regional differentiations can easily be accommodated with the “Modifiers” package presented in the draft standard.",null,null,null,"CMECS modifiers and user-derived modifiers are intended to serve this purpose."]
["Virginia Institute of Marine Science","pg@vims.edu",null,null,"All","General","Implementation","Mapping",null,"This will help mapping",561,"I wish I could be more critical, but after thoroughly reviewing the document, I truly feel the standard is something that our mapping efforts can be easily incorporated into.  In fact, we would certainly have utilized this framework during multiple mapping projects over the last 5 years if the standard had been available.  ",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["Virginia Institute of Marine Science","pg@vims.edu",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Classification",null,"May pose challenges to varying experts",562,"Although the components of the system cover multiple perspectives, you will likely find that this strength may also have a few limitations (which I think was discussed).  For example, someone like me, coming from a biology/ecology point of view, may not have the expertise or appropriate data to correctly apply the physical, chemical or geological components to the classifications.  ",null,null,null,"There is this danger in any classification system and it can best be mitigated by technical guidance which will be produced as companion documents to the standard itself.  In practice, cases where a a researcher applies units beyond their capability or expertise are often corrected at the project level by a validation process or rejection for use by the intended audience."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Soils",null,"Recommend subaqueous soils be included",563,"I strongly recommend that in your scheme that you consider the geomorphic needs and applications that are employed by the subaqueous soils practitioners which have been in use since the 1970’s (and expanding substantially in the last 15 years).  Specific, established  conventions for identifying subaqueous features, related sediments and processes have been in use by the National Cooperative Soil Survey for some time (eg., Glossary for Terms for Subaqueous Soils, Landscapes, Landforms, and Parent Materials of Estuaries and Lagoons; 2005).  It would be extremely beneficial to converge the needs of these professionals and activities with the CMECS program.  I have included below a variety of ideas, conventions, and terms (with definitions) for your consideration.  I would gladly expand upon or address any related questions related to these thoughts at your convenience.",null,"geoform draft (phil 1 11 2011)-1.docx",null,"This is a very generous offer, and thank you very much for your help with CMECS, but (based on a large and vocal majority of our Public Comments) we removed  Soils and the Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, eliminating the opportunity for these collaborations."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments",null,null,"New sediment terms for section 4?",564,"Materials:  Immediately below are sediment / material terms that are needed (intimately related to both “coastal” and “marine”subaqueous geoforms and their definitions).  They are important distinctions relavant to subaqueous soils in particular, but to broad ecosystem function in general.  I’m not clear as to where they are best placed (here, or possibly section 4 (??).",null,null,null,"Soils and the Sub-benthic  component of CMECS were removed and replaced.  Additional soils-based terms are no longer applicable; these concepts (as needed) are now covered in the SC re-do."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definition, estuarine deposit",null,"Definition of Estuarine Deposit",565,null,"Estuarine Deposit -  Fine-grained sediments (sand, silt, and clay) of marine and fluvial origin commonly containing decomposed organic matter, laid down in the brackish waters of an estuary; characteristically finer sediments than deltaic deposits.  Compare – Fluviomarine Deposit, Lagoonal Deposit, Marine Deposit.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"This refers to a process and not a distinct unique morphology and so is not a GC unit.  It would be captured in CMECs "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definition, Fluviomarine Deposit",null,"Definition of Fluviomarine Deposit",566,null,"Fluviomarine Deposit -  Stratified materials (clay, silt, sand, or gravel) formed by both marine and fluvial processes, resulting from non-tidal sea level fluctuations, subsidence, and/or stream migration (e.g. materials originally deposited in a nearshore environment and subsequently reworked by fluvial processes as sea level fell).  Compare – Estuarine Deposit, Lagoonal Deposit, Marine Deposit.",null,null,"Included as a GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definition, Lagoonal Deposit",null,"Definition of Lagoonal Deposit",567,null,"Lagoonal Deposit -  Sand, silt or clay-sized sediments transported and deposited by wind, currents, and storm washover in the relatively low-energy, brackish to saline, shallow waters of a lagoon.  Compare – Estuarine Deposit, Fluviomarine Deposit, Marine Deposit.",null,null,"Not inlcuded since this refers to a process and location vs. a morphology"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definition, Marine Deposit",null,"Definition of Marine Deposit",568,null,"Marine Deposit -  Sediments (predominantly sands, silts and clays) of marine origin laid down in the waters of an ocean.  Compare – Estuarine Deposit, Lagoonal Deposit.",null,null,"Not inlcuded since this refers to a process and location vs. a morphology"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Document structure",null,"Where are the modifiers?",569,"Modifiers are available to further describe geoform features  (where & what – Chp. 9?). ",null,null,null,"Each section has a list of modifiers that might be relevant to those component units."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Wording, terminology","7.1.1","Add continental US to terminology",570,null,"Continental United States Physiographic Regions ",null,null,"Coastal Setting has been removed."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Wording, terminology",7.2,"Rename Physiographic Settings to Aquascapes",571,null,"(rename to ”Aquascapes”).  There is confusion here between Physiographic (i.e. geographic) areas vs. generic geomorphic “settings.  For example, Fenneman& Johnsons’s Physiographic Regions of the (terrestrial) US don’t segregate by mountains vs. plains.  Their separations combine  geography with geomorphology.  Hence, the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains, rather than both being simply (generically and identically) called “mountains”.  Your scheme here cites this approach for the subaqueous setting, but then deviates to generic (strictly geomorphic content).  It maintain consistency throughout.  Retain and apply Physiography to encompass the geographic aspect (Greenland continental shelf).  Holistically, Physiography doesn’t matter whether it’s terrestrial or subaqueous and should not be restricted to either – they’re both part of the global continuum.  ",null,null,"Coastal Setting has been removed."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Segrate Geoforms strictly by geomorphology, not geography",572,null,"Segregate geoforms to include only geomorphic entities / context (omit geography, as that can be fully covered under “Physiography”.  Geoforms should refer solely to a geomorphic context.  In this regard, consider the following:  Although there is a wide range in scale for geoforms (as you already state), there are 3 different, practical subsets in the terrestrial context that have direct relevancy to subaqueous settings:  a) Landscapes   b) Landforms c) Microfeatures.  Note: These three groups have quasi scale ranges, but only quasi (not a rigid scale hierarchy). You already partially emulate this distribution in your system.  I propose that you clarify these approximate “scales”. Allow me to present some thoughts in a terrestrial language, with the intent of demonstrating analogues for the subaqueous content.  ",null,null,"Geoforms have been focused on geomorphology and refernce to region have been removed."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Structure",null,"Develop the concept of subaqueous aquascapes",573,"Landscapes are collections or groupings of spatially related, but individual (discrete) Landforms (e.g., a Mountain Range constitutes a Landscape (a group of peaks, ridges, drainageways, etc.), whereas peak, ridge and (a single) mountain are individual Landforms found within a Mountain Range landscape). a) I suggest that you establish Subaqueous Landscapes (or its equivalent – aquascapes, seascapes?) as an analogue for (terrestrial) Landscapes.  b) Similarly, you should have a distinct category for geomorphic individuals (An analogue to Landforms). In the introductory paragraph of section 7 above, and in the intro to part 7.3 below, text suggests or states that “geoform” is the direct analogue to the terrestrial “landform”.  That works.  c) You already have an analogue for Microfeatures (your “sub-form”).  These are parts of landforms, or very small (= mini-Landforms) features that may be very important locally, but would typically be omitted from more generalized evaluations.  D) Another, discrete grouping are the Anthropogenic features.  You already have this category, but it is not a subset of the geoform sequence.  Rather, it stands alone due to the completely different rules (composition, distribution, form derived from human activities (non-geologic processes).  Its uniqueness and separation from geologic phenomena is impressively apparent in your own photo of underwater hulls /anchors.           ",null,null,null,"The difference between landscapes and landforms is an important one.  The CMECS GC focuses on landforms which can be assembled into landscapes.  This is in agreement with Phil's comment here."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Soils, Definition","Glossary","Inserting soils defintion",574,"With these thoughts in mind, I have inserted new terms into the document below.  [These terms are from the National Soil Survey Handbook (Part 629), but are also from the “Glossary of terms for subaqueous soils, landscapes, landforms, and parent materials of estuaries and lagoons (National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference, 2005), and have been added to the 2011 draft of the Glossary of Soil Science terms (Soil Science Society America, in revision).]",null,null,null,"These are usefull soils terms, but we removed  Soils and the Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, eliminating the need for added soils terms."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Wording ",7.2,"Add Physiography",575,null,"( Physiography ",null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Boundaries",null,null,"Marine deepwater limit",576,"1)    What is the marine / deeper water limit?  This, and subsets within “coast are critical to subaqueous soil identification, context, and function, as subaqueous soils are not envisioned for deep water settings.",null,null,null,"Subaqueous soils have been removed from CMECS based on strong imput from the review process."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions","Marine, Limits",null,"Are brackish lagoons in coastal marine?",577,"2)    Use “coastal marine”:  How are brackish lagoons, estuaries handled?  If excluded from your concept, you are restricting Coast environments to only marine settings.  ",null,null,null,"Lagoons and estuaries are captured in the GC.  Salinity is captured in the WC.  The term brackish is onlly used to refer to vegetation communities in areas of variable salinity."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem, GFC","General","Boundaries","Marine, Limits",null,"Boundaries for coast",578,"(This concept needs clarification / distinction between “coast” (where does one stop and the other begin)  As written, it could be interpreted to include anything below the supratidal zone..",null,null,null,"Coast has been removed and shore complex has been added to the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Geoform",null,"Defintion of Geoforms",579,null,"Geoforms are subaqueous coastal and seafloor structures ",null,null,"The definitions have been revised where necessary to reflect that the GC only is primarily concerned with subaqueous forms although there are intertidal and supratidal forms present as welll."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Geoform",null,"Defintion of Geoforms",580,null,"(e.g., discrete individuals such as a mountain, ",null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Coding, Geoform",null,"Reevalutate Geoform codes",581,"[ I suggest that you revisit your geoform codes approach; e.g.,  Atoll (AT).   You’ll find that over time, as the list of geoforms expands, the codes become cumbersome and counterproductive.  It is better to simply let the term itself constitute “the code”, and avoid having to maintain not only the lists of terms, but the attendant codes as well).  If you decide to keep the shorthand codes, you should expand them to at least 3 characters, as you will quickly run out of reasonable (pneumonic) 2 character codes.  (Staying with 2 character codes will quickly lead to the need to assign a non-pneumonic code to a term because a pneumonically logical code was previously assigned to a different term; e.g. Atoll (WT) This won’t become apparent while the list of terms is small, but it will arrive.  Avoid the problem altogether. ",null,null,null,"Codes have been removed and will be included in future implementation guidance."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Document structure, Geoform","7.3.1","Better organize Geoforms",582,"[I presume you intended to present your terms in alphabetical order.  Many of your terms are not:  e.g., “dune” comes before “channel”.  I did not relocate them for you, as such changes (deletions and re-additions) then appear the same as my review comments.  Thought it best not to further confuse the matter].  I did try to place my review additions in roughly alphabetical positions.",null,null,null,"Units are now in alphabetical order."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"Including terrestrial features adjacent to aquatic forms.",583,"I’m also including some terms that are terrestrial (not subaqueous) but are close linked to subaqueous features by physical proximity, and are process-related to subaqueous features For example,  washover fan (terrestrial) is closely related both by proximity and process to washover-fan flat (subaqueous).  You have established this precedent already by including some associated coastal terms [e.g., dune (terrestrial definition & context)",null,null,null,"The GC does include some subaerial forms since they lie within the inter- and supra-tidal zones.  Where a form is only subaerial it is not included."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Subaqueous apron",584,null,"Subaqueous Apron [AP",null,null,"Apron is now included but the term subaqueous is not generally included in the name but reflected in the definition where needed for this and all geoforms."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Subaqueous apron",585,null,"[ The concept of an apron is well established / used in the terrestrial context.  I strongly recommend that you add the subaqueous adjective to the term and would substitute marine / subaqueous examples instead of retaining the terrestrial terms above. ] ",null,null,"The subaqueous emphasis in the GC is handled elswhere than the the unit name itself."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Barrier Cove",586,null,"Barrier Cove:  A subaqueous area adjacent to a barrier island or submerged barrier beach that forms a minor embayment or cove within the larger basin.  Compare – Cove, Mainland Cove.  ",null,null,"Added to GC"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Bay Bottom",587,null,"Bay Bottom:  The nearly level or slightly undulating central portion of a submerged, low-energy, depositional estuarine embayment characterized by relatively deep water (1.0 to >2.5 m).  Compare – Lagoon Bottom.",null,null,"After conversations with Phil on use of the term bottom it was decided that where Bottom conveyed a unique morphology it would be included in the GC.  In cases where it merely refers to the bottom of a given body of water or feature it would not be included.  Phil was OK with this.  In this case Bay Bottom was not included in the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions ",null,"Add comments to definitions",588,"[ I suggest that you consider placing expanded comments (such as bracketed above) outside of the definition.  Such comments can be most useful / necessary to more fully convey the intent, but need not be part of, and over-lengthen, the definition proper.  One might italicize them, or otherwise place them in a new, indented paragraph below the definition as shown here ].   ",null,null,null,"Definitions have been expanded where needed to avoid the external bracketing proposed here."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Cove Water",589,null,"Cove [water] -  A small, narrow sheltered bay or recess in an estuary, often inside a larger embayment (modified from Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Estuary.",null,null,"Added to GC"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Geoform",null,"Defintion of Inlet",590,"[ inlet, as defined above, combines several features that need to be distinguishable.  I suggest the following terms and definitions: ] ",null,null,null,"Added to GC"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Tidal Inlet",591,null,"Tidal Inlet -  Any inlet through which water alternately floods landward with the rising tide and ebbs seaward with the falling tide (Jackson, 1997).   Compare – Inlet, Relict Tidal Inlet.  ",null,null,"Added as GC type"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Tidal Inlet",592,null,"Inlet -  A short, narrow waterway connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar water body of water.  Compare – tidal inlet.  (modified from Jackson, 1997).",null,null,"Added to GC"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Geoform",null,"Defintion of Inlet",593,"[ This is used to identify active, natural exchange channels between lagoons, uniquely different from tidal inlets in energy dynamics and sediment transport / deposition. ]",null,null,null,"Definition revised to be more general."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Relic Inlet",594,null,"Relict-Tidal Inlet -  A channel remnant of a former tidal inlet. The channel was cutoff or abandoned by infilling from migrating shore sediments.  Compare – Inlet, Tidal Inlet.",null,null,"Added as GC type "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Subaqueous soils",595,null,"Estuarine Subaqueous Soils -  Soils that form in sediment found in shallow-subtidal environments in protected estuarine coves, bays, inlets, and lagoons. Excluded from the definition of these soils are any areas “permanently covered by water too deep (typically greater than 2.5 m) for the growth of rooted plants.",null,null,"Subaqueous soils have been removed from CMECS upon request of many reviewers"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Geoform",null,"Defintion of Estuary",596,null,"Estuary -  a) A seaward end or the widened funnel-shaped tidal mouth of a river valley where fresh water comes into contact with seawater and where tidal effects are evident (e.g., a tidal river, or a partially enclosed coastal body of water where the tide meets the current of a stream).  b) A portion of an ocean or an arm of the sea affected by fresh water.  c) A drowned river mouth formed by the subsidence of land near the coast or by the drowning of the lower portion of a non-glacial valley due to the rise of sea level.  Compare – Lagoon.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added to definitions of Estuary types in the Physiographic setting"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit- Flood tidal delta",597,null,"Flood-Tidal Delta -  A largely subaqueous (sometimes intertidal), crudely fan-shaped deposit of sand-sized sediment formed on the landward side of a tidal inlet (modified from Boothroyd et al., 1985; Davis, 1994; Ritter et al., 1995).  Flood tides transport sediment through the tidal inlet and into the lagoon over a flood ramp where currents slow and dissipate (Davis, 1994).  Generally, flood-tidal deltas along microtidal coasts are multi-lobate and unaffected by ebbing currents (modified from Davis, 1994).  Compare – Flood-Tidal Delta Slope. ",null,null,"Added as GC type under Delta"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Flood tidal delta flat",598,null,"Flood-Tidal Delta Flat -  The relatively flat, dominant component of the flood-tidal delta. At extreme low tide this landform may be exposed for a relatively short period (modified from Boothroyd et al., 1985).",null,null,"Added as GC type under Delta"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Flood tidal delta slope",599,null,"Flood-Tidal Delta Slope -  An extension of the flood-tidal delta that slopes toward deeper water in a lagoon or estuary, composed of flood channels, inactive lobes (areas of the flood-tidal delta that are not actively accumulating sand as a result of flood tides), and parts of the terminal lobe of the flood-tidal delta (modified from Boothroyd et al., 1985).",null,null,"Added as GC type under Delta"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"New unit-Fluviomarine Bottom",600,null,"Fluviomarine Bottom -  The nearly level or slightly undulating, relatively low-energy, depositional environment with relatively deep water (1.0 to >2.5 m) directly adjacent to an incoming stream and composed of interfingered and mixed fluvial and marine sediments (fluviomarine deposits).",null,null,"Added as GC type"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Intertidal",null,"Definition of Intertidal",601,null,"Intertidal:  (adjective)  The coastal environment between mean low tide and mean high tide that alternates between subaerial and subaqueous depending on the tidal cycle.  Compare – Subtidal.",null,null,"In CMECS the intertidal zone has been defined as that zone between MLLW and MHHW."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","GFC, Units",null,"Landslide is a process",602,"[ Landslide is a generic but legitimate process and landform (geoform) and can include areas of removal (scars, slip faces, etc.) , transport, and deposition.  “Rubble field” would be suitable only for depositional components of a landslide. ] ",null,null,null,"Term landslide removed and forms resulting from a landslide included in GC, such as Rubble Field and Submarine Slide Deposit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, shoal","Glossary","Definition of Shoal",603,null,"Shoal -  A natural, subaqueous ridge, bank, or bar consisting of, or covered by, sand or other unconsolidated material, rising from the bed of a body of water (e.g. estuarine floor) to near the surface.  Compare – Dredge-deposit Shoal, Reef.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)\n [ This feature is common in coastal waters, and apparently in wider marine settings (?).   Point: due to its wide use in lagoonal and other coastal water settings, it should be listed here.  If necessary, also list in under your Marine setting].\n",null,null,"Shoal is included as a GC unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, shore complex","Glossary","Definition of Shore Complex",604,null,"Shore Complex:  Generally a narrow, elongate area that parallels a coastline commonly cutting across diverse inland landforms, and dominated by landforms derived from active coastal processes which give rise to beach ridges, washover fans, beaches, dunes, wave-cut platforms, barrier islands, cliffs, etc.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005)  [ This feature is intended as a shore zone landscape.].  Presented here as complimentary to shoreline, beach etc.]. \n",null,null,"Added to GC"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, shoreline","Glossary","Definition of Shoreline",605,null,"Shoreline:  The intersection of a specified plane of water with the beach; it migrates with changes of the tide or of the water level.  Compare – Strandline, Shore Complex, Barrier Beach.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Shore added to GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, spit","Glossary","Definition of Spit",606,null,"Spit:  (a) A small point or low tongue or narrow embankment of land, commonly consisting of sand or gravel deposited by longshore transport and having one end attached to the mainland and the other terminating in open water, usually the sea; a finger-like extension of the beach. (b) A relatively long, narrow shoal or reef extending from the shore into a body of water.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added to GC"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Subaqueous Landscapes","Glossary","Definition of Subaqueous Landscapes",607,null,"Subaqueous Landscapes -  Permanently submerged areas that are fundamentally the same as subaerial (terrestrial) systems in that they have a discernable topography composed of mappable, subaqueous landforms.",null,null,"Not added since this is referring to a landscape vs. a land form."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Submerged-Upland Tidal Marsh","Glossary","Definition of Submerged-Upland Tidal Marsh",609,null,"Submerged-Upland Tidal Marsh - An extensive, nearly level, intertidal landform composed of unconsolidated sediments (clays, silts and/or sand and organic materials), a resistant root mat, and vegetated dominantly by hydrophytic plants.  The mineral sediments largely retain pedogenic horizonation and morphology (e.g. argillic horizons) developed under subaerial conditions prior to submergence due to sea level rise; a type of tidal marsh.  Compare – Tidal Marsh.",null,null,"This is captured in the geoform Marsh Platform.  There is also a BC unit that reflects the vegetation."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Submerged Back-Barrier Beach","Glossary","Definition of Submerged Back-Barrier Beach",610,null,"Submerged Back-Barrier Beach -  A permanently submerged extension of the back-barrier beach that generally parallels the boundary between estuary and the barrier island.  Compare – Submerged Mainland Beach, Barrier Beach.",null,null,"Added as GC type of Beach"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","defintion, Submerged Mainland Beach","Glossary","Definition of Submerged Mainland Beach",611,null,"Submerged Mainland Beach - A permanently submerged extension of the mainland beach that generally parallels the boundary between an estuary or lagoon and the mainland.  Compare – Submerged Back-Barrier Beach, Barrier Beach.",null,null,"Added as GC type of Beach"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition,  Submerged Point Bar","Glossary","Defintion of  Submerged Point Bar",612,null," Submerged Point Bar [coastal]:  The submerged extension of an exposed (subaerial) point bar.  ",null,null,"Added as GC type of Bar"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Submerged Wave-Built Terrace","Glossary","Definition of Submerged Wave-Built Terrace",613,null,"Submerged Wave-Built Terrace - A subaqueous, relict depositional landform originally constructed by river or longshore sediments deposits along the outer edge of a wave-cut platform and later submerged by rising sea level or subsiding land surface. (modified from Jackson, 1997).  Compare Wave – Built Terrace and Wave-Cut Platform. ",null,null,"Added as GC type of Terrace"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Submerged Wave-Cut Platform","Glossary","Definition of Submerged Wave-Cut Platform",614,null,"Submerged Wave-Cut Platform - A subaqueous, relict erosional landform that originally formed as a wave-cut bench and abrasion platform from coastal wave erosion and later submerged by rising sea level or subsiding land surface.  (modified from Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Wave-Built Terrace, Wave-Cut Platform. ",null,null,"Added as GC type of Platform"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Subtidal","Glossary","Definition of Subtidal",615,null,"Subtidal - (adjective)  Continuous submergence of substrate in an estuarine or marine ecosystem; these areas are below the mean low tide.  (modified from Cowardin et al., 1979).  Compare – Intertidal",null,null,"Subtidal forms are addressed by using the Tidal Zone in Aquatic Setting."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","definition,  Subtidal Wetlands","Glossary","Definition of  Subtidal Wetlands",616,null," Subtidal Wetlands -  Permanently inundated areas within estuaries dominated by subaqueous soils and submerged aquatic vegetation.",null,null,"We opted for terms that were consisten with NVC group names instead.  Subtidal from the AS can be used to create this unit.  "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, rill","Glossary","Definition of Rill",617,"Rill [RL]– A small, transient runnel carrying to the sea or a lake the water of a wave after it breaks on a beach, or formed by tidal ebb.[ This is in conflict with the terrestrial / agronomic use of “rill”.  Why not use runnel?   If it must be retained (you can’t find or coin a reasonable synonym, then at least insert a bracketed [context clarifier]; e.g. Rill [shore] or Rill[coastal] .  In the Glossary of Geology (Jackson, 1997, or Neuendorf et al, 2005) this convention is used widely where a noun is used in different ways by various technical disciplines or in multiple topical applications.   ",null,null,null,"Rill is included with Runnel as a Geoform."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Solution Pit ","Glossary","Definition of Solution Pit ",618,"Solution Pit [SP] – An indentation up to about 1 mm in diameter formed on a rock surface by solution.\n [ This is a legitimate term but reads as one type of karren.   The name itself suggests a dissolution formation process vs. mechanical abrasion.  If so, karren might be a better term.  karren – Repeating, surficial solution channels, grooves or other forms etched onto massive, bare limestone surfaces; types range in depth from a few millimeters to > 1 m and separated by ridges; the total complex (all varieties) of surficial solution forms found on compact, pure limestone.  Many types can be specified.  Compare – solution fissure.  SW & GG\n",null,null,null,"Added as type of Hole/Pit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Tidal Marsh","Glossary","Definition of Tidal Marsh",619,null,"Tidal Marsh:  An extensive, nearly level marsh bordering a coast (as in a shallow lagoon, sheltered bay, or estuary) and regularly inundated by high tides; formed mostly of unconsolidated sediments (e.g. clays, silts, and/or sands and organic materials), and the resistant root mat of salt tolerant plants, a marshy tidal flat.  Compare – Tidal Flat.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005; modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Used \"Emergent TidalMarsh\" "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","defintion, Washover Fan","Glossary","Definition of Washover Fan",620,null,"Washover Fan -  A fan-like landform of sand washed over a barrier island or spit during a storm and deposited on the landward side.  Washover fans can be small to medium sized and completely subaerial, or they can be quite large and include subaqueous margins extending into adjacent lagoons or estuaries.  Large fans can be subdivided into sequential parts: ephemeral washover channel (microfeature) cut through dunes or beach ridges, back-barrier flats, (subaqueous) washover-fan flat, (subaqueous) washover-fan slope.  Subaerial portions can range from barren to completely vegetated",null,null,"Added as GC type of Fan"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","defintion, Washover-Fan Flat","Glossary","Definition of Washover-Fan Flat",621,null,"Washover-Fan Flat -  A gently sloping, fan-like, subaqueous landform created by overwash from storm surges that transports sediment from the seaward side to the landward side of a barrier island (Jackson, 1997).  Sediment is carried through temporary overwash channels that cut through the dune complex on the barrier spit (Fisher and Simpson, 1979; Boothroyd et al., 1985; Davis, 1994) and spill out onto the lagoon-side platform where they coalesce to form a broad belt.  Also called Storm-surge Platform Flat (Boothroyd et al., 1979) and Washover Fan Apron (Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Washover Fan Slope.",null,null,"Added as GC type of Flat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Washover-Fan Slope ","Glossary","Definition of Washover-Fan Slope ",622,null,"Washover-Fan Slope -  A subaqueous extension of a washover-fan flat that slopes toward deeper water of a lagoon or estuary and away from the washover-fan flat.  Compare – Washover-Fan Flat.",null,null,"Added as GC type of Slope"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, bank","Glossary","Definition of Bank",623,"Bank [BK] – A mound-like or ridge-like submerged elevated area of modest to substantial extent, usually rising close to sea level. In coral reef settings, can also be used to describe the deeper water area (relative to the shallow water in a lagoon) extending offshore from the seaward edge of the forereef or shoreline to the beginning of the escarpment where the insular shelf drops off into deep, oceanic water. If no reef crest is present, the bank/shelf is the flattened platform between the forereef and deep open ocean waters or between the shoreline intertidal zone and open ocean. [ This definition needs a phrase addressing internal composition (e.g. sediments, rock, corals????",null,null,null,"This is now captured in the Coral Reef Zone modifiers"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, basin","Glossary","Definition of Basin",624,"Basin [BS] – An area of the seafloor or land surface that lies below the surrounding bottom/terrain elevation. They are normally areas of low relief.{ This definition needs considerable work – it better suits the generic concept of a depression.  Several examples of terrestrial usage is given here to exemplify:",null,null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Drainage basin","Glossary","Definition of Drainage basin",625,null," basin - (a)  Drainage basin;  (b) A low area in the Earth's crust, of tectonic origin, in which sediments have accumulated.  GG  (c) (colloquial:  western USA)  A general term for the nearly level to gently sloping, bottom surface of an intermontane basin (bolson).  Landforms include playas, broad alluvial flats containing ephemeral drainageways, and relict alluvial and lacustrine surfaces that rarely, if ever, are subject to flooding.  Where through-drainage systems are well developed, flood plains are dominant and lake plains are absent or of limited extent.  Basin floors grade mountainward to distal parts of piedmont slopes.  Fred Peterson, 1987.",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, depression","Glossary","Definition of depression",626,null,"depression - Any relatively sunken part of the Earth's surface; especially a low-lying area surrounded by higher ground.  A closed depression has no natural outlet for surface drainage (e.g. a sinkhole).  An open depression has a natural outlet for surface drainage.  Compare – closed depression, open depression.   Glossary of Geology (Neuendorf et al., 2005)",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Subaqueous Boulder Field","Glossary","Definition of Subaqueous Boulder Field",627,null,"Subaqueous Boulder Field [BF] –  [ This definition conflicts with the well-established use of boulder field as a synonym for block stream (felsenmere).  It will also be readily confused with block field.  To avoid this confusion, add the adjective subaqueous (or an equivalent) and then define it for your purposes.  Your closing sentence about “ … can also result from removal of finer sediments by current action”  helps to clarify your subaqueous context.  They can also occur from submarine glacial outwash streams or wave / current winnowing of subaqueous glacial drift.",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, block field","Glossary","Definition of block field",628,null,"block field - A thin accumulation of stone blocks, typically angular, with only coarse fragments in the upper part, over solid or weathered bedrock, colluvium, or alluvium, without a cliff or ledge above as an apparent source.  Block fields occur on high mountain slopes above tree-line, or in polar or paleo-periglacial regions; they are most extensive along slopes parallel to the contour; and they generally occur on slopes of less than 5%.  Synonym - felsenmeer.  Compare - block stream, talus slope, scree slope.  GG",null,null,"This is a terrestrial unit and not included in the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, block stream","Glossary","Definition of block stream",629,null,"block stream - An accumulation of boulders or angular blocks, with no fine sizes in the upper part, overlying solid or weathered bedrock, colluvium, or alluvium, and lying below a cliff or ledge from which coarse fragments originate.  Block streams usually occur at the heads of ravines as narrow bodies that are more extensive downslope than along the slope.  They may exist on any slope angle, but ordinarily not steeper than 90 percent slope (approx. 40 degrees).  Compare - block field.  GG",null,null,"This is a terrestrial unit and not included in the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Canyon (Submarine)","Glossary","Definition of Canyon (Submarine)",630,"Canyon (Submarine) [CN]– A general term for all valleys of the deep seafloor\n [ Are there not also canyons (identified as such) cut into the continental shelf such as off San Fransico and other places on the west coast of the US – i.e. not limited just to deep seafloor.\n",null,null,null,"Included as a GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Ledge ","Glossary","Definition of Ledge ",631,"Ledge [LD] – A rocky outcrop or underwater ridge of rocks providing a more gentle (level?) slope than the bounding slopes. ",null,null,null,"Included as a GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Subaqueous Levee","Glossary","Definition of Subaqueous Levee",632,"Subaqueous Levee (Delta) [LV] – ",null,null,null,"Added as a type of Delta"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Levee","Glossary","Definition of Levee",633,"Levee (Lava) [LL]– The scoriaceous sheets of lava that overflowed their natural channels and solidified to form a raised, bounding rim , similar in shape to terrestrial stream levees formed by an overflowing stream of water.",null,null,null,"Added as type of Dike"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","defintion, shoal","Glossary","Defintion of  Shoal",634,"Shoal [SH] – a relatively shallow place in a stream, lake, sea, or other body of water, typically a submerged ridge, bank, or bar consisting of or covered by sand or other unconsolidated material, but may also be composed of rock or other material.\n [ This feature is common in coastal waters, and in wider marine settings as well, apparently.  Point: due to its wide use in lagoonal and other coastal water settings, it should alos be listed there.].\n",null,null,null,"Added as recommended."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","defintion, Dredged Channel","Glossary","Defintion of Dredged Channel",635,null,"Dredged Channel:  A roughly linear, deep water area formed by a dredging operation for navigation purposes (after Wells et al., 1994; dredged hole).  Compare – Dredge-Deposit Shoal.",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Dredge-Deposit Shoal","Glossary","Definition of Dredge-Deposit Shoal",636,null,"Dredge-Deposit Shoal:  A subaqueous area, substantially shallower than the surrounding area that resulted from the deposition of materials from dredging and dumping .  Compare – Dredged Channel, Shoal.",null,null,"Added as type of Dredge Deposit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Dredge Spoil Bank","Glossary","Definition of Dredge Spoil Bank",637,null,"Dredge Spoil Bank:  A subaerial mound or ridge that permanently stands above the water composed of dredge spoils; randomly mixed sediments deposited during dredging and dumping.  Compare – Dredged Channel, Dredge-Deposit Shoal, Filled Marshland. ",null,null,"Added as type of Dredge Deposit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","definition, Dredge Deposit","Glossary","Definition of Dredge Deposit",638,"Dredge Deposit [DD] – An accumulation on the seafloor or land surface where spoil materials from a dredging operation are placed. They often exhibit some topographical expression and can support biological communities different than the surrounding area. They are often unconsolidated in character but can also be relatively stable.  [ As written, this reads as a material (“sediment”) rather than a geofrom.  Both items are needed (geoform and compositional / material terms).   I present a geoform example (dredge-deposit shoal ).  Other dredge deposits (non-shoal types) need to be recognized\n",null,null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,639,null,"[ Please consider the content of our definition below; possibly merge its content with yours.]\nmarine lake [water] - An inland body of permanently standing brackish or saline water, occupying a depression on the Earth’s surface whose water level is commonly influenced by ocean tides through subterranean cavities connecting to nearby lagoons; generally of appreciable size (larger than a pond) and too deep to permit emergent vegetation to take root completely across the expanse of water.  Such water bodies can have unique biota (e.g. sting-less jellyfish of Palau).  SW\n",null,null,"Marine Lake added as GC unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,640,null,"[ Please consider this modified definition – merge or modify?] \natoll - A coral reef appearing in plan view as roughly circular, and surmounted by a chain of closely spaced, low coral islets that encircle or nearly encircle a shallow lagoon in which there is no land or islands of non-coral origin; the reef is surrounded by open sea.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,641,null,"Back-Barrier Beach:  A narrow, elongate, intertidal, sloping landform that is generally parallel with the shoreline located on the lagoon or estuary side of the barrier island, or spit.  Compare – Barrier Island.  ",null,null,"Added as type of Beach"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,642,null,"Back-barrier Flat:  A subaerial, gently sloping landform on the lagoon side of the barrier beach ridge composed predominantly of sand washed over or through the beach ridge during tidal surges; a portion of a barrier flat.  Compare – Washover-fan Flat.   ",null,null,"Added as type of Flat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,643,null,"[ Given the arid, terrestrial context for this term (Peterson, 1981), it’s application in a subaqueous context is … interesting.  \nbajada - (colloquial: southwestern U.S.A.) A broad, gently inclined, alluvial piedmont slope extending from the base of a mountain range out into a basin and formed by the lateral coalescence of a series of alluvial fans.  Typically it has a broadly undulating transverse profile, parallel to the mountain front, resulting from the convexities of component fans.  The term is generally restricted to constructional slopes of intermontane basins.  Synonym - coalescent fan piedmont.  Compare - fan apron.  HP & SW\nIf you retain this application of bajada, you’ll need to retool your definition to convey and explicitly detail its subaqueous expression. \n",null,null,"Bajada removed form GC due to terrestrial associations."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,644,"Bank: A mound-like or ridge-like submerged elevated area of modest to substantial extent, usually rising close to sea level.\n[ How does your use of this term (its definition) differ from “shoal”?  - hard to tell them apart.  Both definitions should be modified to explain – if no difference, cite as synonyms and preferably only recommend one\n",null,null,null,"Bank as a Geoform is reflected in the Bar and Shoal units.  Bank is captured  as sicj in the Coral Reef Zone modifiers."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,645,null,"Barrier Beach:  A narrow, elongate, coarse-textured, intertidal, sloping landform that is generally parallel with the beach ridge component of the barrier island, or spit and adjacent to the ocean.  Compare – Barrier Island.  (Jackson, 1997; Peterson, 1981).",null,null,"Added as type of Beach"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,646,null," Barrier Cove:  A subaqueous area adjacent to a barrier island or submerged barrier beach that forms a minor embayment or cove within the larger basin.  Compare – Cove, Mainland Cove.  ",null,null,"Added as type of Cove"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,647,null,"Barrier Flat -  A relatively flat, low-lying area, commonly including pools of water, separating the exposed or seaward edge of a barrier beach or barrier island from the lagoon behind it.  An assemblage of both deflation flats left behind formerly moving dunes and /or storm washover sediments; may be either barren or vegetated.  Compare – barrier beach, back-barrier flat.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added as type of FLat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,648,null,"Barrier Island:  A long, narrow, sandy island that is above high tide and parallel to the shore that commonly has dunes, vegetated zones, and swampy or marshy terranes extending lagoonward from the beach.  Compare – barrier beach.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added as type of Island"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,649,"Basin Floor: The area of the seafloor between the base of the continental margin, usually the foot of the continental rise, and the mid-ocean ridge.[ This usage needs to be distinguished from the widely recognized terrestrial usage:]",null,null,null,"Not included since it merely refers to the floor of a feature.  Same situation as \"bay bottom\""]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,650,null,"basin floor - A general term for the nearly level, lower-most part of intermontane basins (i.e. bolsons, semi-bolsons).  The floor includes all of the alluvial, eolian, and erosional landforms below the piedmont slope.  Compare - basin, piedmont slope.  FFP\nBest to add a “subaqueous” or “marine” adjective: ” marine basin floor”..\n",null,null,"Not included since it merely refers to the floor of a feature.  Same situation as \"bay bottom\""]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,651,"{ add a bracketed context insert: bay [coastal] :",null,null,null,"Definition revised.  We did not include brackets due to the potential for confusion by seeing so many alternate terms for any given unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,652,null,"Bay Bottom:  The nearly level or slightly undulating central portion of a submerged, low-energy, depositional estuarine embayment characterized by relatively deep water (1.0 to >2.5 m).  Compare – Lagoon Bottom.",null,null,"Not included since it merely refers to \"the bottom of the bay\""]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,653,null,"Beach - (a) A gently sloping zone of unconsolidated material, typically with a concave profile, extending landward from the low-water line to the place where there is a definite change in material or physiographic form (such as a cliff) or to the line of permanent vegetation (usually the effective limit of the highest storm waves); a shore of a body of water, formed and washed by waves or tides, usually covered by sand or gravel; (b) the relatively thick and temporary accumulation of loose water-borne material (usually well-sorted sand and pebbles) accompanied by mud, cobbles, boulders, and smoothed rock and shell fragments, that is in active transit along, or deposited on, the shore zone between the limits of low water and high water.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)\n[ Please consider this modified definition for beach.]\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,654,"Berm: A low, impermanent, nearly horizontal or landward-sloping bench, shelf, ledge, or narrow terrace on the beach. \n[ Please consider this expanded definition:\nberm - [beach] A low, impermanent, nearly horizontal or landward-sloping shelf, ledge, or narrow terrace on the backshore of a beach, formed of material thrown up and deposited by storm waves; it is generally bounded on one side or the other by a beach ridge or beach scarp.  Some beaches have no berms, others have one or several.  GG\n",null,null,null,"Bench not included as a term but synonyms ledge, terrace and shelf have been included."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,655,"[Please consider the alternative term & definition:]\nDredged Channel:  A roughly linear, deep water area formed by a dredging operation for navigation purposes (after Wells et al., 1994; dredged hole).  Compare – Dredge-Deposit Shoal.\n",null,null,null,"Definition revised as requested."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,656,null,"Cove [water]:  A small, narrow sheltered bay or recess in an estuary, often inside a larger embayment (modified from Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Estuary.",null,null,"Cove added as GC unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,657,"[Add a modifier to the term, (artificial or anthropogenic dike) or a [bracketed context], e.g. dike [anthropogenic] to distinguish these from: dike [intrusive rocks] - A tabular igneous intrusion that cuts across the bedding or foliation of the country rock.  Compare - sill.  GG",null,null,null,"Artificial added to anthropogenic Dike unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,658,null,"Dredged Channel:  A roughly linear, deep water area formed by a dredging operation for navigation purposes (after Wells et al., 1994; dredged hole).  Compare – Dredge-Deposit Shoal.",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,659,null,"Dredge-Deposit Shoal:  A subaqueous area, substantially shallower than the surrounding area that resulted from the deposition of materials from dredging and dumping (modified from Demas 1998).  Compare – Dredged Channel, Shoal.",null,null,"Added as type of Dredge Deposit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,660,null,"Dredge Spoils:  Unconsolidated, randomly mixed sediments composed of rock, soil, and/or shell materials extracted and deposited during dredging and dumping activities.  Dredge spoils lie unconformably upon natural, undisturbed soil or regolith and can form anthropogenic landforms (e.g. Dredge Spoil Bank).  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005)",null,null,"Spoil not included the way Phil describes it here meaning the type of sediments.  These are captured in the SC.  Dredge deposit spoil material is captured in the anthropogenic GC when it forms a Shoal or Bank."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,661,null,"Dredge Spoil Bank:  A subaerial mound or ridge that permanently stands above the water composed of dredge spoils; randomly mixed sediments deposited during dredging and dumping.  Compare – Dredged Channel, Dredge-Deposit Shoal, Filled Marshland.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005) ",null,null,"Added as type of Dredge Deposit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,662,null,"Dune Field:  An assemblage of moving and/or stabilized dunes, together with sand plains, interdune areas, and the ponds, lakes, or swamps produced by the blocking of waterways by migrating dunes.  See dune lake.  SW",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,663,null,"   Dune Slack:   A damp depression or trough between dunes in a dune field or dune ridges on a shore, caused by intersecting the capillary fringe of the local water table; a moist type of interdune.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Included as GC unit with Swale"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,664,"{ Are all bays “ a class of estuary”? e.g. Hudson Bay – as written, this is what is suggested].",null,null,null,"Not intended that all bays are estuaries."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,665,null,"Estuarine Deposit:  Fine-grained sediments (sand, silt, and clay) of marine and fluvial origin commonly containing decomposed organic matter, laid down in the brackish waters of an estuary; characteristically finer sediments than deltaic deposits.  Compare – Fluviomarine Deposit, Lacustrine Deposit, Lagoonal Deposit, Marine Deposit, Overbank Deposit.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"In this case estuarine deposit is not a unique form (shape) and was not included in the GC, however, Fluvio-marine deposit was due to its unique morphology."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,666,"Estuarine Lagoon: A lagoon produced by the temporary sealing of a river estuary by a barrier; such lagoons are usually seasonal and exist until the river breaches the barrier; they occur in regions of low or sporadic rainfall. \n[A type of lagoon?  If yes, this definition needs refinement to distinguish it from your term “lagoon”.  If this is a biotic distinction or some other context, a modifier is needed.  In general, this is a poor definition.  There are many estuarine-related lagoons along the Atlantic seaboard that don’t fit this definition – not seasonal, nor in areas of low or erratic rainfall].  \n",null,null,null,"Captured in the Physiographic Setting of Lagoonal Estuary"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,667,null,"Estuarine Subaqueous Soils:  Soils that form in sediment found in shallow-subtidal environments in protected estuarine coves, bays, inlets, and lagoons. Excluded from the definition of these soils are any areas “permanently covered by water too deep (typically greater than 2.5 m) for the growth of rooted plants. ",null,null,"Descriptions and general refernce to subaqueous soils has been removed from CMECS on the request of many reviewers.  "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,668,null,"Estuary:  a) A seaward end or the widened funnel-shaped tidal mouth of a river valley where fresh water comes into contact with seawater and where tidal effects are evident (e.g., a tidal river, or a partially enclosed coastal body of water where the tide meets the current of a stream).  b) A portion of an ocean or an arm of the sea affected by fresh water.  c) A drowned river mouth formed by the subsidence of land near the coast or by the drowning of the lower portion of a non-glacial valley due to the rise of sea level.  Compare – Lagoon.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"The various estuary types are individually defined in the Physiographic Setting units."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,669,"Fan (Alluvial): A low, outspread, relatively flat to gently sloping mass of loose rock material, shaped like an open fan or a segment of a cone, deposited by a stream at the place where it issues from a narrow mountain valley upon a plain or broad valley, or where a tributary stream is near or at its junction with the main stream, or wherever a constriction in a valley abruptly ceases or the gradient of the stream suddenly decreases; it is steepest near the mouth of the valley where its apex points upstream, and it slopes gently and convexly outward with gradually decreasing gradient. [ change term to “alluvial fan”",null,null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,670,"]Fan (Basin Floor): Deposition of submarine fans on the lower slope or basin floor; fan formation is associated with the erosion of canyons into the slope and the incision of fluvial valleys into the shelf; siliciclastic sediment bypasses the shelf and slope through the valleys and canyons to feed the basin floor fan; may be deposited at the mouth of a canyon, although it may occur widely separated from the canyon mouth, or a canyon may not be evident. \n[ change term to “submarine fan” – more direct]\n",null,null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,671,"Fan (Shoreline): A prograding shoreline formed where an alluvial fan is built out into a lake or sea. \n[ It would be important, from a soils perspective and ecosystem basis,  to distinguish between the terrestrial fan component and the subaqueous portion]\n",null,null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,672,"Filled Marshland:  A subaerial soil area composed of fill materials (construction debris, dredged or pumped sandy or shell-rich sediments, etc.) deposited and smoothed to provide building sites and associated uses (e.g. lawns, driveways, parking lots). These fill materials are typically 0.5 to 3 m thick and have been deposited unconformably over natural soils (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005).  Compare – Dredge Spoil Bank.[This anthropogenic landform was developed for the extensive constructed housing areas on the lagoon-side of barrier islands along the Atlantic seaboard and elsewhere.].",null,null,null,"This is a landscape so not included but filled is an anthropogenic impact modifier and Marsh Platform is a GC unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,673,null,"[ Consider the following , competing contexts: your usage is obviously  (b) – slope ranges don’t agree with soils usage where little or no local relief is loosely equivalent to < 3 % (<1.5 o) slope]\nflat -[geomorphology] - (a) (adjective)  Said of an area characterized by a continuous surface or stretch of land that is smooth, even, or horizontal, or nearly so, and that lacks any significant curvature, slope, elevations, or depressions.  (b) (noun)  An informal, generic term for a level or nearly level surface or small area of land marked by little or no local relief.  Compare - mud flat.  (c) (not recommended) A nearly level region that visibly displays less relief than its surroundings.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,674,null,"flat - [lake]  (a)  (not preferred) refer to lakebed.  The low-lying, exposed, flat land of a lake delta or of a lake bottom.  Compare - lake plain.  (b) (not preferred)  The flat bottom of a desiccated lake in the arid parts of western USA.  Compare - playa, pluvial lake.  GG",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,675,null,"Flood-Tidal Delta:  A largely subaqueous (sometimes intertidal), crudely fan-shaped deposit of sand-sized sediment formed on the landward side of a tidal inlet (modified from Boothroyd et al., 1985; Davis, 1994; Ritter et al., 1995).  Flood tides transport sediment through the tidal inlet and into the lagoon over a flood ramp where currents slow and dissipate (Davis, 1994).  Generally, flood-tidal deltas along microtidal coasts are multi-lobate and unaffected by ebbing currents (modified from Davis, 1994).  Compare – Flood-Tidal Delta Slope. ",null,null,"Added as type of Delta"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,676,null," Flood-Tidal Delta Flat:  The relatively flat, dominant component of the flood-tidal delta. At extreme low tide this landform may be exposed for a relatively short period (modified from Boothroyd et al., 1985).",null,null,"Added as type of Flat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,677,null," Flood-Tidal Delta Slope:  An extension of the flood-tidal delta that slopes toward deeper water in a lagoon or estuary, composed of flood channels, inactive lobes (areas of the flood-tidal delta that are not actively accumulating sand as a result of flood tides), and parts of the terminal lobe of the flood-tidal delta (modified from Boothroyd et al., 1985).",null,null,"Added as type of Delta"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,678,null,"Fluviomarine Bottom:  The nearly level or slightly undulating, relatively low-energy, depositional environment with relatively deep water (1.0 to >2.5 m) directly adjacent to an incoming stream and composed of interfingered and mixed fluvial and marine sediments (fluviomarine deposits). ",null,null,"Bottom not included since this is merely the presence of a fluvio-marine deposit at the bottom of a feature.  Fluvio-marine deposit is included as a GC due to the morphology expressed here."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,679,null,"Fluviomarine Deposit:  Stratified materials (clay, silt, sand, or gravel) formed by both marine and fluvial processes, resulting from non-tidal sea level fluctuations, subsidence, and/or stream migration (e.g. materials originally deposited in a nearshore environment and subsequently reworked by fluvial processes as sea level fell).  Compare – Estuarine Deposit, Lacustrine Deposit, Lagoonal Deposit, Marine Deposit, Overbank Deposit. (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005)",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,680,null,"Fluviomarine Terrace:  A constructional coastal strip, sloping gently seaward and/or down valley, veneered by or completely composed of unconsolidated fluviomarine deposits (typically silt, sand, fine gravel).  Compare – Terrace, Stream Terrace, Marine Terrace.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005)",null,null,"Added as type of Terrace"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,681,"[Please consider the expanded definition:]\nfloor [geomorphology] - (a) A general term for the nearly level, lower part of a basin or valley; (not preferred) refer to basin floor, valley floor, (b) The bed of any body of water; e.g., the nearly level surface beneath the water of a stream, lake, or ocean.  GG\n",null,null,null,"Not included since it is a positional term not a morphological term."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,682,null,"Fringe-Tidal Marsh:  Narrow salt marsh adjacent to a relatively higher energy environment.",null,null,"This is description of a vegetation community not a stuctural feature."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,683,"[Please consider the existing usage when defining your usage:]\ngully - A small channel with steep sides caused by erosion and cut in unconsolidated materials by concentrated but intermittent flow of water usually during and immediately following heavy rains or ice / snow melt.  A gully generally is an obstacle to wheeled vehicles and too deep (e.g., >  0.5 m) to be obliterated by ordinary tillage; (a rill is of lesser depth and can be smoothed over by ordinary tillage).  Compare - rill, ravine, arroyo, swale, draw.  HP & GSST\n",null,null,null,"This is captured under channel "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,684,null,"gut - (a) (colloquial: U.S. Virgin Islands, Caribbean Basin)  A gully, ravine, small valley, or narrow passage on land. (b) [stream] (not preferred – use tidal channel).  A tidal stream connecting two larger waterways within a lagoon, estuary or bay.  SW &  GG",null,null,"A colloquial term.  Channel is the GC unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,685,"Harbor Bar: A bar built across the exit to a harbor. \n[Do you need to distinguish the differences between a natural feature (e.g. baymouth bar) from an anthropogenic one?]\n",null,null,null,"Added as type of Bar"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,686,"[Please consider this slightly expanded definition]\nhummock - [geomorphology]  (a) (not preferred – see hillock).  An imprecise, general term for a rounded or conical mound or other small elevation.  (b) (not preferred) A slight rise of ground above a level surface.  GG.  \n",null,null,null,"This generally has a terrestrial connotation.  In the marine realm the GC units of mound, shoal, and others mght reflect this feature."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,687,"[ Our definition largely reflects item (c) above:]   \nInlet:  A short, narrow waterway connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar body of \nwater.  Compare – Tidal Inlet.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)\n",null,null,null,"Definition revised as requested."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,688,"Inlet (Migrating): A tidal inlet, such as that connecting a coastal bay with the open sea, that shifts its position laterally in the direction in which the dominant longshore current flows; it results from deposition on one side of the inlet, accompanied by erosion on the other. \n[Do you really need both inlet (migrating), and inlet (tidal)?  Tidal inlet seems to supercede the others. Tidal inlets naturally migrate to some degree, unless stabilized by humans, which might justify an anthropogenic variant ]\n",null,null,null,"Definition revised as requested."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,689,"[Please consider our term “tidal inlet” :  \nTidal Inlet:  Any inlet through which water alternately floods landward with the rising tide and ebbs seaward with the falling tide (Jackson, 1997).   Compare – Inlet, Relict Tidal Inlet.\nYour convention for listing variations or types of a feature is confusing, especially to database searches.  Better to list “inlet”  alone (mention various sub-types within the definition), and then list those subtypes fully alphabetical.  In addition, this frees you to employ bracketed context terms; e.g.,\n",null,null,null,"Added as type of Inlet"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,690," bay [geom.] – a) A wide, curving open indentation, recess, or arm of a sea (e.g. Chesapeake Bay) or lake, (e.g. Green Bay, WI) into the land or between two capes or headlands, larger than a cove [coast], and usually smaller than, but of the same general character as, a gulf.  b) A large tract of water that penetrates into the land and around which the land forms a broad curve.  By international agreement a bay is a water body having a baymouth that is less than 24 nautical miles wide and an area that is equal to or greater than the area of a semicircle whose diameter is equal to the width of the bay mouth.  Compare – gulf.  GG\n vs. \nbay [coastal] - (a) Any terrestrial formation resembling a bay of the sea, as a recess or extension of lowland along a river valley or within a curve in a range of hills, or an arm of a prairie extending into, or partly surrounded by, a forest.  (b) A Carolina Bay.  GG & GSST.\n",null,null,null,"Definition revised as requested."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,691,"[ Please consider the content of our definition below; possibly merge its content with yours.]\nIntertidal:  (adjective)  The coastal environment between mean low tide and mean high tide that alternates between subaerial and subaqueous depending on the tidal cycle.  Compare – Subtidal.\n",null,null,null,"CMECS has deferred to Cowardin in its definitions for tidal zone.   To ensure consistency with existing FGDC standards."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,692,"[ Your definition is superior to ours:  (what is your source?)  Island:  An area of land completely surrounded by water.  Compare – Barrier Island.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,null,"Definition maintained as suggested."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,693,"[Please consider this expanded definition:]\nkarst - A kind of topography formed in limestone, gypsum, or other soluble rocks by dissolution, and that is characterized by closed depressions, sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage.  Various types of karst can be recognized depending upon the dominant surface features:  karst dominated by closed depressions (sinkhole karst – temperate climates; cockpit karst – humid tropical climates), closed depressions and large rivers (fluviokarst), bare rock dominated by dissolution joints (pavement karst), tropical cone-, tower- or domed-hills (kegel karst), or karst thinly mantled with glacial drift (glaciokarst), etc.  SW & WW\n",null,null,null,"Karst is a landscape term not included in the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,694,"Lagoon: A class of estuary that tends to be shallow, highly enclosed, with reduced exchange with the ocean, often experience high evaporation, and quiescent in terms of wind, current, and wave energy. They tend to have a very high surface to volume ratio, low to moderate watershed to water-area ratio and can have a high wetland to water ratio. The flushing times tend to be long relative to riverine estuaries and even embayments, since the restricted exchange with the marine end member and reduced river input lengthen residence times. As such, there tends to be more benthic-pelagic interaction, enhanced by generally shallow bathymetry. Additionally, exchange with surrounding landscapes, often riparian wetland and palustrine systems, tends to be enhanced and more highly coupled than in other types of estuaries. The impact on nutrient processing may result in more recycling, more organic nutrient forms, and more. (More “what”?)",null,null,null,"Lagoonal estuary is a GC Physiographic Setting."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,695,null,"Lagoon Bottom:  The nearly level or slightly undulating central portion of a submerged, low-energy, depositional estuarine basin (McGinn, 1982) characterized by relatively deep water (1.0 to >2.5 m).  Compare – Bay Bottom.",null,null,"Not included since this is a positional descriptive term and not a morphology."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,696,null," Lagoon Channel:  A subaqueous, sinuous area within a lagoon that likely represents a relict channel (paleochannel, Wells et al., 1994) that is maintained by strong currents during tidal cycles (Short, 1975).  ",null,null,"Addes as type of Channel."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,697,null,"Lagoonal Deposit:  Sand, silt or clay-sized sediments transported and deposited by wind, currents, and storm washover in the relatively low-energy, brackish to saline, shallow waters of a lagoon.  Compare – Estuarine Deposit, Fluviomarine Deposit, Marine Deposit.",null,null,"Not included as a GC unit because there is no unique morphology associated with this.  A lagoonal deposit in CMECS would be captured as a Lagoon Geoform and an appropriate SC substrate type."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,698,null,"[Please consider this expanded definition:]\nlandslide [mass movement] – A general, encompassing term for most types of mass movement landforms and processes involving the downslope transport and outward deposition of soil and rock materials, caused by gravitational forces and which may or may not involve saturated materials.  Names of landslide types generally reflect the dominant process and/or the resultant landform.  The main operational categories of mass movement are fall (rockfall, debris fall, earthfall), topple (rock topple, debris topple, earth topple), slide (rotational landslide, block glide, debris slide, lateral spread), flow [rock fragment flow (especially rockfall avalanche), debris avalanche, debris flow (e.g., lahar), earthflow, (creep, mudflow)], and complex landslides.  Compare – solifluction.  SW & DV\n",null,null,"Landslide not included in GC since this is a process not a form.  The results of a landslide; Rubble Field, Boulder Field, Slide Deposit are present in the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,699,null,"[Please consider this expanded definition:]\nlava field – An area covered primarily by lava flows whose terrain can be rough and broken or relatively smooth; it can include vent structures (e.g., small cinder cones, spatter cones, etc.), surface flow structures (e.g., pressure ridges, tumuli, etc.) and small, intermittent areas covered with pyroclastics.  Compare – lava plain, volcanic field.  SW\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,700,null,"[Please consider this expanded definition:]\nledge - (a) A narrow shelf or projection of rock, much longer than wide, formed on a rock wall or cliff face, as along a coast by differential wave action on softer rocks; erosion is by combined biological and chemical weathering.  (b) A rocky outcrop; solid rock.  (c) A shelf-like quarry exposure or natural rock outcrop.  Compare - structural bench.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,701,null,"[Please consider modifying this term by adding an adjective modifier “subaqueous” or “submarine”  to distinguish this from the traditional terrestrial usage:]\nnatural levee - A long, broad low ridge or embankment of sand and coarse silt, built by a stream on its flood plain and along both sides of its channel, especially in time of flood when water overflowing the normal banks is forced to deposit the coarsest part of its load. It has a gentle slope away from the river and toward the surrounding floodplain, and its highest elevation is closest to the river bank.  Compare - levee, artificial levee, meander belt.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as a GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,702,null,"[Please consider this alternate definition:]\nartificial levee -  An artificial embankment constructed along the bank of a watercourse or an arm of the sea, to protect land from inundation or to confine streamflow to its channel.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,703,null,"Longshore Bar [relict]:  A narrow, elongate, coarse-textured ridge that once rose near to, or barely above, a pluvial or glacial lake or other body of water and extended generally parallel to the shore but was separated from it by an intervening trough or lagoon; both the bar and lagoon are now relict features.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Addes as type of Bar"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,704,null,"Mainland Cove:  A subaqueous area adjacent to the mainland or a submerged mainland beach that forms a minor recess or embayment within the larger basin.  Compare – Cove,  Barrier Cove.",null,null,"Added as type of Cove"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,705,null,"{This term (MANGROVE) needs tweaking, or a companion term (see below)  – Mangrove is the name of a plant type.  This definition refers to a mangrove forest.   A geoform / landform analogue would be a mangrove swamp, or some such] \nmangrove swamp -  A tropical or subtropical marine swamp formed in a silty, organic, or occasionally a coralline substratum and characterized by abundant mangrove trees along the seashore in a low area of salty or brackish water affected by daily tidal fluctuation but protected from violent wave action by reefs or land; dominated by saturated soils, commonly sulfaquents.  SW & GG\n",null,null,"This is a BC unit not a GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,706,null,"Marine Deposit:  Sediments (predominantly sands, silts and clays) of marine origin laid down in the waters of an ocean.  Compare – Estuarine Deposit, Lagoonal Deposit.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2002) ",null,null,"This is a term descrbing the result of marine processes not a morphology."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,707,null,"Marine Lake [water] - An inland body of permanently standing brackish or saline water, occupying a depression on the Earth’s surface whose water level is commonly influenced by ocean tides through subterranean cavities connecting to nearby lagoons; generally of appreciable size (larger than a pond) and too deep to permit emergent vegetation to take root completely across the expanse of water.  Such water bodies can have unique biota (e.g. sting-less jellyfish of Palau).  SW",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,708,null,"Marine Terrace:  A constructional coastal strip, sloping gently seaward, veneered by marine deposits (typically silt, sand, fine gravel).  Compare – Terrace, Wave-built Terrace.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added as type of Terrace"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,709,null,"[Please consider this alternative, expanded definition]\nmoraine [glacial geology] - (a) [material] A mound, ridge, or other topographically distinct accumulation of unsorted, unstratified glacial drift, predominantly till, deposited primarily by the direct action of glacier ice, in a variety of landforms.  (b) [landform] A general term for a landform composed mainly of till that has been deposited by a glacier; a kame moraine is a type of  moraine similar in exterior form to other types of moraines but composed mainly of stratified outwash materials.  Types of moraine include: disintegration, end, ground, kame, lateral, recessional, and terminal.  SW\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,710,null,"[Please consider this alternative definition]\nmound - (a) A low, rounded natural hill of unspecified origin, generally < 3 m high and, composed of earthy material;  (b) A small, human-made hill, composed either of debris accumulated during successive occupations of the site (e.g. tell) or of earth heaped up to mark a burial site (e.g. burial mound).  (c) A structure built by colonial organisms (e.g. termite mound).  GG\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,711,null,"[I’m not clear by this definition(PANNE) whether you intend a synonym for sabkha (see below), if so, Please consider this alternative definition) or some other usage]\nsabkha - A flat area of eolian sedimentation and erosion formed under semiarid or arid conditions in a) interior areas (e.g. on basin floors slightly above playa lake beds (e.g. playa step), or b) along coastal areas (e.g., just above intertidal zones), where, through deflation and evaporation, gypsum, halite, or other soluble minerals crystallize at or near the surface to form a thin, irregular mineral crust that is intermittently deflated away.  Microbiotic crusts are not extensive and vegetation is very sparse and consists primarily of small, halophytic shrubs (e.g. iodine bush).  SW, RF, & GG\n",null,null,"Panne included as GC unit but definition focuses on marine/coastal settings."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,712,null,"Point Bar [coastal]:  Low, arcuate subaerial ridges of sand developed adjacent to an inlet and formed by the lateral accretion or movement of the channel.",null,null,"Added as type of Bar"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,713,null,"Reef: A ridge-like or mound-like structure, layered or massive, built by sedentary calcareous organisms, especially corals, and consisting mostly of their remains; it is wave-resistant and stands above the surrounding contemporaneously deposited sediment.  Reefs may also include a mass or ridge of rocks, especially coral and sometimes sand, gravel, or shells, rising above the surrounding estuary, sea or lake bottom to, or nearly to, the surface (modified from Jackson, 1997).",null,null,"Reefs are defined on a more individual basis."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,714,null,"Relict-Tidal Inlet:  A channel remnant of a former tidal inlet. The channel was cutoff or abandoned by infilling from migrating shore sediments.  Compare – Inlet, Tidal Inlet.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005).",null,null,"Added as type of Inlet"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,715,null,"[Please consider this alternative definition]\nridge - A long, narrow elevation of the land surface, usually sharp crested with steep sides and forming an extended upland between valleys.  The term is used in areas of both hill and mountain relief.  HP\n",null,null,"Definition revised as requested."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,716,null,"[Please include or accommodate as a bracketed context [agricultural]  this alternative definition]\nrill - A very small channel with steep sides caused by erosion and cut in unconsolidated materials by concentrated but intermittent flow of water, usually during and immediately following moderate rains or after ice / snow melt.  Generally, a rill is not an obstacle to wheeled vehicles and is shallow enough (e.g., < 0.5 m) to be obliterated by ordinary tillage.  Compare - gully.  SW & GSST\n",null,null,"This is included in the same GC unit with Runnel."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,717,null,"[ Please consider the content of our definition below; possibly merge its content with yours.]\nShoal:  A natural, subaqueous ridge, bank, or bar consisting of, or covered by, sand or other unconsolidated material, rising from the bed of a body of water (e.g. estuarine floor) to near the surface.  Compare – Dredge-deposit Shoal, Reef.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,718,null,"Shore:  The narrow strip of land immediately bordering any body of water, esp. the sea or a large lake; specifically the zone over which the ground is alternately exposed and covered by tides or waves, or the zone between high water and low water.  (Jackson, 1997)  ",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,719,null,"Shore Complex:  Generally a narrow, elongate area that parallels a coastline commonly cutting across diverse inland landforms, and dominated by landforms derived from active coastal processes which give rise to beach ridges, washover fans, beaches, dunes, wave-cut platforms, barrier islands, cliffs, etc.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005)",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,720,null,"Shoreline:  The intersection of a specified plane of water with the beach; it migrates with changes of the tide or of the water level.  Compare – Strandline, Shore Complex, Barrier Beach.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"The line itself is an abstract concept and individual sections of shoreline would be descrbed using other GC terms, beach, scarp,  etc."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,721,null,"[Please consider this alternative definition]\nslough - (a) A small marsh, especially a marshy area lying in a local, shallow, closed depression on a piece of dry land, as on the prairie of the Midwestern U.S.A.  (b) A term used, especially in the Mississippi Valley, for a creek or sluggish body of water in a tidal flat, flood plain, or coastal marshland.  Compare - bayou, oxbow.  (c) A sluggish channel of water, such as a side channel of a river, in which water flows slowly through low, swampy ground, as along the Columbia River, or a section of an abandoned river channel which may contain stagnant water and occurs in a flood plain or delta.  (d) (not preferred) An area of soft, miry, muddy or waterlogged ground, a place of deep mud.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as type of Channel"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,722,null,"[ Please replace this termSLUMP (obsolete and not recommended).   It is widely used (ninformally), but has been considered obsolete for many years (Varnes, 1978;   : not recommended) refer to rotational slide.   Also Glossary of geology (b) An informal term for the landform or mass of material slipped down during, or produced by a landslide.  \nConsider use of :  ]\n",null,null,"Slump has been removed."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,723,null,"[Please consider this alternative definition]\nsound [coast] - a) A relatively long, narrow waterway connecting two larger bodies of water (as a sea or lake with the ocean or another sea) or two parts of the same water body, or an arm of the sea forming a channel between the mainland and an island (e.g. Puget Sound, WA); it is generally wider and more extensive than a strait [coast].  b) A long, large, rather broad inlet of the ocean, generally extending parallel to the coast (e.g. Long Island Sound, NY).  C) A lagoon along the southeast coast of the US (e.g. Pamlico Sound, NC).  d) A long bay or arm of a lake; a stretch of water between the mainland and a long island in a lake.  Compare – sound, lagoon, gulf, ocean.  GG\n",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,724,null,"Spit:  (a) A small point or low tongue or narrow embankment of land, commonly consisting of sand or gravel deposited by longshore transport and having one end attached to the mainland and the other terminating in open water, usually the sea; a finger-like extension of the beach. (b) A relatively long, narrow shoal or reef extending from the shore into a body of water.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added as GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,725,null,"Subaerial: (adjective) Said of conditions and processes, such as erosion, that exist or operate in the open air on or immediately adjacent to the land surface; or of features and materials, such as eolian deposits, that are formed or situated on the land surface.  Compare – Subaqueous.  (modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Not necessary for the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,726,null,"Subaqueous: (adjective) Said of conditions and processes, features, or deposits that exist or operate in or under water.  Compare – Subaerial.  (modified from Jackson, 1997) ",null,null,"Not necessary for the GC."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,727,null,"Subaqueous Landscapes:  Permanently submerged areas that are fundamentally the same as subaerial (terrestrial) systems in that they have a discernable topography composed of mappable, subaqueous landforms. ",null,null,"Not necessary for the GC and also not relevant due to its reference to landscape vs. landform."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,728,null,"Subaqueous Soils:  Soils that form in sediment found in shallow, permanently flooded environments.  Excluded from the definition of these soils are any areas “permanently covered by water too deep (typically greater than 2.5 m) for the growth of rooted plants.",null,null,"A brief refernce to the optional use of subaqueous soils taxonomy will appear in the SC but subaqueous soils are not part of CMECS>"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,729,null,"Submerged-Upland Tidal Marsh:  An extensive, nearly level, intertidal landform composed of unconsolidated sediments (clays, silts and/or sand and organic materials), a resistant root mat, and vegetated dominantly by hydrophytic plants.  The mineral sediments largely retain pedogenic horizonation and morphology (e.g. argillic horizons) developed under subaerial conditions prior to submergence due to sea level rise; a type of tidal marsh.  Compare – Tidal Marsh.",null,null,"Tidal marsh is captured as a marsh platform GC unit and a BC vegetation unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,730,null,"Submerged Back-Barrier Beach:  A permanently submerged extension of the back-barrier beach that generally parallels the boundary between estuary and the barrier island.  Compare – Submerged Mainland Beach, Barrier Beach.",null,null,"Back Barrier Beach is included as a GC unit with supra-, inter-, and sub-tidal zones present."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,731,null,"Submerged Mainland Beach:  A permanently submerged extension of the mainland beach that generally parallels the boundary between an estuary or lagoon and the mainland.  Compare – Submerged Back-Barrier Beach, Barrier Beach.",null,null,"Mainland Beach is a GC but the tidal zone is expressed through the Aquatic Setting"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,732,null,"Submerged Point Bar [coastal]:  The submerged extension of an exposed (subaerial) point bar.  ",null,null,"Point Bar included as type of Bar but reference to submerged, subaqueous, subaerial, etc. is not explicit in the name of the unit, but rather through Aquatic Setting units or location within the CMECS domain."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,733,null,"Submerged Wave-Built Terrace:  A subaqueous, relict depositional landform originally constructed by river or longshore sediments deposits along the outer edge of a wave-cut platform and later submerged by rising sea level or subsiding land surface. (modified from Jackson, 1997).  Compare Wave – Built Terrace and Wave-Cut Platform. ",null,null,"Wave Build Terrace included as a type of Terrace"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,734,null,"Submerged Wave-Cut Platform:  A subaqueous, relict erosional landform that originally formed as a wave-cut bench and abrasion platform from coastal wave erosion and later submerged by rising sea level or subsiding land surface.  (modified from Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Wave-Built Terrace, Wave-Cut Platform.",null,null,"Wave -Cut Platform included as a type of Platform."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,735,null,"[ Please consider the content of our definition below; possibly merge its content with yours.]\nSubtidal: (adjective)  Continuous submergence of substrate in an estuarine or marine ecosystem; these areas are below the mean low tide.  (modified from Cowardin et al., 1979).  Compare – Intertidal.\n",null,null,"Tidal Zone definitions in CMECS are being drawn from Cowardin."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,736,null,"Subtidal Wetlands:  Permanently inundated areas within estuaries dominated by subaqueous soils and submerged aquatic vegetation.",null,null,"Tidal zone is captured in the Aquatic Setting, Wetlands are expressed through the use of wetland BC vegetation units."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,737,null,"[Please accommodate these alternative definitions – the one above is (c) below]\nswale - (a) A shallow, open depression in unconsolidated materials which lacks a defined channel but can funnel overland or subsurface flow into a drainageway.  Soils in swales tend to be more moister and thicker (cummulic) compared to surrounding soils.  SW  (b) A small, shallow, typically closed depression in an undulating ground moraine formed by uneven glacial deposition; Compare - swell-and-swale topography.  (c) (not preferred; refer to interdune)  A long, narrow, generally shallow, trough-like depression between two beach ridges, and aligned roughly parallel to the coastline.  GG\n",null,null,"Swal is a GC unit"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,738,null,"Swash Zone:  The sloping part of the beach that is alternately covered and uncovered by the uprush of waves, and where longshore movement of water occurs in a zigzag (upslope-downslope) manner.  (Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Shoreline.",null,null,"IN CMECS this is included in the Supra-tidal zone in Aquatic Setting"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,739,null,"[ Please consider the content of our definition below; possibly merge its content with yours.]\nterrace [geomorphology] - A step-like surface, bordering a valley floor or shoreline, that represents the former position of a flood plain, or lake or sea shore.  The term is usually applied to both the relatively flat summit surface (tread), cut or built by stream or wave action, and the steeper descending slope (scarp, riser), graded to a lower base level of erosion.  Compare - stream terrace, flood-plain step.  HP.  [ soil survey] Practically, terraces are considered to be generally flat alluvial areas above the 100 yr. flood stage.  SW\n",null,null,"Definition revised "]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,740,null,"Tidal Flat:  An extensive, nearly horizontal, barren or sparsely vegetated tract of land that is alternately covered and uncovered by the tide, and consists of unconsolidated sediment (mostly clays, silts and/or sand, and organic materials). Compare – Tidal Marsh, Wind-Tidal Flat.  (Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Added as type of Flat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,741,null,"Tidal Inlet:  Any inlet through which water alternately floods landward with the rising tide and ebbs seaward with the falling tide (Jackson, 1997).   Compare – Inlet, Relict Tidal Inlet.",null,null,"Added as type of Inlet"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,742,null,"Tidal Marsh:  An extensive, nearly level marsh bordering a coast (as in a shallow lagoon, sheltered bay, or estuary) and regularly inundated by high tides; formed mostly of unconsolidated sediments (e.g. clays, silts, and/or sands and organic materials), and the resistant root mat of salt tolerant plants, a marshy tidal flat.  Compare – Tidal Flat.  (Schoeneberger and Wysocki, 2005; modified from Jackson, 1997)",null,null,"Expressed through various CMECS component units.  The physical structure of Marsh Platform is the appropriate GC unit."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,743,null,"Washover Fan:  A fan-like landform of sand washed over a barrier island or spit during a storm and deposited on the landward side.  Washover fans can be small to medium sized and completely subaerial, or they can be quite large and include subaqueous margins extending into adjacent lagoons or estuaries.  Large fans can be subdivided into sequential parts: ephemeral washover channel (microfeature) cut through dunes or beach ridges, back-barrier flats, (subaqueous) washover-fan flat, (subaqueous) washover-fan slope.  Subaerial portions can range from barren to completely vegetated.",null,null,"Included as a type of Fan."]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,744,null,"Washover-Fan Flat:  A gently sloping, fan-like, subaqueous landform created by overwash from storm surges that transports sediment from the seaward side to the landward side of a barrier island (Jackson, 1997).  Sediment is carried through temporary overwash channels that cut through the dune complex on the barrier spit (Fisher and Simpson, 1979; Boothroyd et al., 1985; Davis, 1994) and spill out onto the lagoon-side platform where they coalesce to form a broad belt.  Also called Storm-surge Platform Flat (Boothroyd et al., 1979) and Washover Fan Apron (Jackson, 1997).  Compare – Washover Fan Slope.",null,null,"Included as a type of Flat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,745,null,"Washover-Fan Slope:  A subaqueous extension of a washover-fan flat that slopes toward deeper water of a lagoon or estuary and away from the washover-fan flat.  Compare – Washover-Fan Flat.",null,null,"Included as a type of Slope"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,746,null,"Wave-built Terrace:  A gently sloping coastal feature at the seaward or lakeward edge of a wave-cut platform, constructed by sediment brought by rivers or drifted along the shore or across the platform and deposited in the deeper water beyond (Jackson, 1997).  Compare - Submerged Wave-Built Terrace, Beach Plain, Strand Plain. ",null,null,"Included as a type of Terrace"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,747,null,"Wave-cut Platform:  A gently sloping surface produced by wave erosion, extending into the sea or lake from the base of the wave-cut cliff.  This feature represents both the wave-cut bench and the abrasion platform (Jackson, 1997).  Compare - Submerged Wave-Cut Platform.",null,null,"Included as a type of Platform"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary",null,748,null,"Wind-tidal Flat:  A broad, low-lying, nearly-level sand flat that is alternately inundated by ponded rainwater or by wind-driven bay or estuarine water from storm surges or seiche.  Frequent salinity fluctuations and prolonged periods of subaerial exposure preclude establishment of most types of vegetation except for mats of filamentous blue-green algae.  Compare – Tidal Flat. (modified from Fisk, 1959).",null,null,"Included as a type of Flat"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,749,null,"Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A. (ed)  1987.  Glossary of geology, 3rd Ed.  American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.788p",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,750,null,"Boothroyd, J.C., Friedrich, N.E., and McGinn, S.R.  1985.  Geology of microtidal coastal lagoons: Rhode Island.  Marine Geology 63:35-76.",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,751,null,"Cruden, D.M., and Varnes, D.J.  1996. Landslide types and processes.  In: Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L., (eds).  1996.  Landslides: investigations and mitigation.  National Research Council, Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 247; National Academy Press, Washington, DC;  673 p.",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,752,null,"Jackson, J.A. (ed)  1997.  Glossary of geology, 4th Ed.  American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.  769p.  ISBN 0-922152-34-9",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,753,null,"NRCS.  2009.  National Soil Survey Handbook – Part 629: Glossary of landform and geologic terms, version 8.2.  USDA – NRCS, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,754,null,"Peterson, F.F.  1981.  Landforms of the Basin and Range Province defined for soil survey.  Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 28, Reno, NV. 52p.",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,755,null,"Schoeneberger, P.J. and Wysocki, D.A. (personal communication), National Soil Survey Center, NRCS, Lincoln, NE.   In:   NRCS.  2009.  National Soil Survey Handbook – Part 629 : Glossary of landform and geologic terms, version 8.2.  USDA – NRCS, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,756,null,"Soil Science Society of America.  2010.  Glossary of Soil Science terms.  Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI ",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,757,null,"Subaqueous Soils Subcommittee.  2005.  Glossary of terms for subaqueous soils, landscapes, landforms, and parent materials of estuaries and lagoons.  National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference, USDA-NRCS, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.  ",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,758,null,"Varnes, D.  1978.  Slope movement types and processes.  In: Schuster, R.L., and R.J. Krizek. (eds).  1978.  Landslides: analysis and control.  National Academy Sciences, Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 176;  234 p.",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USDA Natural Resouce Conservation Service","Philip.Schoeneberger@LIN.usda.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Geology, References","References",null,759,null,"Wells, D.V., Conkwright, R.D., Hill, J.M., and Park, M.J.  1994.  The surficial sediments of Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay, Maryland: Physical and chemical characteristics.  Coastal and Estuarine Geology File Report Number 94-2, Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD. ",null,null,"Reference added"]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,"Classification System",null,"Is this a database or classification system?",760,"This is a semantic thing, but I think it needs to be adddressed: In some places (e.g., the \"paper\", some of the introductory material, and p.27) the classification is referred to as a \"database\" or a \"method\" and something that data can be entered into.  In reality, this is a classification scheme that can be used to describe data, or describe an interpretation of data, nothing more.",null,null,null,"The term database is no longer used in the context of the CMECS standard itself."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Soils",null,"Soils nomenclature troubling",761,"I am uncomfortable with the use of terminology from soil science.  Marine sediments are very different from terrestrial soils in many ways - e.g., their chemistry, the processes that form and deposit them, the processes that alter them after deopsition.  Perhaps in some shallow enclosed areas, the sediment is essentially drowned soil and it will work, but I think those areas are a small percentage of the coastal areas.  Even if the soils classification fits, I expect it will be difficult to get marine geologists to adopt this unfamiliar teminology. ",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Sediments",null,"Composition of unconsolidated also important",762,"The classification of unconsolidated sediment is almost entirely based on grain size, but other properties of the sediment, such as comoosition and degree of consolidation may be more important in defining the habitat.  For example, sediment composed entirely of clay-sized particles can be soupy or hard enough to form a vertical wall.  Or a carbonate sand, made of platy, light-weight grains will behave completely differently from an iron -rich clastic sand when exposed to a current.  This fixation on sediment texture makes it more diffiult to classify substrate using sidescan sonar imagery, where hardness and roughness but not texture may be known.",null,null,null,"Hardness and Roughness are addressed in the GC and in Modifiers (Induration and Rugosity)."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Sediments, Unconsolidated",null,"Need more detail in consolidated substrates",763,"The only distinction I found within Rock Substrate was Bedrock vs. Pavement.  As with sediments, the comopsition and other properties of rock substrate are very important to habitat.  Thinly bedded, friable shale outcrops will support a different benthic community than a massive sandstone outcrop or a dissolved limestone karst terrain or a field of fresh glassy pillow basalt.  Information about the composition, form, condition, and even orientation (e.g., horizontal beds?) of rock substrate needs to be included.",null,null,null,"Agree that more detail on Rock Composition was needed, although maintain that CMECS need not present a \"geology textbook\", given the complexity of classifying rock types.  Provided some Rock Composition terms in Substrate Descriptors Modifier (Section 10.4.5), and allow users to classify in more detail as they wish."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC, GFC","General","Soils/Sediments","Reference",null,"Build or reference Valentine",764,"Valentine et al. (2005) Classification of Marine Sublittoral Habitas, AFS Symp. 41:183-200 should be discussed.",null,null,null,"Valentine et al. 2005 is an excellent regional classification system for the NE USA, and has been added as a reference."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC, BBC","General",null,"Corals, Balance",null,"Imbalance btw corals and other habtiats",765,"Coral reefs, perhaps because they are more intensely studied, are dealt with in much more detail than anything else.  It seems unbalanced.",null,null,null,"This apparent unbalance is likely a function of the level of study coral reefs have had as well as their overall complexity and importance to biodiversity."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Consistency","Balance, Terminology",null,"GFC terms being used differently",766,"Some terms in the Geoform Component are used for two different things, which will cause confusion.  For example, Fan (FA) is used for both alluvial fans and deep sea fans, which are formed by different processes and have different surface geologies.  In other places (I marked some of them on the paper copy) it is hard to know the differnece (e.g., wall and scarp) or there is overlap in defintions. ",null,null,null,"Definitions have been revised to more clearly differentiate units and remove overlap; however, the term Fan is intended to capture the shape and aspect of this feature.  The geologic process that results in a fan can be added as an attribute by the user when known.  "]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"All","General",null,"Terminology",null,"Database terminology ",767,"Use Caution about saying \"data collected by different sensors can be integrated into a single database\".  What can be integrated (esp. when talking about geophysical data) is an interpretation of data.",null,null,null,"Valid point.  Comment acknowledged."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,null,"General","Boundaries","Geographic limits?",null,"Is CMECS international?",768,"Across national boundaries?  Are other countries going to adopt CMECS?  Seems unlikely given my experince at international GeoHAB/ICES/UNEP venues.",null,null,null,"CMECS "]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,null,"General",null,"Terminology",null,"Class. System not a database",769,"CMECS is a classification standar-this \"paper\" reads like it is a database.",null,null,null,"The term database is no longer used in the context of the CMECS standard itself."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 14","Figure 1",null,"Editorial",null,"Acronymns",null,"Too many acronyms",770,"Add the three letter acronyms here for quick reference.  My head is spinning trying to keep all the acronyms straight.",null,null,null,"Efforts have been made to reduce the use of acronyms.  The two-letter acronyms for the settings and components are now more consistently applied."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 22, para. 5",null,"System/Subsystem","Editorial",null,"Wording",null,"Confusing passage",771,"\"Surface and bottom processes generally are pooly coupled, and the water fo the Ocean I subsystem receive terrigenous inputs primarily through atmospheric pathways\" - I don't understand this.",null,null,null,"Rephrased for clarity."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 27, para 1",null,"SGC","Editorial",null,"Terminology",null,"Components are not methods",772,"line 6-- \"…serves as a flexible method of rapidly..\" - The component is not a method",null,null,null,"This text no longer exists in CMECS, but we disagree:  A component is a method, or a series of methods, for classification of data or features."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 27, para 1",null,"SGC","Editorial","Implementation","Wording, Components",null,"Components are not methods",773,"line 11: \"…(SBC), which is a more detailed approach…\" - Again, a component isn't an approach.  It might allow an approach or facilitate an approach.",null,null,null,"This text no longer exists in CMECS, but we disagree:  A component is an approach, or a series of approaches, for classification of data or features."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC","Editorial",null,"Wording",null,"\"approaches\" is poor term",774,"line 13:  \"…and other detailed approaches…\"  suggest data sources instead of approaches.",null,null,null,"This text no longer exists in CMECS, but we disagree:  A component is an approach, or a series of approaches, for classification of data or features."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"SGC","Editorial",null,"Wording",null,"Reword to \"SGC provides..\"",775,"line 14: \".. The SGC provides information…\"  Suggest \"records\" or \"organizes\" instead of provides.",null,null,null,"This text was removed from the document."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 27, para. 3",null,"SGC","Editorial",null,"Wording",null,"Good terminology here",776,"lines 1-2:  Good!",null,null,null,"Thank you!"]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 29, para. 1",null,"SGC","Editorial",null,"Wording, grain size",null,"Reword to \"SGC provides..\"",777,null,"line 1: Suggest rewording to \"Substrates like grain sizes are defined differently in two FGDC classifications, FGDC-STD-004….\"",null,null,"This entire paragraph was rewritten, and this text was removed from the document."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 30, para. 1",null,"SGC","Editorial",null,null,null,"Reword relation to other FGDCstandards",778,null,"line 2: Suggest rewording to \"…tools, so that less precise and rapid tools (….\"",null,null,"This entire paragraph was entirely , and the implicated text was removed from the document."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 31, para 5",null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Grain size, Unconsolidated",null,"Mud is useful term",779,"line 17: Yes Mud is useful when interpreting photo or video data where the distinction between silt & clay is lost, but sand may be discernable.",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comment.  Retained use of Mud, sandy Mud, muddy Sand, and Sand, as well as other \"mud\" terms."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 36, para 2",null,"SGC","General","Units/Definitions","Corals ",null,"Reword deep corals",780,null,"Suggest rewording to \"…fragile accumulations of azooxanthellate corals…\"  \"These reefs may occur on deep seamounts, high latitude banks, or other hard substrate areas typically with strong currents.\"",null,null,"Entire section on deep-water corals was re-drafted with input from deep-water coral specialists."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 76, para. 2",null,"SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Soils","6.2.2","Soils terminology troublesome",781,"This soils terminology is going to be a hard sell with marine geologists.",null,null,null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, replaced FGDC-STD-006 (Soils) with a simple and traditional system based on Wentworth (1922) and Folk (1954)."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 97, para. 1",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Bank or Shoal?",782,"Bank defintion confusing with shoal?",null,null,null,"Bank and Shoal definitions have been revised to remove overlap."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 97, para. 1",null,"GFC","Editorial","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Alphabetize GFC units",783,"List of geoforms should be alphabetical ",null,null,null,"All geoform units have now been arranged alphabetically."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 97, para. 5",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Fan term confusing",784,"Fan-- Same name as alluvial fan, but deep sea fans are very different, formed by different processes.",null,null,null,"Geologic processes are not the focus of the geoform units. Shape is the primary concern."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 98, para 5&6",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Knob vs. Pinnacle?",785,"Definitions for knob and pinnacle very similar",null,null,null,"Knob definition includes reference to a more rounded shape.  Pinnacles are now captured as types of Seamount and as a type of reef."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 98, para. 9",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Seawall vs. Scarp",786,"Seawall and scarp potentially have same defintion",null,null,null,"Scarp is now in the geologic geoforms and seawall is in the anthropogenic geoforms."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 98, para 11",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Geoforms units",null,"Why Guyot as type of seamount?",787,"Definition of Guyout--If you include specific types of seamount, why arent' all seamounts included?",null,null,null,"There are now three types of seamount, one of which is guyot."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 99, para. 1",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Shoal vs. Bank?",788,"Definition of Shoal-- Bank is included in this defintion but also as a separate geoform.  What's the difference?",null,null,null,"Bank has been removed from the GC and is now a Coral Reef Zone modifier. "]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 99, para. 3",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Wall vs. Scarp?",789,"Defintion of Wall-- How is this different from a scarp?",null,null,null,"Wall has been incorporated into Scarp in the GC.  It is also a zone in the Coral Reef Zone modifiers."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 137, para 2",null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",11.1,"Ability to use components separately good.",790,"I like that users can assemble their own map using the components of interest to them.",null,null,null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 162, para. 5",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions, Scale","Glossary","How big is Sand Wave?",791,"Defintion of Sand Wave-- How large is large or very large?"]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Defintions",null,"Better defintion for solution pit",792,null,"Recommend re-wording defintion of solution pit to \"…rock surface by chemical dissolution..\" Which is more accurate.\"",null,null,"Solution Pit is now a type of Hole/Pit formed by chemical dissolution as requested."]
["USGS-WHOI","kscanlon@usgs.gov","p. 171, para. 14",null,"GFC","General",null,"References",null,"Reference Valentine",793,null,"Recommend adding reference for Valentine et al., 2005 Classification of Marine Sublittoral Habitats---AFS Symposium 41:183-200.",null,null,"CMECS has drawn more strongly from Greene's work for geomorphological units and structures."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Classification",null,"Depth, Substrate, and Water Column as prime classifiers",794,"Virtually all marine ecology studies since the 19th century classify the marine environment first by depth, and then the seabed by substratum, and water column by water masses. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Acknowledged.  CMECS includes all these aspects of the environment."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Biotopes",null,"Biotopes most important",795,"The most important level of the classification for ecologists will be the “biotopes”, which as the document states, will require definition with more field data. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"While we agree that the biotope is very important, the \"most important\" level will vary considerably with the user.  It is true that wil require more field data to define it.  "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"SGC, SBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Upper levels should be depth and substrate ",796,"I suggest the ecological classification start with the higher level factors like depth and substrata, and treat all biotopes as a lower level. The SBC and SGC are not really part of the ecological classification but should be included as recommended standards for characterising the physical environment. Thus I am suggesting a change in the headings and organisation of the document rather than omitting or adding content. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Concept of biotope has been revisited in CMECS and now is used in the way that Connor et al., have done in Europe.  Namely that a biotope includes a biotic, substrate, and geomorphological context.  It is no longer a categorical level in any CMECS component."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"WCC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Hydroforms should not be hierarchical to pelagic biology",797,"Similarly the Hydroforms are very helpful ways to classify and describe water masses but are not necessarily relevant to planktonic or pelagic biotopes. Thus, they should underpin and help describe such biotopes and not be placed in a hierarchy to suggest each ‘descriptor’ has a unique community.",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Done. Biotopes have been moved out of the WC to the BC.  The WC can be used independently to support the biotope descriptions. "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Component diagrams helpful",798,"I liked the diagrams on page 17 as they show the relationships of the different components and impacts. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"All","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, hierarchy",null,"Upper levels not supersets of biotopes",799,"In a recent paper (Costello (2009) I pointed out that marine ecological studies generally agree on the lower levels, whether they call them biotopes or habitats or communities. However, as local studies operate in different environments they generally classify these lower levels to fit that environment. Thus a study may classify biotopes within sheltered, wave-exposed and estuarine parts of a coast. However, as recognised in the European system, these seascapes or geoforms are not supersets of the biotopes, and may or may not contain the same biotopes.  It only complicates the classification to place biotopes within a hierarchy of unrelated seascapes or geographic regions. Thus I strongly suggest that CMECS keeps the classifications of Ecoregions (MEOW), Seascapes/Geoforms, and geographic areas (“Coastal regions”), separate from the ecological classification. That is retain the classifications, but do not place them into a hierarchy except where ecologically justified (e.g. biotopes clearly change with depth). ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"CMECS has brought the MEOW system in as a Biogeographic Setting and has removed biotope as the lowest level of the Biotic Component.  Biotope in CMECS is now recognized as the integration of biotic and abiotic elements from multiple components and is no longer part of the hierarchy."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 8",null,"All","General","Boundaries","Geographic limits",null,"Does this include all NA",800,"p. 8 – North America only or is this intended to advise on all USA and Canadian marine territories? If so it intends to cover the Pacific Island territories and Arctic",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"CMECS is intended for all of U.S. territories and should be applicable internationally in many cases."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 12",null,null,"General",null,"Reference",null,"Insufficient description of work that CMECS is building on",801,"‘build on existing work’ . This paragraph is weak and not convincing. It does not say exactly what systems it has and has not followed, and if not why not. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"This text was revised through the technical editing process."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 12",null,"All","General","Dynamics","Mapping, Dynamic Features",null,"Mappiing dynamic features?",802,"last line. Is it expected to map alga blooms? These are temporary in space and time and terrestrial classification would not map similar phenomena. Further usually they reflect changes in the relative abundance of species, not changes in species composition",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Yes, algal blooms would be mapped as they may be significant phenomena.  It is likely that a temporal modifier would be used to show that they are ephemeral."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 20",null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology",null,"Littoral and Intertidal will cause confusion",803,"the use of the term littoral as well as intertidal is guaranteed to cause confusion because in much of the marine ecology literature these are considered synonymous. In other literature littoral can cover the coast from the watershed to the edge of the continental shelf, or the land bordering lakes. On p. 25 it becomes clear that littoral means all freshwater wetlands. This is a different habitat again so it would be clearer to replace ‘littoral’ with ‘freshwater wetlands’.  It should also be clarified if this covers riverine wetlands or only those associated with lakes. I suspect they rarely differ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"The term littoral in CMECS is used to ensure consistency with the Cowadin wetland classification in Lacustrine environments and to describe the nearshore elsewhere.  In those cases the term intertidal is also present to avoid confusion."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 20",null,"System/Subsystem","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology",null,"Why not riverine and lotic?",804,"seems odd to have lacustrine and limnetic, but not riverine and lotic ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"This Riverine System is defined in Cowardin but is not a part of the CMECS domain. It is referenced in CMECS to provide context for the other Systems."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 20",null,"System/Subsystem","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Estuaries",null,"Divide estuaries by salinity not depth",805,"also seems odd to subdivide estuarine by water depth when estuaries are generally shallow. Should it not be divided by salinity? ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Many estuaries are shallow but others have significant depth.  A separate salinity subcomponent in the WC subdivides the estuary by salinity range. "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 27",null,"SGC, SBC","General","Soils/Sediments","Soils",null,"Conflict in sediment standards, What do Europeans do?",806,"the discussion of the choice of sediment standards is interesting (actually amusing that there is a choice!). It appears to be chosen because it (p 28) provides more detail and this could be more clearly stated. What system does the European marine classification use? ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"The Europeans use Wentworth, for EUNIS and in general.  CMECS now also uses Wentworth (1922)."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 31",null,null,"Editorial",null,"Typo",null,"Areal",807,"aerial or areal? ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"This has been corrected."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"SGC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Reef, Living units",null,"Live materials in SGC?  Should only include dead things",808,"SGC – this includes biogenic reefs created by corals, worm and molluscs. These habitats will cover a variety of biotopes when the species are alive. Maybe their inclusion in the SGC covers the situation where these habitat-building species may (or may not) be dead? This could be clarified. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Changed text to ensure clarity on this point, and repeated the living (BC)/nonliving (SC) distinction throughout the document."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 34 & 40",null,"SGC, BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Reef",null,"Confusion from simliar coral reef terms in SGC and BBC",809,"Coral reefs are mentioned in both SGC and BBC with similar but not identical text. This is confusing. Other examples exist but I have not detailed them all. \n• More checklists and diagrams of the biotopes and classification would be helpful to show relationships. \n",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Coral morphology in GC, coral substrate material in the SC, and living coral communities in the BC."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 42",null,"BBC","General",null,"Terminology",null,"Aquatic Bed not best term",810,"“aquatic bed” is an odd title because aquatic is often used (incorrectly) for freshwater-only, but here means marine only. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Decided on the term \"Aquatic Vegetation Bed\"  to clarify vegetation.  It can be freshwater or marine and the biotic groups in this class make this explicit. "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 40 & 42",null,"BBC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Classificaton",null,"Organize by life-form-Reefs, Beds, and Mats",811,"The number of Classes could be reduced to 3 based on their ‘life-form’: one could have Reefs (corals are also ‘fauna’), Beds (mussels, oysters, macroalga/seaweed, seagrass), and Mats",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"The classes we have allow consistency w' Cowardin and so we'll keep as is.  We've simplified the Reefs"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 46",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Classification, Terminology",null,"Use coastal wetland to distinguish from freshwater ones",812,"If littoral refers to freshwater wetland, then it is confusing to use wetland again here for salt-marshes and mangroves. I suggest havea class Coastal wetland within which there is salt-marsh, mangroves, and scrub",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Agreed that the term littoral has many meanings.    CMECS only uses this term in the context of the Great Lakes because of the need to be consistent with the FGDC STD -004 Systems and Subsystems - on of the objectives of the standard.  "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 48",null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Mapping ",null,"Remove \"no known cover\"",813,"the class ‘no known cover’ seems unnecessary. The benefit of the proposed system is that some level of classification is always possible, even if only ‘intertidal’. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"This is a mapping convention and has been removed. "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 49",null,"BBC","General","Consistency","Document organization","5.2.1","Section 5.2.1 redundant",814,"Section 5.2.1. ‘biotic groups’ seems to have already been covered in the previous classes and subclasses. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Done - reorganized"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 51",null,"BBC","General","Consistency","Document organization","5.2.2","Section 5.2.1 redundant",815,"similarly, Section 5.2.2 Biotopes appears to have been previously covered. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Done - reorganized"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 52",null,"BBC","General","Consistency","Document organization",5.4,"Redundant text-integrate 5.1 into 5.4",816,"this section repeats some of the previous section. Anything to make the large document more concise will be helpful to readers so I suggest the 5.1 sections are integrated here in section 5.4",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Done"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 53+",null,"BBC","General","Consistency","Classification",null,"Inconsistency in classification approach for biotic groups -ecology vs. taxonomy",817,"there seem to be additional biotic groups as well as biotopes here, and the groups are classified by species taxonomy rather than ecology. This is inconsistent. I suggest the simpler approach is to go from class to subclass (=biotic group) to biotope. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"The BC now is focused specifically on the biota and biotopes now separately bring in the ecology.  Biotic groups are useful when the state of knowledge is limited.  This reviewer is more familiar with European situations where the biota are better known.  "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 53+",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Classification, Biotopes",null,"Biotopes logical - follow European ones",818,"the biotopes make ecological sense and are consistent with the European approach, and much of the ecological literature. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Great.  That was our intent."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 58",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Classification, Biotopes",null,"Tracks/Trails not a biotic community",819,"‘tracks and trails’ hardly seem a biotic group or biotope, and do not identify a particular community. The text correctly implies it is not a biotope so I suggest this is omitted. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Created the inferred fauna subclass to make this explicit"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 59",null,"BBC","General","Units/Definitions","Classification, Definitions",null,"Clam bed should not be here unless epifaunal",820,"should not say clam ‘bed’ unless it is epifaunal. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"The epifaunal distinction has been removed."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 61",null,"BBC","General","Consistency","Document organization",null,"Integrate section into previous one",821,"Aquatic bed and macroalgae are here again. Better to integrate previous section here. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Done"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 70+",null,"SBC","General","Consistency","Document organization",null,"Integrate section into previous one",822,"SBC – also repeats earlier text. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  Removed Soils and Sub-benthic  component of CMECS, thus eliminating repetition."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 88",null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Hierarchy",null,"Integrate Physiographic setting into Geoforms",823,"Physiographic setting could be integrated with Geoforms (or seascapes) as they already overlap and are not differentiated in the wider literature. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Unable to respond to this."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"GFC","General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure, Hierarchy",null,"Coastal/Marine GFC distinction artificial",824,"The difference between Coastal and Marine Geoforms also seems artificial. I think what is intended is to separate coastal and deep-sea (offshore) geoforms but I am not sure why this is necessary or helpful. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Differentiation of geoforms by coastal and marine has been removed.  Now organized by the formative process (geologic, biogenic, or anthropogenic."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 100",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Definitions",null,"Glossary defintion of berm better",825,"odd definition of Berm here. That in the glossary is more correct. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Berm now focused on beach settings as per Phil Schoeneberger"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 109+",null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Terminology, Anthropogenic Geoforms",null,"Suggest aquaculture structure",826,"should it refer to ‘aquaculture structure’ rather than just aquaculture?",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Done."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz","pg. 113",null,null,"General",null,"Document organization",null,"Community stage out of place in the standard",827,"‘community stage’ – this seems redundant because the biotope will be defined in the field by its community and habitat, regardless of inferences about successional stage. If there is some reason the have a classification of successional stages I think that is a different exercise and should be considered more widely. However, it seems out of place here because it requires data on past conditions, human impacts, or inferences that seem outside the scope of this document.  ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Community stage as described in the modifiers section is a useful and accepted way to further describe soft sediment CMECS units.  We acknowledge that this concept could be carried further with other CMECS units and encourage users to do so."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Classification",null,"Fetch should be part of wave exposure ",828,"Fetch seems missing but is the best way to estimate wave exposure. See JNCC website for system they use. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Although JNCC was considered in developing CMECS units, fetch cannot be determined from most discrete observations, and requires fairly large sample footprints.   However, users can add their own modifiers to capture fetch if their observations permit."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Classification",null,"No meiofauna or different sized plankton",829,"Meiofauna are not mentioned, nor different size categories of plankton?",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Meiofauna and additional plankton size classes added to the current version of CMECS"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"Modifiers","General","Consistency","Consistency, Implementation",null,"Are modifiers consistent with APHA et al.?",830,"Are all the descriptors and modifiers consistent with the widely used manual ‘Standard Methods for the analysis of waters and wastewaters’ (APHA et a. Produced every 5 years).  I suggest they should be unless there is a good reason to be different. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,"Fig. 28",null,"General","Implementation","Structure","Mapping","Need depth in this figure",831,"Mapping – fig 28. I suggest such maps have the following layers: Geoform (seascape); depth zones; substrata; biotopes.  The omission of depth from these figures seems an oversight. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Adding depth would only make the maps more difficult to interpret and the point of these maps is to give an example fo how multiple component units can be integrated despite the fact that they are located in different places in the CMECS framework."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,null,"Editorial","Units/Definitions","Definitions","Glossary","Dyke, estuary, lagoon definitions",832,"Glossary. Should dike be dyke? Should ‘estuarine system’ be ‘Estuary’ (which is missing)? A lagoon is not necessarily a class of estuary, with very different origins and may or may not have low salinity (may be hypersaline). I suggest to omit incomplete definitions (i.e. plunging current). ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Corrected"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"All","General",null,"Document organization","Appendices","Appendix tables helpful",833,"The tables in the Appendices are very helpful and should be integrated into the main report. Note some headings are duplicated. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged.  They will remain as appendices but an abbreviated table showing the structure is included in each component chapter."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"All","General","Consistency","Document organization","Appendices","Appendix organizations poor",834,"The layout of Appendices F and I is confusing as it suggests horizontal relationships where none exist. The columns should be separated. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Appendix F has been redesigned to eliminate this type of confusion and appendix I has been removed."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,null,"General","Units/Definitions",null,"Glossary","Use attached glossary",835,"I attach a glossary prepared by an international group of geologists and ecologists arising from the GeoHab and World Register of Marine species communities. It should be on a website very soon.  ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Glossary has been removed in version 4 and defintions are now found in the units themselves."]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,"BBC","General","Implementation","Biotopes",null,"Good examples of biotopes",836,"Biotope examples are very good. A couple seem to be sections through sediments – this could be clarified in the figure legend.  ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Added this text to each sediment profile image caption:  \"Photograph is a sediment profile image, showing a cross-sectional slice into the substrate and the overlying water column.\"  "]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,null,"Editorial",null,"Grammar",null,"use and/or",837,"Throughout the document, the use of ‘/’ should be replaced by and, or, and/or or whatever is really intended. ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Disagree"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,null,"Editorial",null,"Reference",null,"References",838,"References – Costello 2003 (cited p. 49) is not correct. Perhaps Costello and Emblow (2005) that describes the classification applied in Ireland is intended, or Costello et al. (1999) which showed how sandy beach biotopes could be further distinguished based on analysis of crustacean species distributions? ",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Refernce corrected"]
["University of Auckland","m.costello@auckland.ac.nz",null,null,null,"Editorial",null,"Citation","Title Page","Authors?",839,"Who are the authors? What is its citation?",null,"Comments on CMECS version 3.docx",null,"Authors (Implementation Group) have been added in an appendix.  One citation is now included in the document but further citation not possible prior to adoption by FGDC."]
["ACOE-JALBTCX","Molly.K.Reif@usace.army.mil",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Structure",null,"Comprehensive framework",840,"The proposed CMECS is adaptable and flexible, allowing for innovative approaches to coastal classification while simultaneously providing a comprehensive framework.   ",null,null,"CMECS_JALBTCXReifDunkin_12132010.docx","Comment acknowledged."]
["ACOE-JALBTCX","Molly.K.Reif@usace.army.mil",null,null,null,"General","Units/Definitions","Coastal",null,"\"Coastal\" definition limiting",841,"In general, the proposed classification is useful and comprehensive, although there is some overarching concern that that “coastal” definition applied (landward to the high tide mark) may be too narrow or lacking important components for some coastal applications, such as assessing vulnerability to regions from climate change and storm events. ",null,null,"CMECS_JALBTCXReifDunkin_12132010.docx","The CMECS domain has been explicitely presented as being the supra-tidal (splash zone) in marine settings and the upper limit of 0.2 foot tidal range in estuarine settings."]
["ACOE-JALBTCX","Molly.K.Reif@usace.army.mil",null,null,"GFC","General","Boundaries","Limit, Resiliency",null,"Landward limit not adequate for storm surge or resiliency studies",842,"The landward or upland extent (as defined by high water from tides or Head of Tide) may be limiting for coastal resiliency, storm surge, modeling, and other coastal studies/activities that encompass areas further inland, yet immediately affect the coastline. Although a recommendation to use the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States for areas further inland in the Lacustrine system is provided, this does not cover all land cover and use types in the immediate coastal zone area. The definition of coastal as applied in CMECS may be too narrow for application in some coastal research, management, and planning that takes a broader view of the coastal zone (e.g. storm surge, sea level rise, and flood modeling up to a contour-derived limit on the landward side).",null,null,"CMECS_JALBTCXReifDunkin_12132010.docx","Coastal vs. Marine as a way to organize the geoforms has been removed."]
["ACOE-JALBTCX","Molly.K.Reif@usace.army.mil",null,null,"GFC","General","Boundaries","Beach, Limits, Tidal Zone",null,"Beach definitions and spash zone limits inadequate",843,"The Beach class in the Coastal Geoform System only covers beach areas up to the splash zone. This can be a limited view of the nearshore beach environment that is arbitrarily determined by tides and may rather be better determined by the function of the beach environment without excluding inland portions of the beach that may be impacted by surge and waves from storms. This has important implications for coastal engineering and modeling efforts in the coastal environment. Furthermore, variability in beach types is not accounted for, such as slope gradients, etc. and this too is important for coastal and beach management efforts.",null,null,"CMECS_JALBTCXReifDunkin_12132010.docx","   CMECS has established its domain as the limit of the splash zone in marine and estuarine settings, as these are reflective of prevailing conditions.  It is true that storm surges often extend further inland than this line but on an infrequent basis.  Some beach types have been added which reflect slope gradient and wave energy regime."]
["ACOE-JALBTCX","Molly.K.Reif@usace.army.mil",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Anthropogenic",null,"More anthropogenic Geoforms needed",844,"The Anthropogenic Geoforms do not cover the extent of navigation, flood protection, and coastal structures in the coastal environment. Although Jetties and Seawalls are provided as subclasses within the Anthropogenic Geoform system, they are insufficient for covering the variety of coastal structures that exist and the varying purposes they serve for coastal protection. For example, Jetties are structures that extend into a body of water and are designed to prevent sediment trapping, which are typically built to stabilize the channel of an inlet. In contrast, Groins are shore-normal structures built to reduce longshore currents, thus trapping sediments, and should not be grouped with Jetties due to such key differences.  In addition, some Geoforms are not included, such as Bulkheads, which are typically built in estuarine environments with lower energy waves, protecting upland areas from erosion and Breakwaters which are built to protect beach areas by reducing wave energy. ",null,null,"CMECS_JALBTCXReifDunkin_12132010.docx","The term Breakwater/Jetty has been included in the GC with groin as a type of this structure.  These definitions reflect the different purposes for each.  However, generally the use of a structure has only been included in the GC where necessary to further explain differences in size, shape or orientation for forms that are otherwise very similar."]
["ACOE-JALBTCX","Molly.K.Reif@usace.army.mil",null,null,"GFC, Modifiers","General","Units/Definitions","Anthropogenic",null,"Anthropogenic modifiers inadequate",845,"Modifiers for anthropogenic impacts (developed, impounded/diverted, dredged area/channel, filled, contaminated, etc.) appear as an afterthought and are insufficient for describing the myriad of potential anthropogenic impacts and their subsequent effects in the coastal environment. This could limit the potential use of CMECS in many coastal applications.",null,null,"CMECS_JALBTCXReifDunkin_12132010.docx","Commonly used and encountered modifiers are included in CMECS, It is true that there are potentially myriad descrptive terms for any geoform.  The user is free to apply their own modifiers in these cases to add information as long as their modifier is defined and is not in conflict with the CMECS units.  "]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Design, Structure",null,"CMECS well designed",846,"In general, the classification scheme is well designed and should be of value in mapping coastal habitats",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"Comment acknowledged."]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,null,"General","Structure/Hierarchy","Design, Structure",null,"Complex enough that no one will use all of it",847,"It is sufficiently complex that it is unlikely that all of the possible levels of habitat description will ever be employed in practice since collection of that level of detail on habitat characteristics would not be cost-effective.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"Most landscape-scale mapping efforts will not use the lowest levels of the structure but many in-situ studies will."]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,"SGC","General","Soils/Sediments","Sediments, Transport",null,"Use of agricultural sediment values limits use for transport studies",848,"Sediment classification.  The upper size limit of silt-sized sediment particles is defined as 0.05 mm (the agricultural definition) rather than 0.062, a more common marine definition.  While this change would probably not affect biological habitat characteristics to any great extent, it could significantly affect sediment transport modeling if data mapped in this fashion were employed.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"Agree with Reviewer Comments.  0.062 mm is now used as the silt-sand cut-off."]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Beach",null,"Need more beach forms",849,"The beach geoform definition does not include descriptions of dissipative, reflexive, or intermediate beach types.  This is an in important point since the composition and distribution of biological communities varies among these beach types.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"These general beach types have been added.  Further differentiation of beach types can still be accomplished by the user through the use of modifiers or comment fields."]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,"GFC","General","Units/Definitions","Anthropogenic",null,"More detail needd in anthropogenic geoforms",850,"The anthropogenic geoforms definitions are insufficiently detailed.  For instance, there is no description of rip-rap, groin fields, armoring or other shore protection methods with the exception of seawalls and jetties.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"Bulkheads, Rip-Rap deposits, and Seawalls have been added.  However, the character of the shoreline is reflected in the SC.  For examle a sandy shoreline which has been paved with concrete woud be reflected in an anthropogenic SC unit."]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,"BBC","General","Dynamics","Biotope, Variability, Dominance",null,"Biotopes based on 1 or 2 dominants too vulnerable to seasonal variability",851,"Classification of biotic groups for benthos employs the Biotype concept in which assemblages are defined by one or two dominant species.  With the exception of bivalve (e.g. oyster, clam or mussel) bed, Ampelisca bed or worm reefs I’ve found this technique to be only occasionally useful.  Benthic assemblages tend to be dominated by a small number of species, but the relative abundance of any one or two taxa can vary too much on an annual basis to be a useful indicator of habitat type.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"This is a fair statement.  The definition of types by a handful of species or genera is not ideal, and the standard identfiies that rangewide data on complete species lists are needed - but not widely available.  The dominance approach is meant to be  a useful tool where the patterns aren't known.  IF the patterns are known, then the user would understand that the co-dominants can vary among samples and give the proper name that indicates the rangewide assemblage rather than the dominants in the sample. "]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,"BBC","General","Dynamics","Biotope, Variability, Dominance",null,"Dates needed to address temporal variability of biotopes",852,"The use of temporally variable classifiers should be clearly defined and limited to describing distributions on specific dates, since they are unlikely to be of value for indicating long-term distribution of habitats.  For instance, fish schools and drift algae are employed as biotic groups in the water column component. These groups either actively move or are passively moved by waves and currents, thus their distribution is a function of the specific conditions on a particular date and not a reliable long-term indicator of habitat.  Likewise, the use of community (successional) stage as a biogenic descriptor, for benthos is only relevant for describing conditions at a site on a specific date.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"Added section 12.3:  \" Natural communities also exist across a temporal continuum with some units, such as coral reefs, persisting for thousands of years and others, such as algal beds, only for a single season. Users of CMECS are encouraged to identify all natural communities present during an observation regardless of their likely longevity. Any CMECS observation should be considered a “snapshot in time” in order to provide the most information to users. When it is’s important to convey that a community is not likely to be present during follow up observations the Temporal Persistence modifier can be used. It is up to the user to identify the appropriate time series for observation and data collection so as to capture important temporally variable units.\""]
["ACOE","ellen.m.cummings@usace.army.mil",null,null,null,"General",null,"Function",null,"Interest in functional assessment",853,"Finally, while not a concern, the authors describe this work as one of three reports, the others covering mapping techniques and functional assessment.  I have not heard of any recent development in functional assessment of non-wetland marine habitats other than coral reefs and I’m very curious about what they have in mind.",null,"CMECS V3.1 Comments_GLR.docx",null,"The authors acknowledge that much work is needed in this area.  We hope to encourage research on functional assessment through the Community of Practice concept and incorporate the results of this work into future updates of the standard."]