Thursday draft draft draft almost almost

Title Page

Designation of the Southwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex for Listing Under the Ramsar Criteria for Wetland of International Importance



A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for Master of Science…




Presented to






Presented by
Mitchell Ward Coffman






Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
August 2005

Acknowledgements
Thank you to my committee chair and major professor, Michael Wascom
Abstract
The Ramsar Convention of 1971 is an international treaty protecting, conserving and assisting in the planning and management of the world's wetlands. Designation of Louisiana’s diverse wetland areas, specifically a cluster of National Wildlife Refuges in Southwestern Louisiana as Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance ensures a complete approach to conservation management principles that will seek to protect our valuable Louisiana wetland coastal habitats from natural and human-made threats.
The loss of Louisiana wetlands, to coastal erosion, global sea rise and historical development is a major environmental concern for the United States. These wetlands are home to endangered and threatened animal and plant species as well as habitat to thousands of migratory birds, waterfowl, fish, reptiles, mollusks and mammals. The science, academic, volunteer, political and legislative communities of the United States are working to conserve the Louisiana wetlands through a multitude of studies, projects and programs aimed at preserving, protecting, restoring as well as recognizing the value of wetlands.
The coastal zone of Louisiana has diverse wetlands, including freshwater swamps, hardwood and bottomland swamps, freshwater marshes, brackish marshes and saltwater marshes that are home to valuable natural resources, some of which are threatened by coastal erosion. Ramsar encourages listing of diverse wetland sites and in fact permits clustering of diverse sites for a single listing as a wetland of international importance.
National wildlife refuges on the coast of Louisiana are recognized and in fact protected under current law as ecosystems of importance to the country. The Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex is an established public conservation entity comprised of Cameron Prairie NWR, Sabine NWR, and Lacassine NWR. The Ramsar Convention outlines specific criteria for potential candidate wetland sites to meet for listing to the Wetlands of International Importance List and supports clustering of wetland sites.
The Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) lists the characteristics of sites and the science that justifies any statements made regarding the qualities of the nominated wetland sites. Administrative planning and management approaches toward nominated sites are included in the RIS. The RIS provides a standardized format or data sheet for recording information about the region. Data and information collected on hydrological, biophysical, floral, faunal, social and cultural functions and values are critical elements that determine eligibility for Ramsar listing.
The Federal government as well as the Louisiana state government supports international wetland designation and are in fact established participants in the Ramsar Convention. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Ramsar Convention and recently announced new U.S. sites for inclusion on the listing of Wetlands of International Importance. Louisiana hosts a Ramsar site at Catahoula Lake in Rapides Parish. This site is an inland wetland, a National Wildlife Refuge and member of Ramsar since 1991. The Louisiana Coastal Authority has recently produced a report outlining the national and international importance of the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands to the global economy and security of the world.
Application of The Ramsar Convention of 1971 to Louisiana wetlands, specifically the wetlands of the coastal zone is appropriate, notably so as some of the world's more diverse wetland areas. The National Wildlife Refuges established on the Louisiana Coast offer federal and state parties an opportunity to enlist Ramsar international recognition and support in the complete planning and management effort of Louisiana's wetlands.
Designating the Louisiana Coastal Zone Wetlands, in particular, Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Sabine National Wildlife Refuges as a cluster site of “Wetlands of International Importance” ensures conservation, protection, and management through wise use of wildlife habitat and the wetlands’ natural resources.

Title Page 1
Acknowledgements 2
Introduction 6
Literature Review 7
Discovery in Wetland Research 7
View of Wetlands Over Time 9
Wetland Functions 13
U.S. Management of Wetlands 14
International Management of Wetlands 16
Wetlands Physical Situation 18
Wetland Commercial Values 20
Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Management 22
Louisiana Wildlife Habitat Management 23
Ramsar Convention Over Time 23
Mission and Procedures 24
Benefits of Ramsar 24
Criticism of Ramsar 28
Implementation of the Wise Use Concept 29
Criteria for Qualification 30
U.S. Listing Procedures 30
Ramsar Guidelines for Implementing the Nominating Criteria 31
Ramsar Coastal Zone Wetland Management 32
Methodology 36
Ramsar Information Sheet Site Data Collection 36
Thesis Nomination of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex to the Ramsar Convention Wetlands of International Importance List 37
Regional Geography of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 39
Findings 41
The Southwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex Meets the Following Ramsar Criteria 41
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports endangered and threatened species 45
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports populations of plant and animal species important for maintaining biological diversity of the Gulf Coast of the United States. 48
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports fish, mollusk and shrimp at critical stages of their lives and provides refuge for animals and birds migrating to and from the Gulf Coast of the United States and offer protection from hurricanes and tropical storms associated with the coastal zone. 49
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports more than 20,000 waterbirds. 50
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex regularly supports a distinct resident species of wat 51
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex provides essential sources of food for fish stocks as a spawning ground, nursery and migration path that regional and tropical fish stocks depend upon. 53
Conclusion 54
Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Satisfies Ramsar Criteria 54
Louisiana Is A Ramsar State 54
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 55
Recommendations 56
Complete and Submit Official RIS 56
Begin Lobbying at State and National Level 56
Extend to Other Louisiana Wetland Sites 56
References 59
Appendix 61
Wetlands Definitions 61
Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) 63
USFWS Supporting Information for Ramsar Site Nominations 69
Catahoula Lake NWR RIS 1991 70
Explanatory Note & Guidelines for Completing the Ramsar Information Sheet 72
Guidance on the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) 75
Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Types 84
Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance 86
Glossary 88
Endnotes 92


Introduction
On February 2, 2005, 80 countries, including the U.S., observed World Wetlands Day. This day is a celebratory nod toward the historic ratification of the Ramsar Convention, treaty for the conservation and wise use of the world’s wetlands. On that February day past, Louisiana announced a formal agreement made with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, to formulate a multi-level task force charged with implementing the state’s coastal restoration mission in the hopes of slowing disappearance of coastal wetlands.
Louisiana and associated coastal wetland loss is a popular area of discussion. In fact, wetland education, loss research and restoration project promotion is underway at all levels of management. This focus is merited, as Louisiana is losing coastal wetlands at a very rapid pace.
Wetland planning and management is not limited to the boundaries of Louisiana. The significance of these natural landscapes has not escaped planners and scientists alike. In fact, the value of wetlands and associated habitat, including minerals, animals, fish and birds is awe-inspiring, thus the need for communities, nations and developing countries to seek guidance in their planning efforts in order to achieve best management practices.


Director General of the International Union of Concerned Nations (IUCN) once joked that the many and broad definitions of wetlands, “suggests that only two Conventions are really needed to cover the conservation of all the habitats in the world. The Ramsar Convention dealing with any land that can be generally termed wet, and a Drylands Convention dealing with everything else.” ,

Additionally, the State management programs and Ramsar complement each other their primary mission to protect valuable wetland landscapes. Additionally, the documented propensity and advocacy to include tourism programs as a means of increasing economic development opportunities for people and localities of the proposed site is an agreeable management component of these wetland sites.

Literature Review
Discovery in Wetland Research
The topic “wetlands” encompasses a broad area for scientific, political and cultural discussion. When one searches wetlands in LexisNexis®, LSU Libraries Catalog, and various internet search engines, environmental law journal catalogs, Library of Congress collections, congressional research services and other peer-reviewed resources; volumes and volumes of data, policy, law, commentary and opinion appear. Example topics for discussion range from hydrological analysis of wetland habitats, to formulation of complex economic models for evaluation of wetland values, and even include research on the restoration of cultural wetlands for educational landscapes. These few examples illustrate the breadth, depth and the complexity that can be associated with the term wetlands. The availability and abundance of wetland research is validation of the complexity and value of the wetland ecosystem and associated habitat.
Environmental law expert Michael Bowman comments, “…the concept of wetlands is often difficult to comprehend, much less define”. In this respect he described wetlands as “…a term of no great precision, either in popular or scientific parlance, and indeed in certain languages there is no single word which adequately reflects the concept”. He refers to the French language as an example of varying interpretations that cultures can assign to words. Bowman says “…the term wetlands in the French language text - ‘zones humides’ - conjures up a rather different image from its English counterpart.”
For the purposes of this study general information on wetland descriptions, characterizations, definitions, values, uses, policies and the like were topics for discovery. Additional topics in areas such as environmental law-domestic and international-were investigated, as was land and wildlife management policies or regulations employed by the United States and other nations. Scientific and peer reviewed publications were also used to document and calculate waterfowl, fish, shrimp and other animal and plant life occupying wetlands and the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge. Personal attendance at USFWS policy meetings, both public and private, offered real time research opportunities. Multiple interviews with the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge staff and other agency personnel, retired and active, also contributed to the formulation of this thesis document.
Government agency publications and non-governmental organizations’ presentations (books, brochures, policy statements, web sites, etc.) advocating their respective positions provided good research material. These documents explain the geography and character of the wetlands, while providing information on historical approaches to wetlands, past and current government laws, policies and regulations and programs involving wetlands use, preservation, wildlife management and even restoration efforts of the altered landscape.
In terms of international environmental management, literature review reveals similar approaches and attitudes among nations toward wetland planning. Australia, India, and even Iran value and manage wetland landscapes much as do Canada, United States, and most of Europe and Asia. Differences in environmental management programs are tempered by multi-lateral agreements concerned with protecting, managing and even developing wetland areas and the associated natural resources of the wetland landscape.
In 1971, the Ramsar Convention became the instrument of international agreement for land management policies that focused upon global wetland planning. Ramsar established the global mission to protect wet landscapes and habitat by providing a universal working definition of wetlands. Ramsar also established internationally accepted guidelines for interpreting the wetland landscapes’ defining characteristics. Essentially, the Convention adopted a definition addressing, “…every wet area, near wet or infrequently wet parcel of land, without particular regard to scientific nicety”.
At the time of the Convention, the environmental protection agenda was a newly emerging public and government regulatory movement. Ramsar’s early definition of wetlands was a significant achievement of agreement in the early era of environmental protection and management planning.
Ramsar’s influence upon established and developing nations’ planning policies continues. Much like the wetland landscape, the Ramsar Convention is a dynamic management tool. Through regular meetings of the Contracting Parties to the Convention (COP), the world’s leading authorities on wetlands are continually reviewing, evaluating, educating, assisting and encouraging national wetland planning measures.
The Convention has a stated mission that “is the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”. In this mission statement, an underlying endorsement for use of wetlands exists simultaneously with stated conservation edict.
The dual-purpose mission seems contradictory in that one typically limits use of a resource that one views as necessitating conservation. However, in the case of the state of Louisiana, application of the Ramsar criteria is an appropriate exercise because it is harmonious with the geography of the state, established wetland conservation measures and even economic development programs that use the state’s wetlands as eco-tourism opportunities. In this sense, Ramsar conserves and acknowledges wetlands as environmental treasures, while ingenuously acting as an economic development tool for nations.
This Convention, despite language barriers, geopolitical differences and even geographical borders, provided a working base definition for the contracting parties to use in the establishment of national ecological management programs for territorial and transboundary wetlands. The Ramsar definition and accompanying framework for the protection of wetlands provided governments a common base of policy with which to work, while allowing for individual determination of a personal regulatory definition of wetlands. The Convention did not replace nor amend any national law or sovereign state policy.
Finding agreement among nations on management policies can be a difficult task. Defining wetlands across global landscapes and culture must have been as difficult a task. Not only must one consider the scientific definitions including soil makeup, water quality, flora types and other quantifiable and identifiable components, one must consider the cultural, social and economic value of wetlands to varying cultures. Despite these challenges, the 1971 Ramsar Convention successfully provided this working definition for contracting parties of the Convention to use in formulation of environmental programs.
View of Wetlands Over Time
P.J. Dugan addresses the complexity involved in wetlands planning in the article, Wetland Conservation: a Review of Current Issues and Required Action. Dugan notes “…fifty or more different definitions of wetlands are currently in use. He cites the International Wildlife Law journal as having the broadest definition.
One of the earliest wetland definitions used in the United States comes from an 1890 federal government report on wetlands, General Account of the Freshwater Morasses of the United States. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of a wetland classification system for categorizing waterfowl habitat developed one of the earliest working definitions commonly referred to as Circular 39. The USFWS uses this definition for classification purposes, notably for differentiation among various wetland types for wildlife habitat categorization.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's definition and the federal regulatory wetland definition used to identify wetlands under the Clean Water Act are the two major definitions used in the United States. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concept of wetlands is based upon L.M. Cowardin’s longstanding research classifying wetlands into categories and sub categories.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE or CORPS) uses the definition of wetlands for developing the field method to analyze jurisdictional boundaries, or wetland delineation. The Corps’ regulatory management policy utilizes a three-parameter test incorporated into the definition. The Corps considers an area a wetland only if all three conditions set forth present themselves. According to the Corps’ regulations, wetlands must possess one or more of the following three attributes,
1. “at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes and
2. the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil and
3. the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.”
Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local difference in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, existing vegetation, and other factors, especially in relation to the amount of human disturbance incurred. Wetlands occur in diverse settings ranging from coastal margins, and tidal/river discharge areas, to high mountain valleys where rain and snowmelt are the primary sources of water and within constructed hydrological impoundments or drainage ditches.
Every continent in the world except Antarctica has wetlands within its borders; in fact, wetlands occupy about 6% of the land surface of the world, 2.2 billion acres. The United States contains about 274 million acres or 12% of the world's total wetlands, while 36% of Louisiana is comprised of wetland landscapes. In Louisiana alone, 48% of the United States’ coastal wetlands exist.
Coastal zone and wetland protection management programs, regulations, laws and treaties are firmly established throughout the world. Similar programs are established in Louisiana. However, the state has only one Ramsar listing, despite the abundance of wetland landscapes. Many thousands of additional acres of wetlands in Louisiana may qualify for Ramsar designation as wetlands of International Importance. Most assuredly, the state’s geographic position relative to the Gulf of Mexico qualifies the coastal zone for Ramsar consideration. To that extent, this thesis explores Ramsar Convention criteria application to the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
More than 220 million acres of wetlands existed in the coterminous U.S. (lower 48 states) in colonial times. Today, less than half remain (about 100 million acres). (see Tables 1, 2, 3 )
The National Wetlands Policy Forum of the U.S. Government recommended a program of no net loss of wetlands in 1988. Under this Executive Order of President George Bush, lost acreage due to development, agricultural use or degradation was to cease, while recovery by the creation of new wetlands and the restoration of any degraded wetlands would increase.
Table 4 States with more than 20% wetlands
Alaska (48%)
Louisiana (36%)
Florida (33%)
Maine (26%)
Minnesota (21%)
South Carolina (21%)

Table 5 States with 10-20% wetlands
New Jersey (19%)
Delaware (18%)
Georgia (18%)
North Carolina (16%)
Wisconsin (15%)
Michigan (15%)
Mississippi (14%)
Massachusetts (12%)
Arkansas (10%).

Table 6 States with less than 1% wetlands
Montana (0.9%)
Arizona (0.8%)
Kansas (0.8%)
Idaho (0.7%)
Nevada (0.6%)
New Mexico (0.6%)
California (0.5%)
West Virginia (0.4%)

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, the coterminous U.S. lost an average of 458,000 acres of wetland per year. Between the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the loss rate dropped to about 290,000 acres/year. Today, the annual loss rate is about 60,000 acres.
Wetland loss in the U.S. continues. Greatest losses in the U.S. occur in the Southeast in states including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, (see Table 7). Most of these states are losing forested wetlands to agriculture, yet recent agricultural policies may be reducing this type of wetland conversion, resulting in coastal wetland loss figures increase.
More than 1900 square miles of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands have disappeared. According to LSU’s Greg Stone of the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana is experiencing the highest rate of coastal erosion in America, losing about 100 yards of land every 30 minutes. “That is a football field every half-hour.” In the past 250 years, 2.5 million acres of coastal prairie of southwest Louisiana have dwindled to just 200 in scattered parcels.
Coastal Louisiana has lost over 900,000 acres since the 1930s. In the 1970s, the loss rate for Louisiana’s coastal wetlands was as high as 25,600 acres per year. The current rate of loss is about 16,000 acres per year, forewarning a 320,000-acre net loss by the year 2050.
Wetland Functions
An understanding of wetland functions and the underlying chemical, physical, and biological processes supporting these functions aids in the management and protection of wetlands and associated basins. Storage of flood run-off water in wetlands is associated with lakes and streams where these store floodwaters by spreading water out over a large flat area. This temporary storage of water decreases runoff velocity, reduces flood peaks, and distributes storm flows over longer periods, causing tributary and main channels to peak at different times.
Ground water and surface water, transport sediments, nutrients, trace metals, and organic materials. Wetlands can trap, precipitate, transform, recycle, and export many of these components. As a result, the water leaving the wetland can differ markedly from that water entering. Wetlands can maintain good quality water and improve degraded water. Recharge to aquifers can be especially important in areas where ground water is withdrawn for agricultural, industrial, and municipal purposes. Wetlands can provide either substantial recharge to aquifers.
Wetlands reduce shoreline erosion by stabilizing sediments and absorbing or dissipating wave energy. Beaches and shallow vegetated wetlands protect shorelines from the destructive power of storms. Wetland vegetation decreases water velocities allowing sedimentation in shallow water areas and flood-plain wetlands often building up natural levees.
Diverse functions of wetlands include providing habitat for wildlife, fish and birds, as well as protecting humans from natural disasters and providing humans with food sources. Healthy wetlands can achieve lower flood peaks for rivers, streams and bayous and, provide water during drought periods, sustain more wildlife and habitat, and provide better surface water quality than comparable watersheds with fewer wetlands. Wetlands also provide recreation areas for sport fishing, crabbing, netting, boating, eco-tourism, and birding, all popular in Louisiana. Areas adjacent to wetlands also provide wildlife corridors and urban buffers within the landscape.
Wetlands can also serve as sources of community pride or representations of culture. “The mere existence of wetlands may be of great significance to some people. Those who have grown up in wetlands, but have moved away to a town, may have placed a high value on the wetland because it is part of their cultural heritage, even though they may never visit the wetland.”
U.S. Management of Wetlands
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees wetland management in the United States. EPA administers regulations established by federal law for wetland conservation, restoration, and monitoring. EPA establishes environmental standards for associated agencies to review, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE/CORPS/Corps). The Corps reviews permits for discharges that affect wetlands, such as residential development, roads, and levees. The Corps also coordinates its regulatory processes with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and associated state authorities.
The Corps regulates waters and wetlands under two laws. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act is the first law the Corps administered. Under this regulation, a permit is required from the Corps for any project that involves work or structures in, over or under navigable waters of the United States.
The second law is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. “Recognizing the potential for continued or accelerated degradation of the Nation's waters, the US Congress enacted the Clean Water Act formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).” Under this law, a permit is needed from the Corps or the discharges of dredged or fill material into any water of the United States, including wetlands. The basic premise of the program requires exploration of a practicable alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or the nation's waters prior to discharge of dredged or fill material. When applying for a permit, one must show that the proposed discharge has,
1. taken steps to avoid wetland impacts where practicable
2. minimized potential impacts to wetlands
3. provided compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wetlands
A permit review process is part of the regulation mechanism. Projects with potentially significant impacts usually require an individual permit. For most discharges anticipating minimal adverse effects, the Army Corps of Engineers often grants up-front general permits. The general permit may is issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories of activities. Minor road crossings, utility line backfill, and bedding fall under general permit regulations. Section 404(f) exempts some activities from regulation. These activities include farming, ranching, silviculture and other agricultural activities. Wetlands are identified in the field using the Corps delineation manual. “The purpose of this manual is to provide users with guidelines and methods to determine whether an area is a wetland for purposes of Section 404 of the Act.”
In 1972, the U.S. Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. In the CZMA, Congress declared it best for the national interest to maintain a program for the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone.
The CZMA makes federal financial assistance available to any coastal state or territory. Qualifying states must develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the appointed managing agency for the CZMA. The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) administers individual state coastal zone management programs.
Currently, the OCRM oversees programs in all coastal states except Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Ohio. All of these non-participating states are currently developing coastal programs except for Illinois and Indiana.
In addition to resource protection, the CZMA specifies that coastal states may manage coastal development objectives and projects. A state with an approved program can review, comment, deny or restrict proposals not harmonious with coastal zone management programs’ missions. The CZMA does not apply to states that are not CZMA participants or have not yet received OCRM approval.
International Management of Wetlands
In 1972, international awareness of environmental issues reached a peak at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. The Stockholm agreement birthed the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), designed to manage and administer the global network of environmental treaties.
From 1972 to 2000 and beyond, hundreds of nations signed on to dozens of international treaties to globally preserve natural and cultural heritage, control the trade in endangered species, protect wildlife habitat, protect migratory stocks and reduce air and ocean pollution. These agreements led to others to protect the ozone layer, to regulate the use of ocean resources and to control transboundary movements of hazardous waste and limit indiscriminate whaling.
Since the 1970s, the world community has developed an extensive body of international environmental laws addressing a wide range of topics. To date more than 1000 treaties exist.
Sovereign governments enter into international environmental agreements, treaties, and protocols for the conservation of national interests but also for the protection and conservation of cross boundary and global resources. These intergovernmental agreements are bilateral and multilateral, requiring broad acceptance to be effective.
Some examples of familiar international environmental treaties include,
• Montreal Protocol, to reduce and terminate the consumption of chemical compounds that destroy ozone in the stratosphere.
• Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES)
• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
The official name of the Ramsar treaty is, “The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, adopted in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971”. The treaty is familiarly known as the Ramsar Convention , or Ramsar. The Convention has more than 130 member countries. Presently, 145 Contracting Parties to the Convention are signatories to the international treaty. One thousand four hundred thirty five (1435) wetland sites totaling 125.1 million hectares are designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.
The Convention provides guidance on preparing national policies, legislation and tools for managing wetlands in developing countries and among established nations. Through the nomination of wetland sites adhering to specific criteria, Ramsar Convention member countries designate candidate sites to add to the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar List).
“The inclusion of a site in the Ramsar List confers upon it the prestige of international recognition and obliges the government to take all steps necessary to ensure the maintenance of the ecological character of the site. Inscription on the Ramsar List acknowledges the international importance of the site.”
Beth Kruchek of Georgetown Law School says, “The United States has an obligation under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) to promote the protection of wetland habitats within its borders.” “Wetlands are dynamic areas, open to influence from natural and human factors. In order to maintain their biological diversity and productivity (i.e., their ecological character as defined by the Convention and to permit the wise use of their resources by people, an overall agreement is essential between the various managers, owners, occupiers and other stakeholders. The management planning process provides the mechanism to achieve this agreement (Ramsar).”
Support for international management consortiums and networks is a successful management approach, “…considering the broad scope of problems/issues and diverse interests among governments, international organizations, and private sector groups, a body.” Criticism of multi-lateral international environmental organizations does exist. For example, Daniel Esty of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy says, “the global environmental governance structure is inadequate for the pollution and resource challenges the world faces today.” Esty said, the entire body is “weak and performing poorly.” He concluded, “The growing recognition that a number of serious pollution control and resource management issues are inherently transboundary in their scope makes the status quo unacceptable and the need for improved global environmental governance urgent.”
Wetlands Physical Situation
Louisiana is comprised of two primary geographic regions, the lowlands and the uplands. The landscape of south Louisiana is part of the Mississippi River Basin formed during the Holocene (0.01 mya to present) epoch. The lowlands of Louisiana subdivide into three major divisions.
1. Mississippi and Red River alluvial plain
2. Deltaic plain
3. Chenier plain
The Mississippi River Basin drains 41% of the contiguous United States and a portion of Canada, transporting water and sediment over an area of 1.2 million square miles, carrying alluvial sediments of the Mississippi, Red, Ouachita, and other rivers and smaller tributaries into the marshes of the coastal zone. These organically rich deposits occupy about 55% of Louisiana’s surface.
The Mississippi River originally deposited sediment along the Louisiana coast, naturally restoring wetlands and coastal marshes, building up land and constructing natural levees, all the wile replenishing coastal fisheries with nutrients and food sources. Today the river is confined within a levee system and water flow is managed through locks and control structures, which ultimately forces the overextended course of the river to deposit sediment over the edge of the continental shelf. Control of the Mississippi River’s path and associated dredging of access canals has also led to salt-water intrusion into ecologically fragile environments.
Since the turn of the last century, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has held the Mississippi River in its present course. This containment contributes to the current dilemma of erosion in the coastal regions. As far back as 1976, Don Moser satirically commented on the Corps’ historical planning of the Mississippi River in a Smithsonian Magazine article saying, “By now it has become clear that the Corps is more likely to be a restorer than a developer of fragile lands” .
Coastal erosion affects all regions of the United States. Average coastline recession rates of 25 feet per year are not uncommon on some barrier islands in the Southeast, and rates of 50 feet per year have occurred along the Great Lakes. Louisiana is losing coastal wetlands at an estimated at 50 square miles per year.
Without the marsh and wetlands as a buffer, some experts predict a 20-foot storm surge that might swamp New Orleans. LSU researchers believe a 1965 Hurricane Betsy-type storm hit New Orleans today, the damage would be far worse without the coast’s wetlands and barrier islands deflecting the storm surge. The barrier islands protect the coastline by breaking down waves and storm surges before they hit the coast.
Palustrine wetlands include scrub shrub, non-tidal and tidal marshes and ponds. These types of wetlands are the most common type in Louisiana. The most common palustrine wetland is the swamp or forested wetlands, which make up 59% of the wetlands in Louisiana. Coastal wetlands consist mostly of salt water or brackish water marshes and act as estuarine emergent wetlands.
Saltwater marshes, nearest to the coast and subject to regular tidal inundation, have average salinities near 16 parts per thousand (ppt). They are typically dominated by hardy salt-tolerant plant species. Freshwater marshes typically never exceed salinities greater than 2 ppt. The freshwater marsh type sustains high densities of wildlife, including migrating waterfowl.
Forested wetlands of Louisiana exist in two vegetation zones, bald cypress/tupelo swamps and bottomland hardwood forests. The near year round presence of standing water allows for the growth of aquatic plants. Forested wetlands are some of the only wooded areas untouched by agriculture, industry, and urban use.
The cheniers of coastal Louisiana are areas where coastal ridges act as the landmasses with the highest elevation along the coast. As a result, these ridges are historically known for supporting maritime forests dominated by live oaks trees. Live oak (Quericus virginianus) hammocks fill the landscape of the coastal cheniers in Cameron and Calcasieu parishes. Chenier is the French word for oak. These landmasses have an important ecological role as a temporary habitat for many migrating species. The cheniers become stopping points for migrating birds heading north crossing the Gulf of Mexico as well as the last available ground before crossing the Gulf for those heading south. These special chenier habitats for mammals and birds in coastal Louisiana are extremely important shelters for animals seeking refuge from coastal storms.
Wetland Commercial Values
Wetlands provide a variety of goods and services to humanity in direct and indirect ways. Our global natural ecosystem has been estimated at US$33 trillion, of which the value of wetland ecosystem is estimated at US$14.9 trillion (45 percent of the total).
Almost one-third of the nation's oil and gas production and the largest seafood harvest in the lower 48 states originate in the Louisiana wetlands. Additionally, Louisiana’s coastline protects one of the largest shipping and fuel production corridors in the U.S. from hurricanes and open water conditions. “Just one of Louisiana's major ports receives about a million barrels of oil every day, roughly 13 percent of the nation's foreign oil supply.”
Approximately 70% of the commercial fisheries in the United States depend on estuaries and salt marshes for nursery or spawning grounds. In 1995, the commercial fish catch totaled 4.5 million metric tons and was valued at a record $3.8 billion.
Seafood production, harvest, and associated businesses are a major sector of the U.S. economy. In 1995, Americans consumed an average of 15 pounds of seafood per person, and spent a total of $38.6 billion on seafood products.
In 1991, Louisiana’s coastal marshes produced a commercial fish and shellfish harvest amounting to 1.2 billion pounds worth $244 million. Currently, the dockside value of Louisiana's commercial seafood harvest is more than $342.7 million, not including the valuable recreational fishing industry of $944 million.
The waters of Louisiana support deep-water offshore, coastal bay, lake, bayou and marsh fishing and aquaculture industries. The shrimp fishery is Louisiana’s largest commercial fishery, accounting for over 85% of the value of the state’s edible fisheries production. The shrimp industry is based on the brown and white shrimp (Penaeus aztecus and Penaeus setiferus), harvested inshore in the spring and fall respectively, which accounts for 93 to 96% of landings by poundage.
From 1976 to 1990, 40% of Louisiana shrimp landings are in inshore state waters, 43% are in the state’s offshore waters, and 17% are in federal waters off Louisiana’s coast. White shrimp landings for the year 2000 totaled 75,864,278 pounds (34,411.8 metric tons) for a value of $152,374,346. The total take of brown shrimp for the year 2000 was 62,115,422 pounds (28,175.4 metric tons) for a value of $96,514,340. Processing industries are a source of additional employment.
From 1970 to 1990, 40% of the Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings were landed in Louisiana. The state’s shrimp industry lands about 70% of the Gulf production of small shrimp. Both absolute landings and the share of Gulf landings have increased during that period. Some scientists have hypothesized that this rise is attributable to an increase in shrimp habitat resulting from deterioration of the wetlands along coastal Louisiana. If this is the case, Louisiana catch may begin to decline within the next 15-20 years.
Oyster production in Louisiana is a $30 million dockside industry. Louisiana’s coastal waters produce an average of 13 million pounds of oysters annually, of which 60% ships to other states and countries. Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) landings for the year 2000 totaled 11,513,438 pounds (5,222.5 metric tons) for a value of $24,614,159. Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) landings for the year 2000 totaled 51,430,385 pounds (23,328.7 metric tons) for a value of $36,770,381.
Freshwater species of commercial importance include blue catfish ( Ictalurus furcatus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), bowfin (Amia calva), carp (Cyprinus carpio carpio), gar (Lepisosteus occulatus and Lepisosteus spatula), and buffalo (bigmouth-Ictiobus cypriellus and smallmouth-Ictiobus bubalus). Additionally, wetlands are habitats for fur-bearers like muskrat, beaver, and mink as well as reptiles such as alligators. The nation’s harvest of muskrat pelts alone is worth over $70 million annually. The Louisiana Nutria pelt industry is the largest producer of Nutria pelts and meat in the U.S., which at this time is providing over one million pelts per year. In 1945, trappers took 8,500 pelts.
Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Management
The Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection Restoration Act of 1990, (PL-101-646, Title 111, CWPPRA), locally referred to as the Breaux Act provides authorization and funding of multi-level, federal, state and local as well as non-governmental organizations for formation of a task force to investigate ways to mitigate wetland losses. In 1998, the State of Louisiana and the CORPS, the EPA and other federal agencies charged with restoring and protecting Louisiana coastal wetlands adopted a new coastal restoration plan.
That strategic plan, Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, was developed by federal, state, and local governments (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998).
The plan focuses wetland protection on restoring and mimicking the natural processes that originally formed coastal Louisiana. The plan sub-divides Louisiana’s coastal zone into four regions of nine hydrologic basins proposing ecosystem restoration strategies for each. Coast 2050 seeks to implement the most complex wetland program in Louisiana history.
In January 2005, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, signed a partnership agreement dedicating the “…combined efforts (of government entities) towards a common goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem”. In addition, Strock signed the Chief of Engineer’s report; compiled for submission to the Congress in consideration for funding of the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study and associated projects. A January 2005 Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) news release called the document signing, “…a historic step in the advancement of the coastal restoration blueprint toward authorization.”
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) restoration funds administered through the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force of the LCA totaled $334 million of federal and matching state funds in 1995. These funds are committed for coastal wetlands restoration projects in Louisiana where 34 of the 91 projects that the task force approved for construction are completed, with 15 more under construction.
In May 2005, Louisiana enrolled the state’s 200,000th acre (80937.5 hectares) of land into the federal Wetlands Reserve Program. This program is part of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administer conservation programs targeted at farmers and agricultural operations. This voluntary program provides technical and financial assistance to eligible landowners to address wetland, wildlife habitat, soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their properties.
Louisiana Wildlife Habitat Management
The Louisiana Division of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) manages 48 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAS) in the state. The agency is responsible for overseeing property totaling more than 1.2 million acres. Five (5), state refuges exist in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, totaling over 428,000 acres. The state manages the wildlife areas with the assistance of the federal government. The LDWF manages policy, enforces laws and conducts research into coastal marsh management practices for fur, estuarine fisheries, and wildlife resources. “Properties currently administered by the Fur and Refuge Division are open for various forms of public recreation,” such as hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, birding and botanizing.
Ramsar Convention Over Time
The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty providing the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. The Convention entered into force in 1975 and as of May 2005 has 145 Contracting Parties. Ramsar is the first of the modern global intergovernmental treaty on conservation and wise use of natural resources.
Although examples of multilateral nature conservation agreements can be traced back to the turn of the century and beyond, not until the late 1960’s did the international environmentally concerned communities begin to perceive the true seriousness of the threat posed by the continuing degradation of the natural environment and the urgent need for a concerted global response.
The international environmental community adopted a substantial number of international environmental treaties from 1972 onwards. The framework for the Ramsar Wetlands Convention formed the year before Stockholm and thus “stood astride the very threshold of modern environmental law, its founding fathers unquestionably appraised of many of the key tenets of contemporary conservation philosophy”.
M.J. Bowman calls the Ramsar Convention in its original form, “…an extraordinarily simple, almost simplistic, legal instrument”. He explains that the treaty consists of twelve articles, four of which were devoted to the articulation of substantive obligations, four to institutional arrangements and other mechanisms for implementation, and four to the final clauses governing participation and the exercise of depositary functions.”
Mission and Procedures
The Convention's mission is “…the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the official depositary agency for the Convention.
The Ramsar Bureau administers the convention and is housed in the headquarters of The World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Gland, Switzerland, under the authority of the Conference of the Parties and the Standing Committee of the Convention.
Benefits of Ramsar
According to Ramsar when a country joins the Convention the commitment represents:
• an endorsement of the principles that the Convention represents, facilitating the development at national level of policies and actions, including legislation that helps nations to make the best possible use of their wetland resources in their quest for sustainable development;
• an opportunity for a country to make its voice heard in the principal intergovernmental forum on the conservation and wise use of wetlands;
• increased publicity and prestige for the wetlands designated for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, and hence increased possibility of support for conservation and wise use measures;
• access to the latest information and advice on application of the Convention’s internationally-accepted standards, such as criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance, guidelines on application of the wise use concept, and guidelines on management planning in wetlands;
• access to expert advice on national and site-related problems of wetland conservation and management through contacts with Ramsar Bureau personnel and consultants and through application of the Ramsar Advisory Mission mechanism when appropriate; and
• international cooperation on wetland issues and brings the possibility of support for wetland projects, either through the Convention’s own Small Grants Fund or through the Convention’s contacts with multilateral and bilateral external support agencies.
The United States ratified the Ramsar Convention on April 18, 1987. U.S. support of Ramsar has remained strong since the Convention’s inception. In 1997 testimony before the U.S. Senate, head of the U.S. Ramsar Committee called funding Ramsar projects, “Prudent investments in the protection of natural ecosystems and human welfare are in the economic interest of the United States.” That same testimony stated that “…making these investments now can yield dividends for our children's future; dividends in the form of more bountiful harvests, life-saving drugs, a stable climate, and a clean environment. The Ramsar Convention funding will be particularly critical to assure the global supply of seafood and the abundance of waterfowl and other bird species. Wetland conservation through the Convention provides other, crucial ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, which counteracts global warming, water quality enhancement, and flood damage reduction.”
Ramsar also provides opportunities for actions to increase knowledge and awareness of wetlands and their values, including:
• interchange of experience and information on wetland policy, conservation and wise use between countries preparing and/or implementing national wetland policies, or pursuing wetland conservation;
• increasing the awareness and understanding of decision-makers and the public of the full benefits and values, within the terms of wise use, of wetlands. Among these benefits and values, which can occur on or off the wetland itself, are:
• sediment and erosion control policies
• flood control maintenance of water quality and abatement of pollution,
• maintenance of surface and underground water supply,
• support for fisheries, grazing and agriculture,
• outdoor recreation and education for human society,
• provision of habitat for wildlife, especially waterfowl, and
• contribution to climatic stability
Costs of Ramsar listing are minimal. In established wetland research zones, collection and organization of data such as wetland inventories, value matrixes, habitat numbers and wildlife conditions are necessary elements in the application process. Minimal costs include time spent negotiating, commenting upon and accepting management plans, and costs associated with ongoing monitoring from an oversight agency.
The most obvious and beneficial result of listing for countries, nations, landowners, public and private, is the gained assurances about the future uses of the wetland, these being determined through the agreed management plan. Ramsar listing also places the burden on the governments of member states for ensuring the continued health of the wetland now and into the future. Additionally, Ramsar listing provides added advantage in securing funding and other assistance with management.
The Convention promotes the sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems, allowing communities to gain economic benefits from these areas while maintaining the ecosystems’ viability. Ramsar designations bring benefits to sites in the form of improved water quality, enhanced wildlife habitat, and increased tourism. In many developing nations, the Ramsar Convention is the only policy tool available for protecting aquatic ecosystems.
The Austrailan Govenrment considers the broad aim of the Convention an “enriching” management tool. The Department of the Environment and Heritage, posits that one of greatest benefits of Ramsar comes through international networking and sharing of resources and reasearchers who work toward common goals.
Conservation and wise use of wetlands, by national action and international cooperation as a means to achieving sustainable development throughout the world is the mission of the Convention. “This means ensuring that activities which might affect wetlands will not lead to the loss of biodiversity or diminish the many ecological, hydrological, cultural or social values of wetlands.”
Noting this lofty terminology and accounting for Ramsar’s wise use policy, one might mistakenly view Ramsar as a naturalist/protectionist treaty representing a uni-lateral approach or one dimensional approach to managing land. However, Ramsar overtly acknowledges the importance of a wetland region to the locality by promoting the use of the area. In other words, Ramsar encourages the marketing and promotion of the site for tourism opportunities and even goes so far as to require specific design and signage decisions for onsite location.
Taking the above into consideration, one might view Ramsar as an economic development tool in addition to its perceived role as an environmental management tool. For example, once a site is listed Ramsar awards copyright permission for the use of logos, signage and associated promotional material, to the authorizing authority making the nomination so that a media awareness and promotional campaign be scheduled for the designation’s announcement. Often times, countries declare Ramsar designation on World Wetlands Day, February 2 of that particular year, furthering the concept of marketing a site while supporting the underlying economic development mission of Ramsar.
Ramsar addresses this issue overtly, saying, “Public access and tourism are taken in their widest meaning and include anyone who visits the site for any reason other than official purposes. Access and tourism can make a significant contribution towards the costs of managing Ramsar sites.” The Convention proactively encourages, “…a positive presumption in favor of providing access and appropriate facilities for visitors”.
This management approach is harmonious with the Louisiana approach to economic development and wetland management in that both promote a site’s natural resources as a tourism attractant. This duality is noted in the Louisiana Tourism Commissioner’s words boasting that, “For the third year in a row (2004), Louisiana's State Parks attracted over two million visitors”. Additional support for this thesis is demonstrated through the active marketing and promotion of the 180-mile Creole Nature Trail that traverses the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge (proposed Ramsar candidate), as the first National Scenic Byway in the Gulf South. Promotional materials encourage visitors to, “Come relax with us! Drive the Creole Nature Trail & enjoy beaches, shelling, crabbing, hunting, fishing, birding, wildlife refuges & the Jetty Fishing Pier.”
According to the Louisiana Coastal Area 2050 Report, almost 900,000 fishing licenses are sold annually in Louisiana. Sport fishing expenditures total $13 billion annually and waterfowl hunting spending $430 million. More than 1.4 million people participated in non-consumptive fish and wildlife activities spending more than $220 million in 1991.
One must note that eco-tourism encompasses value beyond monetary measures normally associated with the tourist market. For example, the Louisiana Ornithological Society (LOS) sponsors and conducts two bird counts at the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The fall and spring meetings take place in the last weekends of October and April in Cameron, Louisiana. These volunteer outings are often included in official state bird counts, and at the very least serve as significant contributions to avian and waterfowl research. Louisiana’s willingness to embrace these eco-tourism objectives as well as the state’s regulatory and scientific dedication to wetland management supports my position that Ramsar designation is indeed an appropriate course of action to pursue.
Criticism of Ramsar
“Calestous Juma, a Harvard professor and former United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) official, argues global environmental organization is unnecessary and may get entangled in bureaucracy. Saying that a global environmental agency would be “too cumbersome to work”. Juma notes that centralized, hierarchical UN agencies are widely regarded as inefficient agencies relying upon a network of bureaucracies rather than interested parties. “The strength of the treaties lies in the fact that they give more power and authority to governments and citizens, not to centralized UN agencies, Juma wrote to the Financial Times of London.”
Rather than existing solely as passive “protected” or “preservation” areas, Ramsar sites usually incorporate and advocate utility through management planning often referred to as wise use. Traditional preservationists associate stricter management of human activity in the management of wetland wildlife refuges. In a May 2005 interview, retired 31 year veteran of the USFWS and 23 year employee of the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Mike Stewart says, “…refuges are just that—a refuge for the wildlife—which means minimizing the impact of humans, like that of duck hunters and the associated equipment they bring onto the refuges.”
Beth Kruchek of Georgetown law school believes a legal angle to this notion may be present. She says, “The limited federal definition (U.S.) of a wetland does not comply with Ramsar’s wise use obligation because it fails to protect the integrity of the wetland ecosystem.”
Implementation of the Wise Use Concept
Article 3.1 of the Convention requires contracting parties to formulate and implement wetland planning to promote the conservation of the wetlands included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Ramsar guidelines encourage the wise use of wetlands within the respective member’s authority while respecting transboundary consideration for complete conservation management techniques.
The 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP) in Regina, Canada in 1987, adopted the following definition and associations with the concept of wise use,
“The wise use of wetlands is their sustainable utilization for the benefit of humankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem.”
The COP3 resolution noted that the concept of wise use “seeks both the formulation and implementation of general wetland policies, and wise use of specific wetlands.” COP3 advocated the use of policy tools for governments to use when promoting wise use practice. The Conference listed five mechanisms necessary to implement wise use in practice,
1) Periodical review of existing legislation to ensure that it is generally compatible with the wise use obligation, and make adjustments if necessary; this applies to particular legislation regarding mandatory wetland destruction or to that which encourages such destruction through tax benefits and subsidies.
2) General wise use legislation for wetlands should consider the following: inclusion of wetlands in the zones of land-use plans that enjoy the highest degree of protection and the institution of a permit system for activities affecting wetlands. Special rules relating to the contents of an environmental impact assessment and consideration for the cumulative effects of separate projects.
3) Legislation for the conservation and wise use of specific wetland sites (e.g. Ramsar sites, ecologically sensitive areas, areas with a high degree of biodiversity, sites containing endemic species, wetland nature reserves).
4) Review of division of jurisdiction among government agencies. Particular attention should be paid to the need to manage coastal wetlands as single units, irrespective of the usual division of jurisdiction between land and sea.
5) Development of cooperative arrangements for water systems shared between two or more countries to achieve wise use.
Ramsar's Work Plan for 2000-2002 includes the specific objective of “developing the capacity of institutions in Contracting Parties, particularly in developing countries, to achieve conservation and wise use of wetlands”.
Ramsar supporters claim the Convention is about finding ways to use wetlands sustainably. Article 2.4 of the Convention established that “The inclusion of a wetland in the List does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of the Contracting Party in whose territory the wetland is situated.” The Convention is not anti-development, nor anti-preservation, but more about planning, management and enjoyment of diverse wetland ecosystems. The treaty does require the overall condition of the wetland remain the central focus of any management plan.
Criteria for Qualification
Selection for the Ramsar List is based on the wetland’s significance in terms of ecological diversity. Article 2(1) provides that each member party is to designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance, while article 2(2) establishes the broad criteria to for application. The contracting parties adopted specific criteria and supplement those with application guidelines for identifying sites that qualify for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance.
Article 2(1) states, “Wetlands should be selected for the List on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. In the first instance wetlands of international importance to waterfowl at any season should be included.”
U.S. Listing Procedures
The April 6, 1990 Federal Register, Vol. 55, established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy, guidelines and procedures for nominating sites to the List of Wetlands of International Importance. The notice provided supplemental guidance to the Convention for determining site eligibility. The authority for establishment of these guidelines flows from the United States Senate ratification of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat.
The National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan ensures compliance with the articles of Ramsar. The USFWS reviews sites eligible for inclusion to the list.
The USFWS considers only sites complying with the following,
“The ownership rights are free from encumbrances or dispute and the lands are in public or private management that is conductive to the conservation of wetland:
Maintenance of the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the site(s) should be reasonable assured such that future actions would not result in delisting by the Conference of Parties; and
Proposed sites will only be considered if there is concurrence from State, Commonwealth or territory where the site is located and a Congressional Representative.”
The Service publishes an annual Action Notice in the Federal Register soliciting appropriate nominations to the List of Wetlands of International Importance. This notice specifies the period for submissions and location for material submissions. The USFWS requires submission from the administrative authority or the party holding the title to the nominated land. Local, state and federal support of the nomination is beneficial but required. Congressional submission of the nomination by an elected official is mandatory for any submission to garner acceptance from the USFWS.
The USFWS administers review procedures for nominated sites with the assistance of state, federal and non-governmental organizations (NGO’S). Generally, the USFWS openly accepts nominations for inclusion upon the list of Ramsar sites and solicits sites under the previously mentioned federal register notice. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service director presents nominations that meet USFWS criteria of the Convention to the Ramsar Bureau.
Ramsar Guidelines for Implementing the Nominating Criteria
Member countries meet in a Conference of the Contracting Parties or Conference of Parties (COP), where guidelines for the defining criteria are considered and updated to aid parties assessing the suitability of any potential nominee. The process of adopting specific criteria for the identification of Wetlands of International Importance began in 1974. In 1980, the first official Convention criteria emerged at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
The original text of the Convention (Article 2.2) states that:
“Wetlands should be selected for the List on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology, in the first instance, wetlands of international importance to waterfowl at any season should be included”.
In 1987 and 1990, the Conference of the Parties revised the Criteria further, and in 1996, COP6 added new Criteria based on fish and fisheries. In 2002, the Conference of Parties (COP8) addressed an ongoing discussion of socio-economic and cultural importance of wetlands to communities as a potential criteria delimiter. COP8 added to the guidelines for management and planning of Ramsar sites consideration for the social importance of wetlands to the people of the region.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands promotes the conducting of wetland inventories as a tool for identifying the functions and values of wetlands, including ecological, social and cultural values. Wetland inventories serve as a baseline for measuring change in wetlands, for identifying functions and services, for locating wetlands and for identifying priority sites for conservation. Wetland inventory planning and management enables comparisons among wetlands management techniques at different levels of government. In 2001, at the Wetlands International 3rd Board of Members Meeting, in Wageningen, Netherlands, members declared, “…wetland inventory is not an end in itself, but rather an essential step in the decision-making process affecting land use, the conservation of natural resources and water allocation.”
Ramsar Coastal Zone Wetland Management
The need for including the coastal zone management in Ramsar’s guidelines for those states engaged in the national physical planning process was adopted by the Policy Conference on Integrated Coastal Zone Management at the Brisbane Australia 6th meeting of the Contracting Parties in 1996. The COP6 agreed that an estimated 60% of the world’s population concentrates along the coastal strip that extends from shoreline to less than 60 km., or 37.2 miles inland. Recognizing this, COP6 adopted coastal zone guidelines for developing and established countries. The summary report said, “development…poses immense pressure on coastal wetlands in terms of depletion of living resources, pollution loads, reclamation, land fill, and other uncoordinated development, all of which impact on biological diversity.”
Coastal areas are popular landscapes and becoming more so every day. Increased population, coastal residence development, ecotourism growth and other such demands put upon the coast, jeopardized wetland resources and natural ecosystems. Coastal areas of the United States host more than 139 million people, about 53% of the national total population while only comprising 17% of the nation’s land area.
Coastal areas of the U.S. are the most developed in the nation. Coastal population is increasing by 3,600 people per day, with projected totals rising above 28 million people between now and 2015. This rate of growth is faster than that for the nation as a whole.
Currently, over half of the human population in North America lives in coastal cities. In 1960, there were 80 million coastal residents, out of a total 180,671,158 people. Today, the coastal population density is approximately 340 people per square mile, more than four times the U.S. average for population density and by the year 2025, three out of every four Americans will live within an hour's drive of the shoreline.
Louisiana has 7,721 miles of shoreline, bays, tidal lakes, estuaries, sounds, lagoons, and brackish bayous with a coastal population of 2,044,880 residents and growing. In 1993, it was estimated that 60-75% of Louisiana's residents live within 50 miles of the coast.
Predictions of increasing coastal zone population pressures resulted in the U.S. program to address coastal management issues. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 authorized the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) and the National Coastal Management Program, a federal-state partnership dedicated to management and protection of the nation’s coastal resources. The Coastal Programs Division (CPD) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) administers the program at the federal level.
Thirty-four states and territories have federally approved coastal management programs overseeing 95,376 national shoreline miles (99.9%). State and federal coastal zone management operate under three guidelines; “sustain coastal communities, sustain coastal ecosystems, and improve government efficiency”.
The 1978 Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, (LA RS 49:214.21), authorized the Louisiana Department of Natural Resource’s Coastal Program (LCRP). The Act also authorized the development of Local Coastal Programs (LCPS) for implementation at the parish level. Once an LCP has received federal and state approval, that LCP establishes coastal use permitting authority in the local parish. Ten coastal parishes, Calcasieu, Cameron, Lafourche, Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. James, St. Tammany and Terrebonne manage local coastal programs with St. Charles and St. John’s plan under development.
The Coastal Resources Management Act, amended (Act 361, LA RS 49:214.21 et seq), protects, develops, and, where feasible, restores or enhances the resources of the state’s coastal zone. According to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources’ web site, “The law’s broad intent is to encourage multiple uses of resources and adequate economic growth while minimizing adverse effects of one resource use upon another without imposing undue restrictions on any user. Besides striving to balance conservation and resources, the guidelines and policies of the LCRP also help to resolve user conflicts, encourage coastal zone recreational values, and determine the future course of coastal development and conservation.”
A Coastal Use Permit (CUP) Program is a part of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. The state Coastal Management Division uses this coastal use, permitting program (CUP) for projects associated with the coastal territory. The CUP is a mechanism for granting permits dealing with the management, development and use projects affecting wetlands located within the state’s coastal zone.
As part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) of 1980/1986 and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, polluters are responsible for cleanup and restoration of affected resources in wetland areas.

Methodology
Ramsar Information Sheet Site Data Collection
The Ramsar Convention uses a reporting obligation tool as an assessment of adequacy for sites nominated to the Ramsar list. Recommendation 4.7 of the Conference of the Parties (COP) established the Ramsar Information Sheet, commonly referred to as an RIS (see appendix ?? ). This standard form is a basic collection device that nominating parties use when submitting wetland sites for Ramsar list inclusion. A Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) and site map complete the nomination requirements for properties to be considered for listing. Once completed, the RIS and accompanying maps of the nominated site or site cluster is submitted to the Ramsar Bureau in Gland, Switzerland.
In an effort to simply the nominating process, the Convention requests that compilers “fill in the blanks” on the form which often results in limiting the length of an RIS to 12 pages or less. Ramsar requests copies of the RIS in Microsoft© Word™ Format (a text editing application) and inclusion of digital maps outlining the candidate sites. Additional information on each site, such as taxonomic lists of species and representative status of land uses, management plans of the nominated site, regional management plans, copies of important published papers and other materials are attached to the RIS nomination dossier. Photographs, prints, transparencies and/or electronic image submissions of the wetland may also be included in the nominating package.
The Ramsar Information Sheet has expanded over the years and the order in which the items appear has changed more than once, resulting in many different formats. The Ramsar Convention Bureau maintains current forms at the Ramsar Convention web site on the internet world wide web address of http://www.ramsar.org.
Additional, conservation guidelines published in the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) are often used in the preparation of an RIS. The AEWA guidelines say that one may save time and effort in the preparation of a preliminary site inventory for RIS completion by limiting the types of information to be gathered to a basic inventory of geographical and hydrological descriptions along with flora and fauna data, as well as explanation of management and land use regulations employed at the site.
The Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex is a candidate for nomination to the Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance list because is meets or exceeds the minimum criteria set forth by the Convention. The following information includes general descriptions of the proposed properties, details management regulation and/or programs, while offering justification for nomination of the aforementioned site to the Ramsar list. It should be noted that, no formal USFWS nomination is underway nor is a Ramsar site submission for the Complex planned. However, Complex personnel support this thesis nomination and encourage further exploration of the proposal beyond the mandatory justification-provided forthwith. Additionally, the “Findings” section of this document lists the criteria for which this nomination fulfills and provides the associated data for the respective criteria claim.
Thesis Nomination of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex to the Ramsar Convention Wetlands of International Importance List
The Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex was established in March of 2000. The Complex comprises Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge and Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, all of south Louisiana in the United States. The Refuge Complex and federally employed staff of the USFWS, manage, protect and restore over 360,000 acres (145687.43 hectares ) of wetlands habitat in the Complex.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, encompasses 9,621 acres (3893.50 hectares) of marsh and prairie. Nesting, migrating, and wintering waterfowl use the refuge as a critical habitat. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, located in Cameron Parish encompasses 34,886 acres (14117.92 hectare) and was established to preserve habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Lacassine NWR also manages a 3,345-acre (1353.70 hectare) wilderness area, a 20,000 acre (8093.75) private lands refuge program for migrating waterfowl in six state refuges, and oversees wetland easements in Jefferson Davis Parish. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, also located in Cameron Parish is 125,000 acres (50585.93 hectare) of diverse habitat and fresh, intermediate, and brackish wetlands.
The Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) maintains a 16,000-acre (6475 hectares) controlled impoundment built to enhance waterfowl resting and nesting habitat. The Lacassine Pool is a primary tool in the management of waterfowl using the area refuges. Fifteen management objectives of the refuge and the pool provide for migratory waterfowl loafing and resting areas, while adjacent areas are managed to support feeding. Submerged aquatics within the pool provide food sources for hundreds of species of waterbirds and waterfowl.
The Complex of refuges provides a wide variety of habitat for wildlife, while accommodating public uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, environmental education, wildlife observation and analysis. Cameron Prairie and Sabine refuges are on the Creole Nature Trail, a National Scenic Byway and All American Road, cultural programs recognizing the historical and natural significance of traditional roads with the American highway network. Cameron Parish in the state of Louisiana hosts all three refuges, with portions of the NWRs extending into Evangeline and Calcasieu Parishes.
Clustering of WMA’s into a single administrative complex is longstanding practice employed by the USFWS. According to Nita Fuller, Midwest regional chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, “The decision to consolidate is based on the common resource goals and issues facing all of these river refuges.” said Fuller. She continued, “These refuges also share many of the same contacts with the states, other federal agencies, and a host of non-government conservation groups who partner with us to conserve resources on these important rivers. The consolidation will provide a better coordinated and consistent management throughout the Upper Mississippi River System.”
However, criticism of the complex structure does exist. According to Mike Stewart, former manager of the Lacassine NWR, “…the Complex structure is a matter of administrative benefit only. In my opinion, personnel on the ground are required to manage expansive areas of wetlands.”
Current employees of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex support the clustering concept. “Combining the goals of the individual refuges with unified management plans provides continuity in our primary mission to manage the refuges for the benefit of all waterfowl. We do staff the refuges with onsite personnel who report to the complex manager and staff. We have a close relationship with state personnel and all work for the benefit of the entire wetland region.” Complex Planner, Judy McClendon noted, that the three area National Wildlife Refuges host many of the same waterfowl, fish, shrimp and migratory bird populations and share the same watershed-Cameron Creole.
Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge encompasses 84,000 acres (33993.73 hectares) nestled between the Lacassine and Cameron Prairie NWRs. The state refuge offers waterfowl, wildlife, fish, and birds a continuous or at least near contiguous stretch of protected managed wetlands. Large live oak trees find high ground at Rockefeller, while wading bird rookeries are located behind the refuge headquarters.
The Holleyman-Sheely-Henshaw Migratory Bird Sanctuary is a Baton Rouge Audubon Society sanctuary located on a chenier, coastal ridge, adjacent to the beach in Cameron Parish. In addition to the live oak-hackberry woods of the chenier, the nearby beaches and marshes makes this location an especially diverse area with a high concentration of wildlife.
Regional Geography of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge
The Calcasieu-Sabine Basin is historically interconnected with the Mermentau Basin. Dredging of navigation corridors and agricultural draining of wetlands has made the two basins more hydrologically distinct. In the 1920s, industry established a presence in the watershed with the discovery of petroleum in nearby Jennings, Louisiana. Navigational routes made easy access to barges and water transportation that enabled the establishment of many different petroleum based companies in the area. Refining and chemical operations headed by 30 major industries are located within Calcasieu, Sabine and Cameron Parishes, including corporations such as PPG, Conoco, Citgo, Equistar, and Firestone.
Two groups of wetland areas exist in this region. Marine or coastal wetlands are found in Cameron, Jeff Davis and Vermillion Parishes in Southwest Louisiana. These types of wetlands are closely linked to the estuaries of the area, where seawater and freshwater mix. Inland wetlands also are found within the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex. These types of wetlands are located on the natural floodplains along area river basins, bayous, swamps, and in depressions surrounded by higher land, such as the cheniers of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Freshwater marshes of the in the Complex parishes are also included in the inland wetland category.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the entire region’s wetland planning policies, including state policies at Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge, manages the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex. In 2002, the USFWS and the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex notified the public of the intent to prepare a Comprehensive Management Program for the Complex. The comprehensive conservation plan will guide management decisions and will re-affirm refuge goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving best management practice on the refuges. The planning process will consider many elements including wildlife and habitat management, public recreational activities, and cultural resource protection.
The Gibbstown Unit and East Cove Unit of Lacassine NWR exist as two management units based upon habitat types. The Gibbstown Unit habitat consists of fresh marsh, coastal prairie and old rice fields. The Gibbstown unit provides excellent habitat for waterfowl, water birds, white-tailed deer, small game, furbearers, and many other wildlife species. Gibbstown unit is managed to provide natural foods for wintering waterfowl and other water birds.
The East Cove Unit consists of intermediate, brackish and salt marshes. It is an integral part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, a large marsh restoration project. East Cove is an important habitat for many estuarine marine organisms (shrimp, crab, menhaden, redfish, etc.) and also waterfowl and other water birds. Public use on East Cove includes recreational fishing, boating and wildlife observation. East Cove is accessible only by boat via Calcasieu Lake.

Findings
The Southwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex Meets the Following Ramsar Criteria
Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the appropriate bio-geographic region.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex is a representative example of a wetland ecosystem. Ramsar uses a classification system for categorizing wetlands (see appendix ???). The Convention groups landscapes into marine, inland and fabricated wetlands with guidelines for categorization of proposed sites. In accordance with those procedural guidelines, this thesis document has assigned categories to the Complex for which data exists to justify the position. The proposed categorization fulfilling the Ramsar criteria for listing as a Wetland of International Importance for the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex follows (see Table 8).
Four types of marsh exist in Louisiana and each type is found in the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Each wetland type represents an excellent example of natural, and/or near natural wetland ecosystems that fulfill Ramsar’s Criterion 1.
The marine or coastal zone salt marsh of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex wetlands exists at the tidal margins of the Gulf of Mexico waters in Cameron and Jeff Davis Parishes. The salt marsh also exists within the many sounds and estuaries and backs of barrier islands in the Complex. Some areas of salt marsh exist near the flooded deltas of navigational channels or natural inlets with regular saltwater tides. The entire state of Louisiana contains 40 percent of the saltwater marsh in the contiguous United States.
Characteristic flora, used in regulatory definitions, designates these regions as marine or salt marsh. Spartina alterniflora, commonly called smooth cordgrass or oyster grass, is the dominant vegetation of the salt marsh in the Complex. The Spartina, which prefers the higher salinity content of these marginal wetlands, is the desired plant of management officials, as a native species to the wetland landscape of south Louisiana’s coastal zone.
Smooth cordgrass shares habitat with the perennial glasswort (Sarcocornia perennis) in low tidal marshes of the Sabine NWR and through parts of Cameron Prairie and Lacassine refuges, where saltwater inundation is greatest. In these more saline areas some components of the southern cordgrass coastal prairie famed and threatened with eradication in Louisiana are found and include saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens).
Continuous water activity in around the salt marsh contributes to a highly productive and biologically diverse wetland community. Tidal flows and wave actions transport organic matter into and out of the marsh, continually flushing and enriching the environment. Less saline or brackish marsh regions are found on the Complex, usually at the upper edge of the Gulf of Mexico. These smaller strips of wetland landscapes are unique types of wetlands typically having a higher salinity than that of upland brackish marshes that exist as part of the same salt marsh watershed.
Larger expanses of brackish marshes are found in the heads of bayous and in the interior of large marsh islands located on the Complex and exist as separate brackish marsh ecosystems. These marsh landscapes are somewhat removed but not distant nor separate from the tidal connection with the Gulf of Mexico.
Freshwater inflow from area channels and rivers such as the Mermentau, Calcasieu, Sabine and other smaller watercourses, dilute much of the salinity of the water in these larger brackish marshes. Typically, the range of these wetlands is less than that of salt marshes because of occident saltwater intrusion in the eroding coastline of Louisiana. Brackish marshes have a diminished tidal environment than that of salt marshes, but nonetheless fluctuate in water capacity. The wetland plant, Juncus romerianus, black needle grass or black rush is the dominant plant of the brackish marsh ecosystem. In these less saline and more brackish conditions, plants include big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), switchgrass (P. virgatum), and Olney threesquare or 3-Corner grass (Scirpus americanus).
Freshwater marsh wetlands in the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex exist at the margins of the brackish mashes and along rivers and bayous that regularly flood with freshwater. Wetlands like those of Sabine NWR, often times are artificially bordered by freshwater canals, but most always affected by natural movement of the areas’ bayou waters.
Species that occur in freshwater wetland sites include bog rush (Juncus effusus), Jamaica sawgrass (Mariscus jamicensis), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), panicum (P. repens), common reed (Phragmites australis), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), softstem bulrush (S. validus), gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), southern cattail (Typhus domingensis), and great cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea). “A sawgrass meadow is a good indication of regular freshwater flow.” Tidal freshwater marsh is distinguished from adjacent swamp forest and upland forests by the lack of a dominant tree or shrub layer.
Inland wetland forests and mixed tree species occupy important wetland areas of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge. High ground for habitat refuge and nesting is often found in the inland wetland forest of Lacassine NWR and along the cheniers of the Sabine NWR. Natural flood cycles hosting specific fauna characterize the wetland forests of the Complex. Some regions in the Complex experience permanent flooding in these swamp areas located in Cameron Prairie NWR. Other areas of the Complex are affected by seasonal river flooding of the Mermentau River, Grand Lake, White Lake and nearby Lake Arthur. Some areas of the Complex exist as bottomland hardwood forests hosting tree species that act as a defining characteristic of this landscape typology. The cypress tree-pond, bald and American-(Taxodium sp.) and water tupelo tree (Nyssaceae Nyssa aquatica) or water gum tree, fill areas of the forested wetlands. These wetland communities typically exist with permanent or near permanent standing water on the ground.
Bottomland hardwood forests exist between aquatic and upland ecosystems at the Lacassine NWR. As mentioned, these areas usually have distinct vegetation and soil characteristics. Diverse trees that adapt to the wide range of soil conditions, water levels or chemistry of this wetland typology dominate the vegetation in bottomland hardwood forests. These plant species incur fast growth and adapt to most any environmental conditions that exist within that particular landscape. Often times, this landscape is a product of human disturbance. Agrressive, adaptive and sometimes invasive species of trees exist here including, the black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), American elm (Ulmus americana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Wetlands comprised of scrub/shrub evergreens, deciduous, and mixed plant species typify another distinct category of wetland landscape-Shrub/scrub. NOAA’s Department of Restoration and Research notes that, “A scrub-shrub wetland typifies a community in transition and exemplifies the dynamic nature of wetlands in general”. This phraseology might be a tempered way of explaining that this landscape is recovering from recent human impact. The scrub/shrub wetland acts as a climax community for freshly created wetlands such as human constructed ponds or from lakes that are shifting boundaries-again due to alteration within the watershed. Plant species are dependent upon the duration of water inundation in the area, with black willow (Salix nigra) and dogwood (Cornus sp.) growing in the temporarily to seasonally wet areas and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) in semi-permanently flooded areas. In some areas of the Lacassine NWR, these scrub shrub regions are converted agricultural croplands while other areas of Lacassine scrub shrub border the pool impoundments and constructed canals on the refuge. They also may be present along the flanks of spoil disposal areas, particularly spoil banks along canals dredged through marsh during restoration efforts.
Table 8 Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Proposed Ramsar Wetland Classification
Marine Inland Fabricated
1) A. (Permanent shallow marine waters less than six meters ( deep at low tide; includes sea bays and straits
2) E. (Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and sandy islets; also dune systems)
3) F. (Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas)
4) G. (Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats)
5) H. ( Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised salt marshes; also tidal brackish and freshwater marshes)
6) J. (Coastal brackish to saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least 1 relatively narrow connection to the sea)
7) K. (Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons) 8) M. (Permanent rivers, streams and creeks; includes waterfalls)
9) O. (Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes large oxbow lakes)
10) P. (Seasonal and intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes)
11) Q. (Permanent saline, brackish and alkaline lakes)
12) Sp. (Permanent saline, brackish and alkaline marshes and pools)
13) Tp. (Permanent freshwater marshes and pools; ponds (under 8 ha in area); marshes and swamps on inorganic soils with emergent vegetation that is water-logged for at least most of the growing season)
14) U. (Non-forested peatlands; includes shrub or open bogs, swamps and fens)
15) W. (Shrub-dominated wetlands on inorganic soils; includes shrub swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater marsh, shrub carr, and alder thicket)
16) Xf. (Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands on inorganic soils; includes freshwater swamp forest, seasonally flooded forest and wooded swamps) 17) 2. (Ponds; includes farm ponds, stock ponds, small tanks (generally less than 8 ha in area)
18) 3. (Irrigated land; includes irrigation channels and rice fields)
19) 6. (Water storage areas; reservoirs, barrages, dams and impoundments (generally over 8 ha in area)
20) 9. (Water storage areas; reservoirs, barrages, dams and impoundments (generally over 8 ha in area)
Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports endangered and threatened species
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531, et seq.) is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS is primarily responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species and migratory birds and the NMFS for anadromous and marine fish species.
The purpose of the ESA is to conserve “the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and to conserve and recover listed species” . Endangered species are species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are defined as species likely to become endangered in future.
Section 6 of the ESA encourages each state to develop and maintain conservation programs for resident federally listed threatened and endangered species. Management authority arises through provisions granted in section 4 of the Act, which provides for designations of critical habitat for listed species and includes geographic areas “…on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection”.
Almost half of all endangered or threatened species, including birds, wintering waterfowl, and mammals, rely upon coastal waters and associated estuaries for nesting and breeding. Threatened and endangered species using the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex include bald eagles, golden eagles, American alligators, sea turtles, terns and even the Louisiana black bear. Louisiana ranks second in the Eastern U.S. for Bald Eagle nesting with more than 100 active Bald Eagle nests found in South Louisiana in and around the coastal zone. The refuges lend excellent habitat for armadillos, swamp rabbits, fox squirrel, nutria, mink, otters, raccoons, coyotes, and white-tailed deer. Numerous fresh and marine fish, frogs, tortoises and turtles, and snake species live on the refuges.
The published list for the State of Louisiana includes 28 animal and 4 plant species. The Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) maintain species listed as threatened and endangered in Louisiana. “Of the approximately 3,200 plant species that comprise Louisiana's diverse flora, about 2400 are native and about 350 are rare. The Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP) part of LDWF collects data on rare plant populations. WMA's and refuges currently support 348 rare plant occurrences and 137 natural community occurrences.”

Table 9 Louisiana has 28 threatened and endangered plant and animal species. USFWS 2004
Louisiana ESA Listing, Animals – 24 species
Status
Listing
T(S/A) Alligator, American ( Alligator mississippiensis)
T(S/A) Bear, American black (County range of LA black bear) ( Ursus americanus)
T Bear, Louisiana black ( Ursus americanus luteolus)
T Eagle, bald ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
T Heelsplitter, Alabama ( Potamilus inflatus)
E Manatee, West Indian ( Trichechus manatus)
E Mucket, pink ( Lampsilis abrupta)
T Pearlshell, Louisiana ( Margaritifera hembeli)
E Pelican, brown (except U.S. Atlantic coast, FL, AL) ( Pelecanus occidentalis)
T Plover, piping (except Great Lakes watershed) ( Charadrius melodus)
T Sea turtle, green (except where endangered) ( Chelonia mydas)
E Sea turtle, hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata)
E Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii)
E Sea turtle, leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea)
T Sea turtle, loggerhead ( Caretta caretta)
T Sturgeon, Gulf ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)
E Sturgeon, pallid ( Scaphirhynchus albus)
E Tern, least (interior pop.) ( Sterna antillarum)
T Tortoise, gopher (W of Mobile/Tombigbee Rs.) ( Gopherus polyphemus)
T Turtle, ringed map ( Graptemys oculifera)
E Vireo, black-capped ( Vireo atricapillus)
E Whale, finback ( Balaenoptera physalus)
E Whale, humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae)
E Woodpecker, red-cockaded ( Picoides borealis)
Louisiana ESA Listing Plants – 4 species
Status
Listing
T Geocarpon minimum (No common name)

E Quillwort, Louisiana ( Isoetes louisianensis)
E Pondberry ( Lindera melissifolia)
E Chaffseed, American ( Schwalbea americana)


Criterion 3: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports populations of plant and animal species important for maintaining biological diversity of the Gulf Coast of the United States.
Biological diversity is “…categorized in terms of the number of species, the variety in the area's plant and animal communities, the genetic variability of the animals, or a combination of these elements.” The marshes of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex and surrounding region include a range of habitats utilized by both freshwater and saltwater species. More than 95% of all marine species living in the Gulf of Mexico spend all or part of their life cycle in Louisiana’s wetlands.
Additionally, researchers record more than 200 bird species at the Cameron Prairie NWR, including waterfowl, songbirds, seabirds, shore birds, upland game birds, and raptors Others birds including white-fronted and Canada geese, green-winged teal, ringnecked ducks, kingfishers, bobwhite quail, multiple species of doves, hawks, harriers, ospreys and eagles, all regular inhabitants of the Complex’s wetlands.
The hardwood swamps and bottomland forests, as well as the oak cheniers and the coastal prairies of southwest Louisiana provide habitat to land and water birds species migrating and residing throughout North and South America. Louisiana geographically situated in the Mississippi and Central flyways, is often the terminus of these historical travel routes for birds. The coast of Louisiana is a necessary refuge for migratory birds traveling routes extending from Canada, the Rocky Mountain region, throughout the Midwest of America to the Northern Atlantic Coast and to South America and back.
Other wildlife species, including white-tailed deer, American alligators, opossum, raccoons, turkeys, squirrels, boars and thousands of other diverse animal types live on the Complex refuges. The Complex also monitors Louisiana Black Bear populations, while regulating the harvest of pelt animals like the rabbit, beaver, nutria and mink.
Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports fish, mollusk and shrimp at critical stages of their lives and provides refuge for animals and birds migrating to and from the Gulf Coast of the United States and offer protection from hurricanes and tropical storms associated with the coastal zone.
This criterion may be more appropriately separated into two issues. Firstly, acknowledgement of the property as an estuarine facility and secondly, as a site where animals may seek refuge from natural disasters. The coastal waters of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex serve this dual-purpose objective, and thus justified for nomination under this criterion.
The Complex is comprised of numerous estuaries critical to the survival of marine shrimp. These species include the brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), pink shrimp (Penaeus Ouorarum), and royal red shrimp (Pleoticus robustus). Brown and white shrimp, the most abundant of the shrimp species, spawn in the Gulf of Mexico and use the wetlands as estuaries. Throughout February and March, the brown shrimp larvae move into the lower estuaries of the coastal wetlands, where growth takes place among the nutrient rich wetland waters. Young adult shrimp emigrate into deeper estuarine waters, eventually moving into the Gulf of Mexico, usually within territorial borders of Louisiana, in early to mid summer.
Another species of animal that uses the wetlands of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex for at various stages of their life cycles is the local food favorite, the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). This crab is the most common and important commercial crab species in the north central Gulf of Mexico. Subtle declines in the quality of the crab’s habitat and environmental conditions play an important role in the harvest of crab stocks, augmenting the need for protection of the wetland environment. The blue crab can survive in a range of healthy hydrological environments, from offshore marine waters to freshwater marshes. Like the shrimp, the blue crab is dependent upon the state’s estuaries for the completion of its life cycle. In late summer, egg-baring females migrate offshore to spawn. Shortly thereafter, the larvae of the blue crab adopt the inshore migration patterns of estuarine-marine fish. Mature male blue crabs remain in brackish and freshwater estuaries for the remainder of their lives; conversely, female blue crabs complete their life cycle on the continental shelf.
This criterion, as suggested and in the case of this site nomination, is appropriate for consideration because of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex’s role as refuge from extensive migration routes and as shelter from natural disasters. Dr. Jay Huner of the ULL Center for Cultural Studies and Ecotourism, notes, that migrant bird species including perching birds and shorebirds use the area as a vital link in migration patterns. The birds, he says, “…either stage in the area’s wetlands and wooded oak Chenier ridges preparing to fly south across the Gulf of Mexico for the winter or stop in the area to rest and feed upon return from points south during their northward migrations during the spring.”
These bird migrations attract visitors also, thus the Complex would enhance current tourism opportunity while incorporating the use concept encouraged by Ramsar. Additionally, Ramsar designation would bolster the status of the refuge among wetland properties, theoretically gaining increased attention from additional bird or eco tourism enthusiasts. In fact, Ramsar designation could draw more birders and visitors throughout the year where they might find birding favorites; loons, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, roseate spoonbills, sand hill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, gulls, terns, doves, nightjars, woodpeckers, flycatchers, vireos, crows, swallows, wrens, thrushes, warblers, tanagers, sparrows, blackbirds and orioles, and finches all throughout the wetland NWR Complex.
Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex supports more than 20,000 waterbirds.
During the winter months, the Lacassine and Cameron Prairie refuges support peak populations of over 300,000 ducks and geese. “The refuges support one of the largest concentrations of wintering waterfowl of any refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge system.” Historical wintering duck populations and geese at Lacassine are among the largest in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Snow geese ranging in numbers from 5000 to 10000 migrate, winter and populate Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge during the fall, winter, and spring seasons. Pintail, blue-winged and green-winged teal, mallards, ring-necked ducks, gadwalls, and American widgeon are also common on the refuges during the winter months. In the summer months, populations of black-bellied whistling-ducks, wood ducks, and blue-winged teal breed and live on the refuges.
The refuge preserves a major wintering site for a large population of waterfowl in the United States. The sanctuary provided at Lacassine Pool of the Lacassine NWR, is critical to the long-term health of pintail populations. The Pool, 16,000 acres of controlled water habitat, is one of the key pintail wintering areas in the continent.
Wintering pintail populations have reached almost 400,000 - which is 50% to 80% of the entire southwest Louisiana midwinter survey of ducks. Duck numbers reported in the state’s October 2003 habitat flyover estimate totaled 779,000 of mixed species just in southwest Louisiana, with the state is total of mixed species coming in at 1,270,000. Biologists found an estimated 2.5 million birds along the coastal zone when they flew aerial surveys in January of 2004.
The most diverse and abundant land animal in Louisiana is by far the bird. Louisiana has no less than 411 different bird species that live in the state for part or all of the year. These species descend from 19 orders and 66 families.
The Convention allows this criterion to apply towards wetlands of varying size in different Contracting Parties. Wetlands identified as being of international importance under Criterion 5 are encouraged to include a large enough area to form an ecological unit. This criterion allows for a group of wetlands to be clustered into a complex wetland habitat. This criterion further supports the Louisiana cluster site nomination proposal put forth by this thesis.
Criterion 6: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex regularly supports a distinct resident species of waterbird.
The Mottled Duck, a distinct species of duck often confused with the common mallard is referred to colloquially as a “Summer Duck, Black Mallard, or Black Duck”. This species is a permanent resident of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex. Black duck (Anas rubripes) populations are decreasing in similar U.S. wetlands due to habitat loss. Black ducks avoid humans more so than other species of waterfowl making prime wetland habitat in close proximity to human development unsuitable. The Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex provides a year round habitat for large groups of Mottled Ducks. This duck, is a resident species with estimated numbers averaging over 50,000.

Table 10. 3 Year Waterfowl Survey Data
Waterfowl Peak Numbers on Lacassine NWR
SPECIES 01/03/01 1/10/02 01/06/03
Mallard 34,603 16,657 15,978
Mottled Duck 259 371 414
Blue-winged Teal 0 336 2,331
Shoveler 3,048 1,009 5,356
Gadwall 4,854 4,473 4,205
Wigeon 3,256 909 1,015
Green-winged Teal 33,863 7,929 28,843
Pintail 20,845 18,326 29,867
Wood Duck 0 7 0
Ringneck 1,466 3,812 2,487
Black-Bellied Whistling Duck 1,193 1,193 0
Lesser Scaup 33 228 70
Redhead 0 0 0
Canvasback 0 0 0
Bufflehead 0 0 0
Ruddy Duck 0 0 0
Fulvous Whistling Duck 0 0 0
White-fronted Geese 7,636 1,173 3,596
Snow Geese 2,196 704 5,352
Canada Geese 0 0 0
Coots 1,372 6,667 298
Ducks/Geese Total 114,770 63,794 99,823
Puddle Ducks 100,874 50,017 88,016
Diving Ducks 2,692 5,233 2,561
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region


Criterion 8: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an important source of food for fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend.
The Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex provides essential sources of food for fish stocks as a spawning ground, nursery and migration path that regional and tropical fish stocks depend upon.
Examples of species that nest, spawn, or migrate through and live in the Complex’s diverse wetlands include the commercially and recreationally popular red drum or redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus), speckled trout, (Cynoscion nebulosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma). Other commercially and recreationally important fish species nurtured in the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex estuaries include sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia petronus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), and catfishes (lctaluridae). These fish species find sustenance and vital organic nutrients in the diverse food chain living in the wetlands of the Complex.
The deeper coastal waters of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex act as habitat to many finfish common to the Gulf of Mexico. Species often congregate around structures used by the oil industry, both in shallow and deep water areas of the refuge Complex. Pilings, stanchions, pipelines drilling platforms and other similar structures act as artificial reefs that provide shelter to species including the commercially and recreationally important red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) and associated sub species of snapper, the wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri ) or lemonfish, yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares ), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) and hundreds of species of sharks.
Natural habitats for fish of the Complex, other than grass beds, canebrakes, mangroves and the like, are made of oyster reefs, mud flats, breakwaters and jetties. These areas attract baitfish, shrimp, crabs, squid and other reptiles, tortoises, fish and animals where the feed on planktons and encrusted organisms. These fish and animal species of the area supply the food chain that reaches far offshore where species of tropical and neo-tropical as well as Atlantic and Pacific origin live and migrate.

Conclusion
Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Satisfies Ramsar Criteria
The nomination of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge to the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance is a valid research exercise because the wetland landscapes of the area satisfy Ramsar Criterion 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 8.
To wit; the Complex is a representative example of a natural wetland ecosystem providing food and shelter for native and anadromous fish, shrimp and crabs in a biologically diverse estuarine environment where endangered species, endemic flora and fauna as well as migratory waterbirds and thousands of waterfowl, roost among the diverse categories of wetland landscapes existing in Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Sabine National Wildlife Refuges.
Nominating these refuges as a cluster site is in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Ramsar Convention and within the associated framework advocated by the Conference of the Contracting Parties. Likewise, nomination of these Louisiana coastal zone properties to the Ramsar list is in accordance with COP6 recommendations supporting strong coastal zone management programs. This cluster nomination also follows the procedural guidelines required by the USFWS when considering properties for submission to the Ramsar Bureau. Specifically, these properties are public landscapes under the authority of the United States government. Furthermore, this thesis document encourages the nomination of these Louisiana wetland sites because of the Convention’s underlying mission advocating use (wise) of Ramsar sites. This active use philosophy, in addition to the primary mission of conservation, is harmonious with the state of Louisiana’s efforts to market the wetland landscape as tool for economic development.
Justification for application of the Ramsar criterion to the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex is easily documented. The overwhelming amount of research data on wetlands, Louisiana wetlands, and U.S. Government law, policy and management approaches to wetlands is published in numerous and various formats, which should augment the nomination process of the limited descriptions required by the Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS). Additionally, wildlife and waterfowl data as well as private and public surveys of bird counts and endangered species listings are readily available to further support justification for nomination under the presented criterion.
Louisiana Is A Ramsar State
The application of Ramsar Criteria should not be limited to the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge. The Convention has the potential to extend to other National Wildlife Refuges within the Louisiana Coastal Zone and perhaps more inland wetland sites around the state.
Louisiana has an abundance of lakes, rivers, streams and bayous. Those areas under public domain, such as state WMAs and NGO property are eligible for nomination to the Ramsar list, under the U.S. guidelines for nomination of wetland areas.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
Louisiana has one site on the Ramsar list. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), founded in 1958, is a Louisiana Wetland of International Importance named on June 18, 1991. Catahoula NWR is 25 miles northeast of Alexandria, Louisiana. Catahoula Lake of the NWR is a 26,000-acre (10521.87 hectare) inland wetland that is a historic concentration area for shorebirds, waterbirds and waterfowl. The lake much like the Lacassine Pool is a migrating and wintering waterfowl habitat and similarly, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) trees naturally line swamps, bayous, and lowland hardwood forests emerging from the annual flooding of Catahoula Lake.
Biologists record populations of waterfowl peaking at 75,000 ducks - 100,000 ducks, which is equivalent to areas on the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex. Waterfowl, primarily mallards, are abundant during the winter period while wood ducks reside year-round at Catahoula NWR.
The refuge has an appropriately named artificial water impoundment, Duck Lake, constructed in the 1970s to provide additional management capabilities for waterfowl. Again, this feature is duplicative of the Lacassine Pool used for waterfowl management at the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex. The Catahoula NWR also borders state refuge property, namely Dewey Wills Wildlife Management Area and parts of state of Texas’ wildlife refuges. These locations act as de facto cluster sites of wetland management, absent the formal bureaucracy of federal and state administration. “The Catahoula Lake region and the current Catahoula NWR are among the most important wetland habitats for waterfowl in the world,” said Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton of the Department of the Interior and the Fish & Wildlife Service.
Increasingly, federal and state support of the Ramsar Convention’s mission is spreading. In fact, it is implied in the 2005 Gubernatorial Proclamation designating February 2nd as “America’s Wetland Day”. As mentioned earlier in this document, February 2nd is historically used by the Ramsar Bureau as an anniversary date commemorating the ratification of the Ramsar Convention. In the spirit of Ramsar, and perhaps unwittingly, the Louisiana proclamation called upon citizens “…to learn more about how Louisiana's wetland loss impacts our state, the nation and the world”.

Recommendations
Complete and Submit Official RIS
Attached to this thesis document is a blank Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS). In compliance with Ramsar, this RIS should be completed by the nominating authority and submitted to the USFWS International Affairs Division and eventually the Ramsar Bureau for formal placement on the Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance List.
Information and data contained in this thesis document will be an asset to the compiler of the RIS. In fact, this thesis document may suffice in and of itself as a preliminary nomination to the Ramsar list under the designated criterion. However, validation of this thesis and the confirmation of the information contained herein is suggested and may be necessary as this document is unpublished graduate student work. Notwithstanding, a diligent and true effort was made to verify, note, cite and attribute all data or theories to their respective source, except where put forth as original.
Begin Lobbying at State and National Level
The Ramsar Convention was produced in 1971 and only ratified sixteen years later the United States ratified the treaty. Obviously, agreements of this magnitude, as beneficial as they may be, move at a diplomatically slow pace. Unfortunately, the wetlands of coastal Louisiana and of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex do not adhere to this bureaucratic timeline. In other words, action to begin the process of nominating the Complex must begin soon. As stated in this document, Congressional approval is mandatory and many levels of interested public parties and government divisions will need to sign off on the nomination proposal. Having said this, a recommendation is made to begin the process using this thesis document as a working guideline.
Extend to Other Louisiana Wetland Sites
Inclusion of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex on the Ramsar Wetland of International Importance List will benefit the state and associated localities through conservation of the region’s natural resources including flora, fauna and associated habitats. Inclusion of the Complex on the Ramsar list will also strengthen the management practices employed by the state and federal authorities in relation to waterfowl and wetland planning. Ramsar listing will also ally with the Louisiana’s growing practice of marketing wetlands as eco tourism opportunities for economic development.
Extending the cluster site, coastal zone nomination concept to other wetland landscapes in Louisiana is plausible. As documented in this thesis, nearly 48% of the U.S. coastal wetlands territory exists in Louisiana. The complexity of wetland characteristics submitted on behalf of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex exist within most of the state’s coastal zone. National Wildlife Refuges are located along the coastal zone of the state. In eastern Louisiana, NWRs such as Breton, Big Branch, Bayou Savage, Shell Keys and others could qualify as a cluster site nomination to Ramsar.
Ramsar could bring increased attention to the wetlands of Louisiana. Many organizations such as Wetlands America, LACoast, the Audubon Society and others are banding together with government entities to conserve and promote the value of Louisiana’s wetlands. Through Ramsar nomination and successful listing, thousands of state wetlands would be ensured a complete-multilateral and best management and planning approach.


References

1. Boesch, D. F. 1995. Scientific Assessment of Coastal Wetland Loss, Restoration and Management in Louisiana. Geological Society of America. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 27
2. Boesch, D. F. and D. Levin. 1983. Subsidence in Coastal Louisiana: Causes, Rates and Effects on Wetlands.
3. Chacko, J. J. 1995. Minimization of Potential Geo-environmental Wetland Impacts Related to Petroleum Extraction in Coastal Louisiana. Geological Society of America. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 27.
4. Conner, W. H., and J. W. Day, Jr. 1987. The Ecology of Barataria Basin, Louisiana: An Estuarine Profile. Biological Report. Vol. 85(7.13).
5. Craig, N.J., R. E. Turner and J. W. Day, Jr. 1980. Wetland Losses and their Consequences in Coastal Louisiana.
6. Delaune, R. D., W.H. Patrick, Jr., and C.J. Smith. 1996. Marsh Aggradation and Sediment Distribution Along Rapidly Submerging Louisiana Gulf Coast. Environmental Geological and Water Sciences. Vol. 20(1) p.57-64.
7. Eilers, H. P. and A. Taylor. 1983. Vegetative Delineation of Coastal Marsh Boundaries.
8. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Port Fourchon Development Plan. Phase IV, LaFourche Parishe, Louisiana. 1978.
9. Garofalo, D. and Burk and Associates, Inc. 1982. Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region Ecological Characterization: An Ecological Atlas. Biological Services Program. Oct. 1982.
10. Nyman, J. A., R. D. Delaune, S. R. Pezeshki and W.H. Patrick, Jr. "Organic Matter Fluxes and Marsh Stability in a Rapidly Submerging Estuarine Marsh." March 1995 Estuaries Vol.18 No. 1B
11. Pezeshki, S. R. and R. D. Delaune. 1995. Variations in Response of Two U.S. Gulf Coast Populations of Spartina alterniflora to hypersalinity. Journal of Coastal Research. Vol. 11(1) p.89-95.
12. Reed, D. J. and L. P Rozas. 1994. Potential for Enhancement of Fisheries Habitat by Infilling OCS Pipeline Canals.
13. Turner, R. E, J. M. Lee and C. Neil. 1994. Back filling Canals as a Wetland Restoration Technique in Coastal Louisiana.
14. AEWA, African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement, Conservation Guidelines, Wetlands International, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of the Netherlands, April 1999.

15. Brinson, MM (1993). A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetland research programme technical report WRP-DE-4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, USA.

16. Dugan, PJ (ed) (1990). Wetland conservation: a review of current issues and required action. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

17. Finlayson, CM & van der Valk, AG (1995). Classification and inventory of the world's wetlands: a summary. In Classification and Inventory of the World’s Wetlands, (eds.CM Finlayson & AG van der Valk) Advances in Vegetation Science 16, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, and The Netherlands: 185–192.

18. Global Sustainable Development Picture, EM Magazine. November 2002

19. Hayes, MO (1977). Morphology of sand accumulation in estuaries: an introduction to the symposium. In: Estuarine research (Vol 2): geology and engineering (ed. Cronin LE). Academic Press, New York: 1–587.

20. Heydorn, AEF and Tinley, KL (1980). Estuaries of the Cape (Part 1) Synopsis of the Cape Coast; natural features, dynamics and utilization. CSIR Research Report 380.

21. Mitsch, WJ and Gosselink, JG (1986). Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York.

22. Moss, N (1980). Ecology of Freshwaters. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

23. Murai, S, Honda, Y, Asakura, K & Goto, S (1990). An Analysis of Global
24. Environment by Satellite Remote Sensing. Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo.

25. Semeniuk, V and Semeniuk, CA (1997). A geomorphic approach to global classification for natural wetlands and rationalization of the system used by the Ramsar Convention – a discussion. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5: 145–158.

26. Watkins, D and Parish, F (1999). Review of wetland inventory information in Oceania. In Global review of wetland, resources and priorities for inventory (eds CM Finlayson & AG Spiers). Supervising Scientist Report 144, Canberra: 201–244.

27. Wetzel, RG (2001). Limnology – lake and river ecosystems (3rd edition). Academic Press, San Diego California.

28. Wetzel, RG and Likens, GE (1991). Limnological Analyses (2nd edition). Springer Verlag, New York.

29. Wood, A, Stedman-Edwards, P & Mang J (eds) (2000). The root causes of biodiversity loss, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London: 1–399.

Appendix
Wetlands Definitions
1. Article 1(1) of the Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as, “…areas of marsh, fen, peat land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters (19.1 feet).”
2. Article 2(1) of Ramsar provides, “The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map and they may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands and bodies of marine water deeper than six meters at low tide lying within the wetlands, especially where these have importance as waterfowl habitat.”
3. The Canadian Government’s definition of wetlands is, “Submerged or permeated by water – either permanently or temporarily – and are characterized by plants adapted to saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include fresh and salt water marshes, wooded swamps, bogs, seasonally flooded forest, sloughs – any land area that can keep water long enough to let wetland plants and soils develop.”
4. International Environmental Law Journal definition is, “Encompassing habitats as diverse as mangrove swamps, peat bogs, water meadows, coastal beaches, coastal waters, tidal flats, mountain lakes and tropical river systems”.
5. General Account of the Freshwater Morasses of the United States defines wetlands as, “…all wetlands...in which the natural declivity is insufficient, when the forest cover is removed, to reduce the soil to the measure of dryness necessary for agriculture. Wherever any form of engineering is necessary to secure this desiccation, the area is classified as swamp.”
6. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service declares that, “The term wetlands... refers to lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters. They are referred to by such names as marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, potholes, sloughs, fens and river overflow lands. Shallow lakes and ponds, usually with emergent vegetation as a conspicuous feature, are included in the definition, but the permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and portions of lakes too deep for emergent vegetation are not included. Neither are water areas that are so temporary as to have little or no effect on the development of moist-soil vegetation”.
7. The Cowardin definition reads, “Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface.”
8. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says, “The term wetlands mean those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”
9. NOAA defines coastal wetlands as “…all wetlands in coastal watersheds, i.e., watersheds that drain to the ocean or to an estuary or bay”.

Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS)
Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7, as amended by Resolution VIII.13 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties.
Note for compilers:
1. The RIS should be completed in accordance with the attached Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for completing the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Compilers are strongly advised to read this guidance before filling in the RIS.
2. Once completed, the RIS (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Ramsar Bureau. Compilers are strongly urged to provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the RIS and, where possible, digital copies of maps.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY.
DD MM YY












Designation date Site Reference Number
1. Name and address of the compiler of this form:

2. Date this sheet was completed/updated:


3. Country:


4. Name of the Ramsar site:


5. Map of site included:
Refer to Annex III of the Explanatory Note and Guidelines, for detailed guidance on provision of suitable maps.

a) hard copy (required for inclusion of site in the Ramsar List): yes  -or- no 

b) digital (electronic) format (optional): yes  -or- no 

6. Geographical coordinates (latitude/longitude):


7. General location:
Include in which part of the country and which large administrative region(s), and the location of the nearest large town.



8. Elevation: (average and/or max. & min.) 9. Area: (in hectares)


10. Overview:
Provide a short paragraph giving a summary description of the principal ecological characteristics and importance of the wetland.



11. Ramsar Criteria:
Circle or underline each Criterion applied to the designation of the Ramsar site. See Annex II of the Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for the Criteria and guidelines for their application (adopted by Resolution VII.11).

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8


12. Justification for the application of each Criterion listed in 11. above:
Provide justification for each Criterion in turn, clearly identifying to which Criterion the justification applies (see Annex II for guidance on acceptable forms of justification).



13. Biogeography (required when Criteria 1 and/or 3 and /or certain applications of Criterion 2 are applied to the designation):
Name the relevant biogeographic region that includes the Ramsar site, and identify the biogeographic regionalisation system that has been applied.

a) biogeographic region:


b) biogeographic regionalisation scheme (include reference citation):








14. Physical features of the site:
Describe, as appropriate, the geology, geomorphology; origins - natural or artificial; hydrology; soil type; water quality; water depth, water permanence; fluctuations in water level; tidal variations; downstream area; general climate, etc.


15. Physical features of the catchment area:
Describe the surface area, general geology and geomorphological features, general soil types, general land use, and climate (including climate type).


16. Hydrological values:
Describe the functions and values of the wetland in groundwater recharge, flood control, sediment trapping, shoreline stabilization, etc.


17. Wetland Types

a) presence:
Circle or underline the applicable codes for the wetland types of the Ramsar “Classification System for Wetland Type” present in the Ramsar site. Descriptions of each wetland type code are provided in Annex I of the Explanatory Notes & Guidelines.

Marine/coastal: A • B • C • D • E • F • G • H • I • J • K • Zk(a)

Inland: L • M • N • O • P • Q • R • Sp • Ss • Tp Ts • U • Va •
Vt • W • Xf • Xp • Y • Zg • Zk(b)

Human-made: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • Zk(c)

b) dominance:
List the wetland types identified in a) above in order of their dominance (by area) in the Ramsar site, starting with the wetland type with the largest area.



18. General ecological features:
Provide further description, as appropriate, of the main habitats, vegetation types, plant and animal communities present in the Ramsar site.


19. Noteworthy flora:
Provide additional information on particular species and why they are noteworthy (expanding as necessary on information provided in 12. Justification for the application of the Criteria) indicating, e.g., which species/communities are unique, rare, endangered or biogeographically important, etc. Do not include here taxonomic lists of species present – these may be supplied as supplementary information to the RIS.


20. Noteworthy fauna:
Provide additional information on particular species and why they are noteworthy (expanding as necessary on information provided in 12. Justification for the application of the Criteria) indicating, e.g., which species/communities are unique, rare, endangered or biogeographically important, etc., including count data. Do not include here taxonomic lists of species present – these may be supplied as supplementary information to the RIS.


21. Social and cultural values:
e.g., fisheries production, forestry, religious importance, archaeological sites, social relations with the wetland, etc. Distinguish between historical/archaeological/religious significance and current socio-economic values.


22. Land tenure/ownership:
(a) within the Ramsar site:

(b) in the surrounding area:



23. Current land (including water) use:
(a) within the Ramsar site:

(b) in the surroundings/catchment:


24. Factors (past, present or potential) adversely affecting the site’s ecological character, including changes in land (including water) use and development projects:
(a) within the Ramsar site:

(b) in the surrounding area:


25. Conservation measures taken:
List national category and legal status of protected areas, including boundary relationships with the Ramsar site; management practices; whether an officially approved management plan exists and whether it is being implemented.


26. Conservation measures proposed but not yet implemented:
e.g. management plan in preparation; official proposal as a legally protected area, etc.


27. Current scientific research and facilities:
e.g., details of current research projects, including biodiversity monitoring; existence of a field research station, etc.


28. Current conservation education:
e.g. visitors’ centre, observation hides and nature trails, information booklets, facilities for school visits, etc.


29. Current recreation and tourism:
State if the wetland is used for recreation/tourism; indicate type(s) and their frequency/intensity.


30. Jurisdiction:
Include territorial, e.g. state/region, and functional/sectoral, e.g. Dept of Agriculture/Dept. of Environment, etc.


31. Management authority:
Provide the name and address of the local office(s) of the agency(ies) or organisation(s) directly responsible for managing the wetland. Wherever possible provide also the title and/or name of the person or persons in this office with responsibility for the wetland.


32. Bibliographical references:
scientific/technical references only. If biogeographic regionalisation scheme applied (see 13 above), list full reference citation for the scheme.


Please return to: Ramsar Convention Bureau, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland, Telephone: +41 22 999 0170 • Fax: +41 22 999 0169 • e-mail: ramsar@ramsar.org

USFWS Supporting Information for Ramsar Site Nominations
1. Nominating authority, including name, address and other information on the administrative authority,
2. Geographical location including details such as latitude and longitude coordinates, and nearby features, settlements, and other identifying characteristics, detailed maps of both the site as well as the surrounding areas,
3. Site description section comprising both a physical and a biological description. The physical description includes details of geomorphology, hydrology and climate and the biological description includes a brief review of habitat types, with lists of both typical and noteworthy fauna and flora.
4. Criteria for inclusion specifying the criterion as listed by the Convention of Parties, which qualifies the site as a Wetland of International Importance.
5. Area, identifying the total area (in hectares) of the proposed site including information on terrestrial and aquatic components.
6. Management policy, noting management practices and traditional activities.
7. Changes in ecological character, giving a brief synopsis of the natural history of the area and land use change impacts to the ecological functions or character of the area.
8. Degree of protection, noting any state, local, national or international recognition or designation afforded to the site, indicating controlled or prohibited activities.
9. Scientific research and facilities, highlighting research underway or facilities provided (if any) for research interests.
10. Reference material, noting key publications, reports, or documents used to compile the information presented.

Catahoula Lake NWR RIS 1991
Criteria: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. The criteria codes listed here were completed and/or interpreted by the Ramsar Database team, from officially provided information.
Importance: Catahoula Lake is a unique example of a lower Mississippi wetland community. The endangered eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, occurs as a non-breeding visitor. It is the most important inland wetland for waterbirds and shorebirds in Louisiana. Peak counts have exceeded 400,000 in recent years. During the autumn migration, numbers begin to build up from late August, with large numbers of Anatidae present throughout the winter. The highest counts are usually made in the spring as birds return north to breed. Principal wintering species include Anas acuta (up to 200,000) and Aythya valisineria (up to 78,000, or about 25% of the national midwinter count). 19,000 shorebirds were present in September 1989.
Wetland Types: O, M, N, P, Ts, W, Xf, (listed in descending order of dominance)
The site is a large, shallow, poorly drained depression. It is subject to major seasonal fluctuations in water level, both in terms of depth and area extent of inundation. The lake is fed primarily by Little River, as well as numerous smaller watercourses, entering from the north. It is also subject to back-flooding from the Red, Black and Mississippi Rivers. Adjoining the lake are areas of seasonally flooded bottomlands.
Biological/Ecological notes: Few plants are ecologically adapted to the extreme variations in water level, although annual grasses and sedges flourish. The lakebed is characterized by a series of concentric vegetation zones, related to the lake bed contours. The lake's periphery is vegetated by woody species, primarily Planera aquatica and Forestiera acuminata, with irregular occurrences of Taxodium distichum. The next zone is characterized by Cyperus esculentus, with the next zone (decreasing in elevation) dominated Leptochloa filiformis and Eragrostis hypnoides. Dense stands of Echinochloa sp. occur around the frequently flooded parts of the basin, while permanently inundated areas support Sagittaria sp., Heteranthera limosa and Bacopa monnieri.
Hydrological/Physical notes: During the summer, the depth of water is only 30–50 cm, but major spring floods have been almost as deep as 8 m. The basin is drained by French Fork, Old River, and the artificial Catahoula Lake Diversion Canal.
Human Uses: Jurisdiction resides with the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. The entire lakebed is owned by the State of Louisiana. Management authority is vested with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and a full time Wildlife specialist is assigned to the lake. The site is used for environmental studies and wetland conservation. Commercial and sport fishing, and hunting also occur. Limited research facilities are available at the Catahoula National Wildlife Reserve (NWR) and the Saline Wildlife Management Area, both adjacent to the lake. The Catahoula NWR also houses an education centre. Various research projects are presently underway. These include waterbird and shorebird use of the lake, evaluation of the occurrence of lead and steel shot in the soils and duck gizzards from Catahoula Lake, and the impact of deep tillage on the availability of lead shot. The surrounding area is privately owned. Land use is mainly agriculture, animal grazing and logging.
Conservation Measures: The site includes the Catahoula NWR (2,148 ha), situated at the northeastern end of the lake. This area provides a sanctuary for waterbirds in addition to a 410 ha state refuge or rest area near the centre of the lake. A tri-party management plan has been developed between the US Army Corp. of Engineers, the US Fish & Wildlife Service and LDWF. It has been operational since the 1970s and is jointly administered by the LDWF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Catahoula NWR staff. Water level management is regulated under the management agreement. In the past, under natural conditions, the lake flooded in winter and spring, and dried out progressively during the summer. This pattern is now replicated through the manipulation of a series of artificial water control structures. From 1 July onwards, water levels of the lake are considerably reduced. This action exposes the lakebed and ensures development of the plant communities, which grew on the lakebed under natural conditions. In early autumn, the water level is raised to provide for optimum feeding conditions for staging and wintering waterbirds. Lead poisoning in waterbirds has had a major influence on management decisions at Catahoula Lake. Long term, historical hunting at the site has led to the accumulation of a very high density of lead pellets. Research in 1987 showed that the upper 20 cm of the lakebed contained in excess of 250,000 lead pellets per hectare, one of the highest densities known in the USA. Major waterbird lead poisoning incidents have been recorded since the 1950s, but recent research has been conducted to identify and implement optimum management techniques for limiting the availability of lead shot to Anatidae. Such techniques have included water level manipulation and deep tillage of the lakebed. The use of lead shot is also now illegal. Other management efforts have been aimed at reducing encroachment of woody plants onto the open areas of the lakebed, which have the potential to greatly reduce the value of the lake as an area for waterbirds. Both mechanical and environmentally acceptable chemicals have been used to reclaim portions of the lakebed from this invasion. In the Refuge, an information leaflet and species list is available.
Adverse Factors: The presence of lead shot in the lake may continue to effect waterbirds survival. Catahoula Lake overlies an important oil field, which has been commercially exploited for 40 years. Three relatively minor spills have occurred in recent years, but efforts are under way to introduce strict guidelines requiring oil companies to install state-of-the-art pollution control devices and to upgrade their spill contingency plans. Commercial groups continue to unsuccessfully submit development plans for the shoreline area.

Explanatory Note & Guidelines for Completing the Ramsar Information Sheet
Background and context
Recommendation 4.7 of the Conference of Contracting Parties established that the “data sheet developed for the description of Ramsar sites be used by Contracting Parties and the Bureau in presenting information for the Ramsar database, and as appropriate in other contexts”. The Recommendation listed the information categories covered by the “data sheet”, including the “reasons for inclusion” (the Ramsar Criteria) and the Ramsar “Classification system for wetland type”.

Resolution 5.3 reaffirmed that a completed “Ramsar datasheet” and site map should be provided upon designation of a Wetland of International Importance (hereafter referred to as a “Ramsar site”) for the List of Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar List). This was subsequently reiterated in Resolutions VI.13, VI.16, and VII.12. This datasheet, formally entitled the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands and abbreviated “RIS”, provides a standardized format for recording information and data about the Ramsar site.

Resolution 5.3 also stressed that information concerning criteria for inclusion (on the Ramsar List), the functions and values (hydrological, biophysical, floral, faunal, social and cultural) of the site, and conservation measures taken or planned were particularly important categories of information; and it emphasized the importance of applying the Ramsar Classification system for wetland type when describing the wetland in the RIS.

Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance were first adopted in 1974 and refined by subsequent meetings of the Conference of the Parties. The form of the present Criteria was established by Recommendation 4.2 (1990), with additional criteria based upon fish adopted by Resolution VI.2. The Criteria were again substantively revised and, together with detailed guidance for their application, adopted by Resolution VII.11 as part of the Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance. These Criteria and guidelines are included as Annex II of this Explanatory Note.

The Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) is completed and supplied to the Ramsar Bureau when a Ramsar site is designated by a Contracting Party. In recognition that the status of designated Ramsar sites can and does change, both in terms of their ecological character, the threats to this character, and the conservation management process and actions underway, Resolution VI.13 has urged Contracting Parties to revise the data provided in the RIS at least every six years.

The RISs and their accompanying maps are held by the Ramsar Bureau. The information provided by Contracting Parties in the RIS is used as the basis for entering data and information into the Ramsar Sites Database, managed on behalf of the Convention by Wetlands International under contract from the Ramsar Bureau. The Database is managed so as to provide an information service on Ramsar sites, including undertaking analysis and reporting to meetings of the Conference of the Parties on progress in implementing the Strategic Framework and Vision for the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Resolution VII.11) and other Resolutions of the Conferences of the Parties.

The information provided by Contracting Parties in the RIS, including any supplementary information provided, and held in the Ramsar Sites Database is also used by Wetlands International to compile the Ramsar Sites Directory for each meeting of the Conference of the Parties. This Directory provides a publicly-accessible standardised summary of the features and conservation status of each designated Ramsar site, and is now also available on Wetlands International’s Web site (http://www.wetlands.org).

General guidance
The RIS must be completed in one of the Convention’s three working languages, namely English, French, or Spanish. The RIS and this accompanying Explanatory Note and Guidelines are available in each of the three working languages.

The information provided in the RIS should be clear and succinct, and the total length of a completed RIS should not normally exceed 12 pages.

In the case of a wetland which has been well-studied and well-documented, or which is the subject of special field investigations, far more information may be available than can be accommodated in the RIS. Additional information, such as taxonomic lists of species’ status, management plans, copies of published papers or photocopied reports on the site, should be appended to the RIS and are treated as part of the official record of the site. Photographs (prints, transparencies or electronic images) of the wetland are also especially welcome. It is essential that the source providing any such additional information be noted.

Where the Ramsar site being designated is a very large and complex wetland system, or consists of a suite of separate sub-sites, two levels of approach may be advisable: a broad approach for the system as a whole, and a more detailed approach for each key locality or sub-site within the system. Thus for a particularly large wetland complex it may be appropriate to complete an overall RIS for the whole site and a series of separate RIS datasheets for each key area or sub-site within the complex.

Resolution VI.1 highlights the importance of clearly defining the ecological character of Ramsar sites as the basis for monitoring these wetlands in order to maintain their ecological character. Key features of the ecological character of the site which should be maintained should include those identified as the justification for designation under each Ramsar Criterion applied to the designation. Further guidance on defining and describing ecological character features is provided in the New Guidelines for management planning for Ramsar sites and other wetlands (Resolution VIII.14).

Where a management plan has been prepared for the site being designated, the information provided in the RIS should be consistent with the plan’s description of ecological character features, the values and functions of the wetland, the factors affecting or likely to affect its character, values and functions, and the management planning process, including monitoring.

When a management plan is prepared as part of the management planning process for the site after it has been designated as a Ramsar site, the information in the RIS should be checked and, if necessary, a revised RIS should be completed and sent to the Ramsar Bureau.

The annex to Resolution VI.1 notes that there is a need to increase the value of the information collected for describing and assessing the ecological character of listed sites, and that emphasis should be given to:

• establishing a baseline by describing the functions, products and attributes of the site that give it benefits and values of international importance (necessary because the existing Ramsar Criteria do not cover the full range of wetland benefits and values which should be considered when assessing the possible impact of changes at a site) -sections 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the RIS apply;

• providing information on human-induced factors that have affected or could significantly affect the benefits and values of international importance - section 24 of the RIS applies;

• providing information on monitoring and survey methods in place (or planned) at the site - sections 25 and 26 of the RIS apply; and

• providing information on the natural variability and amplitude of seasonal and/or long-term “natural” changes (e.g., vegetation succession, episodic/catastrophic ecological events such as hurricanes) that have affected or could affect the ecological character of the site - sections 16 and 24 of the RIS apply.


Guidance on the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS)

1. Name and address of the RIS compiler: The full name, institution/agency, and address of the person who compiled the RIS, together with any telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address.

2. Date: The date on which the RIS was completed (or updated). Please use the name of the month, not its numerical equivalent. For example use 6 March [year] or March 6 [year] rather than 6/3/year or 3/6/year so as to avoid confusion arising from commonly used but differing formats for expressing dates.

3. Country: The official (short) version of the Contracting Party/country name.

4. Name of the Ramsar site: The precise name of the designated site in one of the three official languages (English, French or Spanish) of the Convention. Alternative names, including in local language(s), should be given in brackets after the precise name. Ensure that the site name used is the same in this section and on the maps provided. This name will be used precisely as given when the site is added to the Ramsar List.

5. Map of the Ramsar Site: The most up-to-date available and suitable map of the wetland should be appended to the RIS (in hardcopy and, if possible, also in digital format). At least a hardcopy map is required for the inclusion of the site in the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Indicate whether or not a map accompanies the RIS by ticking the appropriate yes or no boxes. The map must clearly show the boundary of the designated Ramsar site. Annex III provides detailed guidance on the provision of suitable Ramsar site maps and other spatial data. A list of the maps supplied and any other relevant maps of the Ramsar site that are available should be included in a note annexed to the RIS.

6. Geographical coordinates: The geographical coordinates of the approximate centre of the site expressed in degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude (e.g. in the format: 0124’15”S 10416’01”E or 01030’00”N 08451’45”W). If relevant, specify the number of discrete units forming the site. If any disjunct units are situated at least 1.6 km* apart, the coordinates of the approximate centres of each of these units should be given separately (along with individual names or differentiating labels, e.g. “A, B, C”…, etc.). Any discrete units so identified in an RIS should also be clearly labelled on the site map(s). A single site occupying less than 1,000 hectares needs only one central set of coordinates. Location information on larger areas should be supplemented by providing the coordinates of the southwest and northeast corners of the Ramsar site. (See also sections 5. Map and 9. Area).

*This is approximately equivalent to one (1) minute of latitude or longitude (at the equator, in the case of longitude).

If the site is shaped in such a way that the approximate centre point cannot be easily specified, or if such a point falls outside the site or within a very narrow portion of the site, please explain this with a note, and provide the coordinates for the approximate centre point of the largest part of the site.

7. General Location: A description of the general location of the wetland. This should include the name of the large administrative region(s) (i.e., state, province, territory, canton, etc.) within which the site lies (e.g., Alberta, Canada; Punjab, Pakistan; Andalucía, Spain) and the site’s distance (as either a straight line distance or distance by road) and compass bearing from the nearest “provincial”, “district” or other significant administrative centre, town, or city. The human population of the listed centre and its administrative regions (if possible, including at least two levels of administration/ jurisdiction) should also be stated.

8. Elevation: The average and/or minimum and maximum elevation of the wetland in metres above mean sea level. Clearly label each elevation provided, with e.g. “average”, “maximum” or “minimum”).

9. Area: The total area of the designated site, in hectares. If the areas of discrete site units are known, please also list each of these together with the names (or labels) used to identify and differentiate these units (see also section 5. Map).

10. Overview: A brief paragraph about the wetland, providing a ‘word picture’ of the type of wetland and its importance, its main physical and ecological character features, its most important values and functions, and any particularly interesting features. Note also the most significant wetland types, especially if they are the most dominant as identified in 17 b).

11. Ramsar Criteria: Circle or underline the code for each Ramsar Criterion for identifying wetlands of international importance that is being applied to the designation of the site. Refer to Annex II of these guidelines for the Criteria and the detailed guidance provided for their application established by Resolution VII.11.

Note that many sites qualify for designation under more than one Criterion: be thorough and precise in selecting all of the Criteria that apply. The specific reasons justifying the application of each Criterion selected should be provided in section 12. Justification of Criteria selected under section 11.

12. Justification for the application of each Criterion listed in 11. above: For each Criterion selected under section 11. Ramsar criteria above, a specific individual explanation of how that Criterion applies to the site. This section of the RIS is central to the concept of “international importance”. The Criteria codes alone do not convey information on the specific way in which each Criterion applies to a particular site – therefore it is essential to provide sufficient precise description to explain and support each of the Ramsar Criteria codes selected. This text must not just restate the Criterion, but should provide the necessary details to describe the way in which a particular Criterion applies specifically at the site being designated. Refer to Annex II for the detailed guidance for the application of the Criteria (adopted by Resolution VII.11)

A number of points concerning the correct use of specific Criteria and the Guidelines for their application should be particularly taken into account when preparing the justification for the application of the Criteria selected for designation:

i) The guidelines for the application of Criteria 1 and 3 stress that these Criteria should be applied to a wetland in the context of the biogeographic region within which it occurs, but recognises that biogeographic regions can differ between wetland types. The biogeographical region context can also apply to certain reasons for the designation of threatened ecological communities under Criterion 2. The biogeographic region encompassing the Ramsar site and the biogeographic regionalisation scheme applied should be provided in section 13. Biogeography;

ii) Concerning Criterion 5 the guidelines indicate that the actual total number of waterbirds should be stated, and preferably, when available, the average total number from several recent years. It is not sufficient simply to restate the Criterion, i.e., that the site supports >20,000 waterbirds;

iii) For justification of designation under Criterion 6 it is particularly important to recognise that this Criterion must be applied to the regular occurrence of >1% of a biogeographic population of a species or subspecies of waterbird, and to recognise that in most cases the biogeographic range of waterbird populations is larger than the territory of one Contracting Party. For each population listed under Criterion 6 the name of the biogeographic population, as well as the number of birds of this population regularly occurring in the site, should be listed. Recommended 1% thresholds for the application of Criterion 6 are provided by Wetlands International’s publication Waterbird Population Estimates 3rd Edition (2002), which also provides a description of the biogeographic range of each population. Note that this Criterion should be applied only to those waterbird populations for which a 1% threshold is available. However, for populations of waterbird species in taxa not presently covered by Waterbird Population Estimates 3rd Edition, the guidelines indicate that this Criterion may be applied if a reliable population estimate and 1% threshold is available from another source, and that in such cases the information source must be clearly specified. It is not sufficient simply to restate the Criterion, that the site supports >1% of a population, nor is it a correct justification to list populations with numbers in the site >1% of their national population, except when the population is endemic to that country.

iv) For all or some applications of Criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the name(s) of the species concerned (scientific name and vernacular name in English, French or Spanish) should be provided in the justification.

v) The Guidelines for the application of Criterion 7 concerning fish and shellfish diversity indicate that a species list alone is not sufficient justification for the use of this Criterion, and that other features of high diversity, including life-history stages, species interactions, and level of endemism are required for the application of this Criterion.

13. Biogeography: The biogeographic region encompassing the Ramsar site and the biogeographic regionalisation scheme applied (with full reference citation) should be provided. Biogeographical specification is essential for the correct application of Criteria 1 and 3 and certain applications of Criterion 2 (see also sections 11. Ramsar Criteria and 12. Justification of Criteria). In this context the guidelines for the application of the Ramsar Criteria (see Annex II) define “bio(geographic) region” as “a scientifically rigorous determination of regions as established using biological and physical parameters such as climate, soil type, vegetation cover, etc.” Note that for non-island Contracting Parties, in many cases biogeographic regions will be transboundary in nature and will require collaboration between countries to establish the locations of representative, rare or unique examples of different wetland types. It is also recognised that the nature of biogeographic regionalization may differ between wetland types according to the nature of the parameters determining natural variation (see Annex II of this Explanatory Note and Guidelines).

There are a variety of different global and supranational/regional biogeographic schemes in use. No single scheme may be universally appropriate or acceptable and Contracting Parties are urged (in the annex to Resolution VII.11) to apply a regionalization scheme which they determine to be the most appropriate and scientifically rigorous approach available.

14. Physical features of the site: A succinct description of the principal physical characteristics of the site covering the following features (where relevant):

• Geology and geomorphology (general features);
• Soil type and chemistry range (Soil family name(s); indication of mineral vs. organic content; typical pH range of soil);
• Sediment characteristics;
• Origins (natural or artificial);
• Hydrology (including seasonal water balance, inflow, infiltration and outflow, salt-water intrusion). Further detail, notably the hydrological values and functions of the site should be included in section 15. Hydrological values;
• Water quality (typical physico-chemical characteristics);
• Depth, fluctuations and permanence of water;
• Tidal range and variations;
• Downstream area (especially in the case of wetlands that are important in flood control);
• Climate – include here only the most significant regular climatic features, e.g., annual rainfall and average temperature range, distinct seasons, typical flooding and drought periods, and any other normal climatic factors affecting the wetland. Recent major or extreme climate events, e.g. flood, drought, hurricane, cyclone or other storm, atypical period of extreme temperatures, etc, that have had an adverse impact on the site should be detailed under section 24. Factors adversely affecting the site’s ecological character).

15. Physical features of the catchment area: A succinct characterisation of the catchment area, covering:

• surface area;
• general geology and geomorphological features;
• general soil types
• general land use
• climate (including characterisation of climate type);

16. Hydrological values: A description of the principal hydrological values of the wetland, for example, the ecosystem services that they provide to people. This may include, but not necessarily be limited to, its role in flood control, groundwater replenishment, shoreline stabilization, sediment & nutrient retention and export, climate change modification, and water purification and maintenance of water quality. Hydrology of the site (as opposed to its hydrological values and functions) should be covered under section 14. Physical features.

17. Wetland Type: In this section first list, by circling or underlining, the full range of wetland types occurring within the site, and then list the wetland types selected in order of their dominance (by area) starting with the wetland type with the largest area. The Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Type (see Annex I of this Explanatory Note and Guidelines) provides the description of what types of wetland are covered by each of the wetland type codes. Note that the wetland types are grouped in three major categories: marine-coastal, inland, and human-made wetlands, and that wetland types under two or more of these categories may be present within a Ramsar site, particularly if it is large.

Since some Marine/Coastal wetland types (e.g. Estuarine waters (type F) or Intertidal Forested Wetlands (type I)) can occur far inland from the coastline, and conversely Inland Wetlands types can occur close to the coastline, please also indicate with additional text in this section the general geographical location of the site relative to the coastline, as either inland or marine/coastal.

When listing the areal dominance of the wetland types, if possible provide the area or percentage of the total area of the designated site composed of each wetland type, although it is recognised that this may be difficult for large sites with a wide variety of wetland types. If the site is composed of more than one discrete unit and different wetland types or different dominance of types occur in different site units, also list the wetland type dominance for each unit (see also the guidance on sections 5. Map, 6. Geographical coordinates, and 9. Area).

If the designated site includes areas of non-wetland habitat, for example where such parts of a catchment are included, it is helpful here to also list the area, or percentage of the total area, of the site formed of these habitats.

18. General ecological features: A description of the main habitats and vegetation types, listing the dominant plant communities and species, and describing any zonation, seasonal variations, and long-term changes. Include a brief note on the native natural plant communities in adjacent areas, as well as the present plant communities (including cultivation) if different from the native vegetation. Information on specific food chains should be included in this section.

19. Noteworthy flora: Additional/supplemental information on plant species or communities for which the wetland is particularly important or significant should be provided here. Do not duplicate information that has already been provided in support of the site’s international importance (in section 12. Justification of Criteria) or in section 18. General ecological features. Specify why each species or community listed is considered noteworthy (e.g., if it is an economically important species).

Endemic plant species, if they have not been considered towards the application of Criterion 3 at the site (e.g., if the number of endemic species was not considered “significant”, following the guidance for that Criterion) can be listed here.

Also list here plant species that have been introduced (accidentally or intentionally) and/or those that are invasive. (Description of the impacts by invasive and/or alien species on the site should be provided in section 24. Factors adversely affecting the site’s ecological character).

General species (occurrence) lists should not be included here or under other RIS sections, but such lists (properly labelled with site details) should be appended to the RIS when they are available.

20. Noteworthy fauna: Additional/supplemental information on animal species or communities for which the wetland is particularly important or significant should be provided here. Do not duplicate information that has already been provided in support of the site’s international importance (in section 12. Justification of Criteria) or in section 18. General ecological features. Specify why each species or community listed is considered noteworthy (e.g., if it is an economically important species, or a “keystone” species, or a species associated with high wetland biodiversity values, e.g., turtles, crocodiles, otters, dolphins).

Endemic animal species that have not been considered towards the application of relevant Criteria at the site (e.g., because either the number of endemic species was not considered “significant” (Criterion 3) or the percentage of endemic fish did not reach the threshold percentage for the application of Criterion 7) should be listed in this section. Noteworthy zoogeographical features (relict populations, unusual range extensions, etc.) should be noted here.

Also list here animal species that have been introduced (accidentally or intentionally) and/or those that are invasive. (Description of the impacts by invasive and/or alien species on the site should be provided in section 24. Factors adversely affecting the site’s ecological character).

General species (occurrence) lists should not be included here or under other RIS sections, but such lists (properly labelled with site details) should be appended to the RIS when they are available.

21. Social and cultural values: An account of the site’s principal social and economic values and functions and “wise use” features presented in Ramsar Handbooks 1 to 6 (e.g., tourism, outdoor recreation, education and scientific research, agricultural production, grazing, water supply, fisheries production) and cultural values and functions (e.g., archaeological sites, historical associations and/or religious significance including its significance to indigenous peoples). For more information see the Guiding principles for taking into account the cultural values of wetlands for the effective management of sites, annexed to Resolution VIII.19. Whenever possible, indicate which of these values are consistent with the maintenance of natural wetland processes and ecological character. Details about values derived from non-sustainable exploitation or which result in detrimental ecological changes should be described in section 24. Factors adversely affecting the site’s ecological character.

22. Land tenure/ownership: Details of ownership/tenure both of the Ramsar site and of the areas surrounding the site. If possible, express different tenure/ownership categories as the percentage of the site to which each applies (e.g., “50% state-owned”). Explain any complex tenure arrangements or formulas. Also explain terms which have a special meaning in the country or region concerned. In the next section (23. Current land use), describe the linkages between the different land tenures described in this section and specific land uses.

23. Current land (including water) use: All of the principal human activities in (a) the Ramsar site itself and (b) in the surroundings and catchment. Give information on the human population in the area, with a description of the principal human activities and main forms of land and water use at the wetland, e.g., water supply for domestic and industrial use, irrigation, agriculture, livestock grazing, forestry, fishing, aquaculture and hunting. Also mention here activities and uses related to research, education and recreation/tourism at the site, but provide the details about each of these in sections 27, 28 and 29, respectively). Some indication of the relative importance, scale and trend of each land and water use should be given whenever possible. Make note if activities or uses are restricted to certain distinct parts of the site (e.g., in only part of a large site or in distinct zones or within particular wetland types). In (b), summarize land and water use in the areas surrounding the site and in its greater catchment that may directly or indirectly affect the status of the designated wetland, and any land uses in downstream areas likely to be affected by the wetland. For further reference on water use, see the Guidelines for the allocation and management of water for maintaining the ecological functions of wetlands adopted by Resolution VIII.1.

24. Factors (past, present or potential) adversely affecting the site’s ecological character, including changes in land (including water) use and development projects: The human and natural factors affecting the ecological character of the site, from both within and around the site (including the greater catchment, if relevant). These may include new or changing activities/uses, major development projects, etc., which have had, are having, or may have a detrimental effect on the natural ecological character of the wetland. For all adverse and change factors reported, supply measurable/quantifiable information (when such data exist), as well as information on the scale, extent and trend of the change factor and its impact: this information should provide a basis for monitoring of ecological character of the site.

It is important to specify both the agent for the change (e.g., diversion of water, drainage, reclamation, pollution, over-grazing, excessive human disturbance, or excessive hunting and fishing, etc.) and the resulting change and its impact (e.g., siltation, erosion, fish mortality, change in vegetation structure, habitat fragmentation, disturbed reproduction of species, physical or ecological change due to climate change, etc.). It is also important to differentiate between factors coming from within the site itself and those factors emanating from outside the site, but which are having or may have an impact on the site. One should also distinguish between potential and existing adverse factors.

When reporting on pollution, special notice should be taken of toxic chemical pollutants and their sources. These should include industrial and agricultural-based chemical effluents and other emissions.

Natural events, including episodic catastrophes (e.g., an earthquake or volcanic eruption) or natural vegetative succession which have had, are having, or are likely to have an impact on the ecological character of the site should be detailed, in order to facilitate monitoring.

Provide information on the history of introductions (accidental or deliberate) of invasive and/or alien species identified in sections 19. Noteworthy flora and 20. Noteworthy fauna and the impacts of any invasions.

25. Conservation measures taken: Details of any nationally relevant protected area status, international conservation designations (in addition to Ramsar site status), and, in the case of transboundary wetlands, bilateral or multilateral conservation measures which pertain to all or part of the site. If a reserve has been established, give the date of establishment and size of the protected area. If only a part of the wetland is included within a protected area, the area of wetland habitat that is protected should be noted. Also describe any other conservation measures taken at the site, such as restrictions on development, management practices beneficial to wildlife, closures of hunting, etc.

Describe here the management planning process, including any management plan, for the site, if this has been developed and is being implemented, including whether it has been officially approved. Cite the management plan document(s) in section 32. Bibliographic references, and whenever possible provide a copy of the management plan as supplementary information to the RIS.

Include information here on any monitoring schemes and survey methods in place at the site. Describe any application at the site of the Ramsar Guidelines for the implementation of the wise use concept (Recommendation 4.10), Additional guidance for the implementation of the wise use concept (Resolution 5.6), or any other instance of the application of other more recently advanced wise use guidelines (“wise use” is a central concept of the Ramsar Convention).

When updating the RIS for an existing Ramsar site, mention if the site is included on, or has been removed from, the Montreux Record and provide details of any Ramsar Advisory Missions that have been undertaken to the site.

Any application of integrated basin-scale/catchment management planning, or integrated coastal/marine zone management planning, involving or affecting the site should be noted. Provide a brief assessment of the effectiveness of protected area legislation or status of any protected areas whenever possible. Involvement of local communities and indigenous people in the participatory management of the site should also be described, in the context of the Ramsar guidelines on this process (Resolution VII.8).

26. Conservation measures proposed but not yet implemented: Details of any conservation measures that have been proposed, or are in preparation, for the site, including any proposals for legislation, protection and management

Summarize the history of any long-standing proposals which have not yet been implemented, and differentiate between those proposals which have already been officially submitted to the appropriate government authorities and those which have not as yet received formal endorsement, e.g., recommendations in published reports and resolutions from specialist meetings. Also mention any management plan which is in preparation but has not yet been completed, approved or implemented.

27. Current scientific research and facilities: Describe here any current scientific research programmes, including monitoring, and projects taking place in the site, and provide information on any special facilities for research that were mentioned in section 23. Current land (including water) use.

28. Current conservation education activities related to communications, education and public awareness (CEPA) related to or benefiting the site: Describe here any existing programmes, activities and facilities for communications, education and public awareness (CEPA), including training, that were mentioned in section 23. Current land (including water) use. Also provide comment on the educational potential of the wetland. For further information on CEPA issues and the Convention on Wetlands, see the Ramsar Web site at http://ramsar.org/outreach_index.htm.

29. Current recreation and tourism: Provide details of any present use of the wetland for recreation and tourism that was mentioned in section 23. Current land (including water) use. Provide details of existing or planned visitor facilities or centres for recreation and tourism, and indicate the annual number of tourists visiting the site, if known. Also indicate the type of tourism and whether the tourism is seasonal.

30. Jurisdiction: Provide the full name and address of the government authority with a) territorial jurisdiction over the wetland, e.g., the state, region or municipality; and b) the name of the authority with functional jurisdiction for conservation purposes, e.g., the Department of Environment or Department of Fisheries, etc.

31. Management authority: Provide the name and address of the local office(s) of the agency(ies) or organization(s) directly responsible for managing the wetland. Wherever possible provide also the title and/or name of the person or persons in this office with responsibility for the wetland. Also provide details of any special or unique arrangements that pertain to the site’s management.

32. Bibliographical References: A list of key technical references relevant to the wetland, including management plans, major scientific reports, and bibliographies. Please list any functional/active Web site addresses dedicated to the Ramsar site or which prominently feature the site (e.g., a Web site detailing all of a country’s Ramsar sites), and include the date that the Web site was most recently updated. When a large body of published material is available about the site, only the most important references need be cited, with priority being given to recent literature containing extensive bibliographies. Reprints or copies of the most important literature, including a copy of any management plan, should be appended whenever possible.

Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Types
The codes are based upon the Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Type as approved by Recommendation 4.7 and amended by Resolutions VI.5 and VII.11 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The categories listed herein are intended to provide only a very broad framework to aid rapid identification of the main wetland habitats represented at each site.
Marine/Coastal Wetlands
A -- Permanent shallow marine waters in most cases less than six metres deep at low tide; includes sea bays and straits.
B -- Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds, tropical marine meadows.
C -- Coral reefs.
D -- Rocky marine shores; includes rocky offshore islands, sea cliffs.
E -- Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune systems and humid dune slacks.
F -- Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas.
G -- Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats.
H -- Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised salt marshes; includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes.
I -- Intertidal forested wetlands; includes mangrove swamps, nipah swamps and tidal freshwater swamp forests.
J -- Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow connection to the sea.
K -- Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons.
Zk(a) – Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems, marine/coastal
Inland Wetlands
L -- Permanent inland deltas.
M -- Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls.
N -- Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers/streams/creeks.
O -- Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes large oxbow lakes.
P -- Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes.
Q -- Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes.
R -- Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes and flats.
Sp -- Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools.
Ss -- Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools.
Tp -- Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season.
Ts -- Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soils; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes.
U -- Non-forested peatlands; includes shrub or open bogs, swamps, fens.
Va -- Alpine wetlands; includes alpine meadows, temporary waters from snowmelt.
Vt -- Tundra wetlands; includes tundra pools, temporary waters from snowmelt.
W -- Shrub-dominated wetlands; shrub swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater marshes, shrub carr, alder thicket on inorganic soils.
Xf -- Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands; includes freshwater swamp forests, seasonally flooded forests, wooded swamps on inorganic soils.
Xp -- Forested peatlands; peatswamp forests.
Y -- Freshwater springs; oases.
Zg -- Geothermal wetlands
Zk(b) – Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems, inland
Note: “floodplain” is a broad term used to refer to one or more wetland types, which may include examples from the R, Ss, Ts, W, Xf, Xp, or other wetland types. Some examples of floodplain wetlands are seasonally inundated grassland (including natural wet meadows), shrublands, woodlands and forests. Floodplain wetlands are not listed as a specific wetland type herein.
Human-made wetlands
1 -- Aquaculture (e.g., fish/shrimp) ponds
2 -- Ponds; includes farm ponds, stock ponds, small tanks; (generally below 8 ha).
3 -- Irrigated land; includes irrigation channels and rice fields.
4 -- Seasonally flooded agricultural land (including intensively managed or grazed wet meadow or pasture).
5 -- Salt exploitation sites; salt pans, salines, etc.
6 -- Water storage areas; reservoirs/barrages/dams/impoundments (generally over 8 ha).
7 -- Excavations; gravel/brick/clay pits; borrow pits, mining pools.
8 -- Wastewater treatment areas; sewage farms, settling ponds, oxidation basins, etc.
9 -- Canals and drainage channels, ditches.
Zk(c) – Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems, human-made


Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance
Adopted by the 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (1999), superseding earlier Criteria adopted by the 4th and 6th Meetings of the COP (1990 and 1996), to guide implementation of Article 2.1 on designation of Ramsar sites.
Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.
Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.
Criterion 3: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.
Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.
Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds.
Criterion 6: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.
Criterion 7: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life-history stages, species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity.
Criterion 8: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an important source of food for fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend.




Glossary
ANADROMOUS-FISH THAT MIGRATE FROM SALTWATER TO FRESH WATER TO SPAWN
ANAEROBIC: LIVING IN THE ABSENCE OF OXYGEN
AQUATIC: LIVES IN OR ON WATER
AQUIFER - AN UNDERGROUND LAYER OF ROCK AND SAND THAT CONTAINS WATER
BARRIER ISLAND - LONG, NARROW STRIPS OF SAND FORMING ISLANDS THAT PROTECT INLAND AREAS FROM OCEAN WAVES AND STORMS
BENTHIC: BEING IN OR ON SUBSTRATE, USUALLY REFERS TO BOTTOM-DWELLING ORGANISMS
BIODIVERSITY: THE SUM OF ALL SPECIES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS. AN ECOSYSTEM IS CONSIDERED HEALTHY WHEN IT SUPPORTS THE MOST DIVERSE NUMBERS AND TYPES OF SPECIES IT IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING.
BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLE: THE TRANSPORT AND TRANSFORMATION OF CHEMICALS IN AN ECOSYSTEM
BOG: NUTRIENT-POOR, PRECIPITATION-FED, ACIDIC WETLAND FORMED OVER AN ACCUMULATION OF PEAT WITH NO INFLOW OR OUTFLOW AND CHARACTERIZED BY A DISTINCTIVE PLANT COMMUNITY OF PEAT MOSSES, SHRUBS, SEDGES, ORCHIDS, PITCHER PLANTS, SUNDEWS AND CONIFEROUS TREES.
BOTTOM LAND HARDWOOD FORESTS-FORESTED, PERIODICALLY FLOODED WETLANDS FOUND ALONG RIVERS
BOTTOMLAND: LOWLANDS ALONG STREAMS AND RIVERS, USUALLY ON FLOODPLAINS
BRACKISH-MARSHES OCCURRING WHERE SALINITY RANGES FROM 3-15 PARTS PER THOUSAND (PPT); DOMINATED BY SPARTINA PATENS (WIREGRASS)
BUFFER ZONE: LAND ADJACENT TO A SENSITIVE AREA THAT MINIMIZES OUTSIDE IMPACT
CHENIER- RIDGE FORMED BY THE LATERAL TRANSPORT AND REWORKING OF DELTAIC SEDIMENTS, USUALLY CONTAINING LARGE AMOUNTS OF SHELL DEPOSITS; NAMED FOR THE OAK TREES (CHENE -FRENCH FOR OAK) FOUND GROWING ON THE RIDGES
CONSERVATION-CAREFUL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF SOMETHING; ESPECIALLY : PLANNED MANAGEMENT OF A NATURAL RESOURCE TO PREVENT EXPLOITATION, DESTRUCTION, OR NEGLECT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT: A LEGAL DEVICE THAT ALLOWS OWNERS TO DIVIDE THE SET OF RIGHTS THAT THEIR OWNERSHIP ENTAILS
CONSTRUCTED, WETLAND: WETLAND SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO TREAT BOTH POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
CREATION, WETLAND: CONVERSION OF AN UPLAND AREA INTO A WETLAND WHERE A WETLAND NEVER EXISTED
DECOMPOSITION: THE BREAKDOWN OF ORGANIC OR CHEMICAL MATTER BY MICROBES
DELINEATION, WETLAND: DETERMINATION OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WETLAND AND UPLAND
DELTA - AN AREA FORMED FROM THE DEPOSITION OF SEDIMENTS AT THE MOUTH OF A RIVER
DETRITIVORE - ANY ORGANISM THAT CONSUMES DETRITUS
DETRITUS - DEAD, DECAYING PLANT MATERIAL
DETRITUS: DEAD AND DECOMPOSING PLANT AND ANIMAL MATERIAL
DREDGING - THE REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT FROM A CHANNEL TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT DEPTHS FOR NAVIGATION
DREDGING: PROCESS OF EXCAVATING MATERIALS FROM WATERS
DROP ROOTS: ROOTS THAT ORIGINATE FROM THE BRANCHES OF TREES AND ROOT IN THE SURFACE SEDIMENTS, FOUND IN MANGROVE TREES
DUNE - A LOW HILL OF DRIFTED SAND IN COASTAL AREAS THAT CAN BE BARE OR COVERED WITH VEGETATION
ECOSYSTEM: A COMMUNITY OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS INTERACTING WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH THEIR PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
EMERGENT: OBJECTS OR ORGANISMS THAT ARE PARTLY IN WATER AND PARTLY EXPOSED, SUCH AS PLANTS THAT ARE ROOTED IN WATER BUT WHOSE UPPER PARTS ARE AERIAL OR FLOATING. EMERGENT WETLAND VEGETATION INCLUDES ERECT, ROOTED, HERBACEOUS VEGETATION, SUCH AS SEDGES, RUSHES, AND GRASSES
ENDANGERED: ANY SPECIES THAT IS IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION THROUGHOUT ALL OR A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS RANGE
ENHANCEMENT, WETLAND: IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING WETLANDS TO BENEFIT A PARTICULAR FUNCTION OR VALUE, POSSIBLY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER WETLAND VALUES
ESTUARINE WETLANDS: TIDAL MARSHES THAT ARE SEMI-ENCLOSED BY LAND AND HAVE CHANGING SALINITY LEVELS DUE TO THE ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT
ESTUARY - AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE TERRESTRIAL, FRESHWATER, AND SEAWATER (SALINE) HABITATS OVERLAP: AN AREA WHERE FRESH WATER AND MARINE WATER MIX
FACULTATIVE: A PLANT SPECIES THAT HAS AN EQUAL POSSIBILITY OF OCCURRING IN WETLANDS AND UPLANDS; ONE OF FIVE CATEGORIES USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER VEGETATION IS HYDROPHYTIC
FEN: PEAT-ACCUMULATING, GROUNDWATER-FED WETLAND THAT RECEIVES WATER FROM MINERAL SOILS, USUALLY VEGETATED WITH MOSSES AND SEDGES.
FLOOD DURATION: THE AMOUNT OF TIME A WETLAND IS UNDER STANDING WATER
FLOOD FREQUENCY: THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES A WETLAND IS FLOODED DURING A PARTICULAR PERIOD
FLOODPLAIN: THE FLAT AREA OF LAND ADJACENT TO A STREAM; STORES AND DISSIPATES FLOODWATERS
FOOD CHAIN - TRANSFER OF FOOD ENERGY FROM PLANTS TO ONE OR MORE ANIMALS; A SERIES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS LINKED BY THEIR FOOD RELATIONSHIPS
FOOD WEB - A SERIES OF LINKED FOOD CHAINS
FRESHWATER MARSH - GRASSY WETLANDS THAT OCCUR ALONG RIVERS AND LAKES; DOMINATED BY GRASSES, REEDS, RUSHES, AND SEDGES
FRINGE WETLAND: WETLAND THAT FRINGES AN OCEAN OR LAKE AND IS AFFECTED BY TIDAL ACTION
FUNCTION, WETLAND: ANY BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL OR ECOLOGICAL PROCESS THAT A WETLAND PERFORMS, SUCH AS NUTRIENT REMOVAL, WILDLIFE HABITAT SUPPORT AND SEDIMENT TRAPPING
GLOBAL WARMING - AN INCREASE OF THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY A FEW DEGREES RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE VOLUME OF WATER WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO SEA-LEVEL RISE
GROUNDWATER: WATER BENEATH THE EARTH’S SURFACE
HABITAT: WHEN AN AREA BETWEEN TWO DISTINCT ECOSYSTEMS HAS THE GREATEST BIODIVERSITY: THE AREA OR ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH AN ORGANISM LIVES
HERBACEOUS: SOFT-STEMMED PLANT, NOT WOODY
HYDRIC SOIL: SOIL THAT FORMED UNDER SATURATED, FLOODED OR PONDED CONDITIONS LONG ENOUGH DURING THE GROWING SEASON TO DEVELOP ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER PART
HYDROLOGIC REGIME: HOW WATER MOVES IN AND OUT OF THE WETLAND SYSTEM
HYDROLOGIST: A SCIENTIST WHO STUDIES THE PROPERTIES, DISTRIBUTION AND EFFECTS OF WATER ON THE EARTH
HYDROLOGY: THE STUDY OF THE PROPERTIES, DISTRIBUTION AND EFFECTS OF WATER ON THE EARTH’S SURFACE, IN SOILS AND UNDERLYING ROCKS, AND IN THE ATMOSPHERE
HYDROPERIOD: THE SEASONAL LEVEL OF WATER IN A WETLAND, INCLUDES THE FREQUENCY, TIMING, DURATION AND AMOUNT OF FLOODING
HYDROPHYTE: PLANTS THAT GROW IN WATER OR IN SOIL TOO WATERLOGGED FOR MOST PLANTS TO SURVIVE
HYPOXIA: A CONDITION OF DECREASED OXYGEN LEVELS IN SOIL DUE TO FLOODING
INTERMEDIATE MARSH - A MARSH OCCURRING WHERE THE SALINITY IS ABOUT 3 PARTS PER THOUSAND (PPT) - A TRANSITIONAL AREA BETWEEN FRESH AND BRACKISH MARSHES; COMMON PLANTS ARE BULL TONGUE, ROSEAU CANE, AND WIREGRASS
INVASIVE SPECIES: SPECIES THAT TEND TO SPREAD:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND: WETLAND REGULATED UNDER SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT, WHICH MEET THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEFINITION (MUST EXHIBIT ALL THREE CHARACTERISTICS – HYDROLOGY, HYDROPHYTES AND HYDRIC SOILS)
LACUSTRINE WETLAND: OCCUR ON THE EDGES OF LAKES WHERE THE WATER DEPTH IS LESS THAN 2 METERS (6.6 FEET)
MARINE WETLAND: ASSOCIATED WITH THE HIGH ENERGY COASTLINE
MARSH - AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC HABITATS OVERLAP; A WETLAND DOMINATED BY GRASSES; WETLAND CHARACTERIZED BY FREQUENT OR CONTINUAL FLOODING AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION SUCH AS CATTAILS AND RUSHES
MITIGATION BANK: A WETLAND AREA THAT HAS BEEN RESTORED, CREATED, ENHANCED OR PRESERVED AND SET ASIDE TO COMPENSATE FOR FUTURE CONVERSIONS OF WETLANDS INTO NON-WETLAND AREAS
MITIGATION: THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENT THAT IF AN EXISTING WETLAND MUST BE DESTROYED, IT BE REPLACED BY EITHER RESTORING OR CREATING A WETLAND OF SIMILAR SIZE (OFTEN LARGER) EITHER IN THE SAME WATERSHED OR ADJACENT TO IT
MUDFLAT - A MUDDY, LOW-LYING STRIP OF GROUND USUALLY SUBMERGED, MORE OR LESS COMPLETELY, BY THE RISE OF THE TIDE; FOUND IN ASSOCIATION WITH BARRIER ISLANDS AND CHENIERS ALONG THE GULF COAST
NATIVE: ORIGINALLY LIVING, GROWING OR PRODUCED IN A CERTAIN PLACE; INDIGENOUS
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION - INDIRECT OR SCATTERED SOURCES OF POLLUTION THAT ENTERS A WATER SYSTEM SUCH AS DRAINAGE OR RUNOFF FROM AGRICULTURAL FIELDS, AIRBORNE POLLUTION FROM CROPDUSTING, RUNOFF FROM URBAN AREAS (CONSTRUCTION SITES, ETC.)
OBLIGATE: PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCUR IN WETLANDS 99 PERCENT OF THE TIME; ONE OF FIVE INDICATOR CATEGORIES USED TO DETERMINE IF VEGETATION AT A SITE IS HYDROPHITIC
ORGANIC MATTER: PLANT AND ANIMAL RESIDUE IN THE SOIL IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION
PALUSTRINE WETLAND: FRESHWATER, SHALLOW WETLANDS THAT ARE NOT RIVERINE OR LACUSTRINE, SUCH AS MARSHES OR BOGS
PEAT: A DEPOSIT OF PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED OR UNDECOMPOSED PLANT MATERIAL; ACCUMULATES IN PLACES THAT ARE SUFFICIENTLY WET ENOUGH TO SLOW DECOMPOSITION
PEATLANDS: GENERIC TERM FOR ALL TYPES OF PEAT-ACCUMULATING WETLANDS SUCH AS BOGS AND FENS
PERCHED: WETLAND SYSTEMS IN WHICH SOILS DO NOT ALLOW WATER TO PASS THROUGH THEM
PERMIT: A DOCUMENT OR CERTIFICATE GIVING PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING
PERSISTENT EMERGENT: EMERGENT VEGETATION THAT REMAINS PAST THE GROWING SEASON
PLAYA: SHALLOW DEPRESSION SIMILAR TO A PRAIRIE POTHOLE FOUND IN THE SOUTHWEST; BECOMES WET AFTER A RAIN AND IS ALTERNATELY WET AND DRY
POCOSIN: TYPE OF BOG FOUND IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
POINT SOURCE POLLUTION - POLLUTION ORIGINATING FROM A SINGLE POINT SUCH AS PIPES, DITCHES, WELLS, VESSELS, AND CONTAINERS
PPT - PARTS PER THOUSAND - A UNIT USED TO INDICATE SALINITY
PRAIRIE POTHOLE: SHALLOW, MARSH-LIKE POND FOUND IN THE DAKOTAS AND NEBRASKA
PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY: THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC PLANT MATERIAL
PROP ROOTS: ROOTS THAT EXTEND DOWN FROM BRANCHES OF TREES INTO THE GROUND, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, FOUND IN MANGROVES
RECHARGE: OCCURS WHEN WATER FLOWS OR SEEPS FROM THE WETLAND INTO THE SURROUNDING GROUNDWATER
RESTORATION, WETLAND: ACTIVITIES THAT SEEK TO RETURN A DEGRADED WETLAND OR A HYDRIC SOIL AREA TO A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING NATURAL WETLAND CONDITION
RIPARIAN: TYPICALLY OCCURRING OR GROWING ALONG THE BANKS OF RIVERS AND STREAMS
RIVERINE: A FRESHWATER SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH A RIVER; RIVERINE WETLANDS ARE THOSE THAT OCCUR WITHIN THE RIVER CHANNEL AND ARE DOMINATED BY EMERGENT VEGETATION THAT REMAINS ONLY THROUGH THE GROWING SEASON
SALTWATER INTRUSION - THE INVASION OF FRESHWATER BODIES BY DENSER SALT WATER
SALTWATER MARSH - SALTWATER (15-18 PARTS PER THOUSAND OR GREATER) WETLANDS OCCURRING ALONG THE COAST; DOMINATED BY SALTWATER GRASSES SUCH AS SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA (OYSTER GRASS)
SATURATION: CONDITION IN WHICH ALL AVAILABLE SPACES ARE FILLED WITH WATER
SEA-LEVEL RISE - A RISE IN THE SURFACE OF THE SEA DUE TO INCREASED WATER VOLUME OF THE OCEAN AND/OR SINKING OF THE LAND
SILVICULTURE: THE SCIENCE, ART AND PRACTICE OF CARING FOR FORESTS WITH RESPECT TO HUMAN OBJECTIVES
SPOIL - THE MATERIAL REMOVED FROM CHANNELS AND CANALS BY DREDGING
STANDING WATER: WATER COLLECTED ON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND
STEWARDSHIP: BEHAVIOR THAT EXHIBITS A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT AND SENSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBSIDENCE - A GRADUAL SINKING OF LAND WITH RESPECT TO ITS PREVIOUS LEVEL
SUSTAINABILITY: GOAL OF A SYSTEM OF DEVELOPMENT THAT MEETS THE BASIC NEEDS OF ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE ABILITY OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO MEET THEIR OWN LIFE-SUSTAINING NEEDS
SWAMP - FORESTED LOW, SPONGY LAND GENERALLY SATURATED WITH WATER AND COVERED WITH TREES AND AQUATIC VEGETATION; MAY BE A DEEPWATER SWAMP, SUCH AS THE CYPRESS TUPELO, WHICH HAS STANDING WATER ALL OR PART OF THE GROWING SEASON OR BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FORESTS WHICH ARE ONLY FLOODED PERIODICALLY; WETLAND CHARACTERIZED BY PERIODIC SOIL SATURATION AND DOMINATED BY TREES OR SHRUBS
TERRESTRIAL: LIVING ON LAND OR IN THE AIR, AS OPPOSED TO AQUATIC (IN WATER)
THREATENED: ANY SPECIES LIKELY TO BECOME ENDANGERED WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE THROUGHOUT ALL OR A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS RANGE
TIDAL MARSH: SALT, BRACKISH OR FRESHWATER MARSH DOMINATED BY HERBACEOUS VEGETATION AND SUBJECT TO TIDAL FLOWS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - A LINE AND SYMBOL REPRESENTATION OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY CREATED FEATURES IN AN AREA
VALUE, WETLAND: BENEFITS THAT SPECIFIC WETLAND FUNCTIONS PROVIDE TO HUMANS, SUCH AS TIMBER HARVEST FLOOD CONTROL AND SITES FOR RECREATION
VERNAL POOL: SHALLOW, INTERMITTENTLY FLOODED WET MEADOW OR FOREST, USUALLY COVERED BY WATER DURING THE COOL SEASON BUT DRY FOR MOST OF THE SUMMER
WATER TABLE: THE DEPTH OR LEVEL BELOW WHICH THE GROUND IS SATURATED WITH WATER
WATERSHED - AN AREA DRAINED BY A RIVER
WATERSHED: AN AREA OF LAND THAT DRAINS TO A PARTICULAR BODY OF WATER
WET MEADOW: WETLAND CHARACTERIZED BY WATERLOGGED SOIL AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION, GENERALLY WITHOUT STANDING WATER
WET PRAIRIE: HERBACEOUS WETLAND DOMINATED BY GRASSES, SEDGES AND FORBS, AND WITH WATERLOGGED SOIL NEAR THE SURFACE MOST OF THE YEAR
WETLANDS - LAND AREAS THAT ARE WET DUE TO A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO A BODY OF WATER OR GROUNDWATER, OR LAND AREAS THAT ARE FLOODED REGULARLY; THEY SUPPORT VEGETATION ADAPTED FOR LIFE IN SATURATED SOIL CONDITIONS
ZONATION: DISTINCT BANDS OF VEGETATION; COMMON IN WETLANDS BECAUSE DIFFERENT AREAS ARE DOMINATED BY DIFFERENT SPECIES

Endnotes
Silviculture is the science, art and practice of caring for forests with respect to human objectives.
From this conference came the historic “Stockholm Declaration” on the human environment that focused on Earth’s finite and threatened resources. The opening of the declaration states: “Man is both creature and molder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social, and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet, a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights, the right to life itself.”
The ecological character of a wetland is “the sum of the individual biological, physical, and chemical components of the wetland ecosystem, and their interactions, which maintain the wetland and its products, functions, and attributes” (Resolution VII.10).
Sustainable utilization is defined as human use of a wetland so that it may yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.
Natural properties of the ecosystem are defined as those physical, biological or chemical components, such as soil, water, plants, animals and nutrients, and the interactions between them.
1 hectare = 2.47 acres
Fish that migrate from saltwater to fresh water to spawn
The World Resources Institute defines biological diversity as the variety of the world's organisms, including their genetic diversity and the assemblages they form. The term is substituted for the concept of natural biological wealth supporting human life and all creatures of the earth’s well-being. The breadth of the concept reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems---see http://biodiv.wri.org/topic_keyissues_text.cfm?cid=1289
1 meter = 3.3 feet