Cluster Site Designation of the Southwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex as Wetlands of International Importance under the Criteria of The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat-Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971).
Abstract
The Ramsar Convention of 1971 is an international treaty seeking to protect, conserve and assist in the planning and management as well as wise use of the world's wetlands. Designation of Louisiana’s diverse wetland areas, specifically a cluster of National Wildlife Refuges in Southwestern Louisiana ensures a complete approach to conservation management principles that seek to protect our valuable 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 of 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.
Introduction
Literature Review
Wetlands
World View
Wetlands occupy about 6 percent of the land surface of the world, 2.2 billion acres. The United States contains about 274 million acres or 12 percent of the world's total wetlands.[1] Louisiana is 36% wetlands totaling 48% of the United States’ coastal wetlands.[2]
As the previous statistics relate, wetland research can be an immense undertaking. Even grasping the concept of global classification of landscapes is an intimidating undertaking. Michael Bowman surmised that the concept of wetlands is often difficult to comprehend, much less define. He said, “This (wetlands) is 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 cites the French language as an example, stating, “Certainly the rendering in the French language text - ‘zones humides’[3] - conjures up a rather different image from its English counterpart.”[4] Neither ambiguity nor ignorance alleviated the need to understand, recognize and ultimately manage these biologically rich landmasses of earth, familiarly categorized as wetlands.
The Ramsar Convention, 1971, established an internationally agreed upon standard for addressing wetlands. The overall goal was to establish a conservation regime for all those biologically diverse aquatic and near aquatic areas established upon earth. As such, the Convention adopted a definition broad enough to embrace virtually every wet area, near wet or infrequently wet parcel of land, “without particular regard to scientific nicety”.[5]
Article 1(1) of the Ramsar Convention reads:
“For the purpose of this Convention wetlands are 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.”[6]
Author, P.J. Dugan, suggests in a Wetland Conservation: a Review of Current Issues and Required Action that over fifty different definitions of wetlands currently in use.[7] He cites the International Wildlife Law journal as having the broadest definition.
“Encompassing habitats as diverse as mangrove swamps, peat bogs, water meadows, coastal beaches, coastal waters, tidal flats, mountain lakes and tropical river systems”.[8]
Another example of international definition is the Canadian Government definition of wetlands as:
“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.”[9]
The definition expands in Article 2(1) of Ramsar, which provides in part:
‘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 metres at low tide lying within the wetlands, especially where these have importance as waterfowl habitat.”[10]
The scope and multitude of wetland definitions was noted by Director General of International Union of Concerned Nations (IUCN), delivering the keynote address at the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Montreux, Switzerland.[i] He joked that the many and broad definitions of wetlands, “suggests to me 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.”[11],[12]
U.S.
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.[13] That early definition read,
“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.”[14]
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 in commonly referred to as Circular 39.[15] The USFWS uses this definition for classification purpose, notably for differentiation among various wetland types for wildlife habitat categorization.
“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.”[16]
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.[17] The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bases their concept of wetlands on Cowardin. 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.”[18]
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE or Corps) uses the following regulatory definition of wetlands for developing a field method for determining the jurisdictional boundaries for regulatory purposes.[19]
The Corps definition states:
“The term wetlands means 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.”[20]
The Corps’ regulatory management policy utilizes a three-parameter test incorporated into their definition. Under this definition an area is considered a wetland only if all three conditions are present. The Corps determines wetlands to have one or more of the following three attributes:
1. “at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes
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.”[21]
The USFWS definition includes:
1. swamps
2. freshwater
3. brackish water
4. saltwater marshes
5. bogs
6. vernal pools
7. periodically inundated saltflats
8. intertidal mudflats
9. wet meadows
10. wet pastures
11. springs and seeps
12. portions of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams
13. all other areas which are periodically or permanently covered by shallow water, or dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature.
The USFWS categorizes wetlands into two basic groups:
· Coastal Wetlands
· “Coastal Wetlands are found along the oceans and closely linked to estuaries where seawater and freshwater mix. Grasses, sedges, and rushes that are salt tolerant take advantage of nutrients flowing into their environment once or twice daily (tides) resulting in tidal salt marshes that are exceptionally high in total production of organic matter.”[22]
· Inland Wetlands
· “Inland Wetlands are found on floodplains along rivers & streams (riparian wetlands), in depressions surrounded by dry land.”[23] Potholes, basins, swamps, bayous and along margins of lakes and ponds, and any other low-lying area where groundwater intercepts the soil surface are wetland areas. Inland wetlands include marshes and wet meadows dominated by herbaceous plants and swamps dominated by shrubs and trees.”[24]
NOAA defines coastal wetlands as “all wetlands in coastal watersheds, i.e., watersheds that drain to the ocean or to an estuary or bay”.[25]
Generally, the prolonged presence of water creates conditions favoring specially adapted plants (hydrophytes). Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local difference in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, existing vegetation, and other factors, especially human disturbance.
Geology, topography, soil composition, hydrology, water chemistry, and many other factors determine the types of wetlands in a particular region or locality. Wetlands vary widely.[26] Every continent in the world except Antarctica has wetlands within its borders.
For regulatory purposes the Clean Water Act defines wetlands as such:
“Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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.”[27]
In 1988, recommendations were made by the National Wetlands Policy Forum for a program of “no net loss of wetlands”. Under this program, lost acreage due to development, agricultural use or degradation may be recovered by the creation of new wetlands and the restoration of any degraded wetlands.[28]
Wetlands in the U.S.
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). The lower 48 states contain 5% of all wetlands, while Alaska alone possesses over 200 million acres, more than twice the acreage of all other states combined.[29]
Table 1 States with more than 20% wetlands
Alaska
(48%)
Louisiana
(36%)
Florida
(33%)
Maine
(26%)
Minnesota
(21%)
South Carolina
(21%)
Table 2 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 3 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.[30]
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. 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.
Wetland Functions
Wetlands have natural functions and often times serve as sources of community pride or representations of culture. 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.[31] Wetlands also provide recreation areas for sport fishing, crabbing, netting, boating, eco-tourism, birding and more. Areas adjacent to wetlands also provide wildlife corridors and urban buffers within the landscape.
Additionally, “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.”[32]
Management of Wetlands
U.S.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 review, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE/corps). The (COE/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 State Natural Resource Divisions.
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. Under this law, a permit is needed from the Corps for the discharges of dredged or fill material into any water of the United States, including wetlands, which are a type of water of the United States. Wetlands are identified in the field using the Corps delineation manual.[33] Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps issues permits that meet environmental standards (after allowing the public to comment).
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.[34] In that Act, the 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.[35]
The Act makes federal financial assistance available to any coastal state or territory, including those on the Great Lakes, willing to 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, 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. A state with an OCRM-approved program can deny or restrict any development that is inconsistent with its coastal zone management program. The CZMA does not apply to states that are not CZMA participants or have not yet received OCRM approval.[36]
International Management of Wetlands
In 1972, international awareness of environmental issues reached a peak at theUnited Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. The Stockholm agreement birthed the United Nations Environmental Program 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 preserve natural and cultural heritage, control the trade in endangered species, protect wildlife habitat, 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.[37]
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, with the latter often-requiring broad acceptance to be effective.[38]
“Examples,
· Montreal Protocol: to reduce and terminate the consumption of chemical compounds which destroy ozone in the stratosphere.
· Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
· Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: to protect wetlands of international importance.
· Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.”[39]
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, adopted in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971) enforced since 1975 is known as the Ramsar Convention.[40] The Convention on Wetlands, the Ramsar Convention has more than 130 member countries. There are currently more than 1,300 wetlands listed under the Convention with a combined area of over 110 million hectares. The Convention on Wetlands 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.
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)[41] to promote the protection of wetland habitats within its borders.”[42] “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’[ii] 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).”[43]
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.”[44] Criticism of mulit-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.”[45] 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.”[46]
Louisiana Wetlands Discussion
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.[47]
“The river originally deposited sediment along the Louisiana coast, which restored wetlands and coastal marshes, built up land to keep up with natural subsidence rates, and replenished coastal fisheries with necessary nutrients. By keeping the river confined, the overextended course deposits sediment over the edge of the continental shelf. The consequence is high rates of coastal erosion and subsidence. However, one further significant negative result has gained recent attention. Due to the lack of fresh water flowing through marshes and estuaries, salt water intrudes deep into these ecologically fragile environments, inextricably altering local flora and fauna.”[48]
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. If the river shifted its course naturally while flooding naturally, the sediment could replenish the wetlands and coastal marshes that are now deteriorating. The river now holds an overextended course that has reached the edge of the continent shelf, and most of its sediment now accumulates there and farther out in the Gulf. As far back as 1976 Don Moser satirically commented on the Corps’ historical planning in a Smithsonian Magazine article, “By now it has become clear that the Corps is more likely to be a restorer than a developer of fragile lands”[49].
Coastal Erosion
While coastal erosion affects all regions of the United States, erosion rates and potential impacts are highly localized. 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. The factors causing subsidence of Louisiana's coastal plain are complicated (sea level rise and salt water intrusion up estuaries, oil drilling, construction of navigation canals, diking of coastal marshes, levee construction, groundwater extraction, and diversion of the Mississippi River).”[50]
Severe storms can remove even wider beaches, along with substantial dunes, in a single event. In undeveloped areas, these high recession rates are not likely to cause significant concern, but in some heavily populated locations, one or two feet of erosion may be considered catastrophic. Therefore, the impacts of erosion are not necessarily measured in terms of the highest recession rates, but may be measured against the social and economic costs to the areas affected.
Without the marsh and wetlands as a buffer, some experts predict a 20-foot storm surge that might swamp New Orleans. “LSU researchers say that if a storm like Betsy, which hit New Orleans in 1965, hit today, the damage would be far worse than it was back then, primarily because of the extensive loss of the coast's wetlands and barrier islands to erosion and sinking. Losing those islands is like losing the state's “first line of defense” against hurricanes and tropical and winter storms, Stone said. The barrier islands protect the coastline by breaking down waves and storm surges before they hit the coast and move onshore toward the wetlands.”[51]
“Palustrine Wetlands, which include scrub shrub, non-tidal and tidal marshes and ponds, are the most common type of wetland 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, estuarine emergent wetlands.”[52]
In Louisiana, most of the surface exposures consist of Quaternary sediments. Channel deposits made up of gravel and sand; the heaviest river deposits falling out first. Farther up the banks, natural levees are composed of fine sands and muddy deposits. Swamps and coastal marshes contain rich mud and organic matter.
A lesser percentage of the state’s surface geology is occupied by deposits associated with Pleistocene (2 mya) terraces. These terraces, located inland of the coastal marshes, also consist of sand, gravel, and mud. Sometimes sloping toward the gulf, these surfaces are remnants of preexisting flood plains, formed by sea level rise and fall during glacial and interglacial periods.
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, such as saltgrass and smooth cordgrass. While saltwater marshes typically support fewer terrestrial vertebrates, they are still intrinsically important as marine nursery grounds and are home to a few bird species, such as seaside sparrows and clapper rails.
Freshwater marshes, typically never exceeding salinities greater than 2 ppt, are rich in plant species, with marsh-hay cordgrass, cattail, and sawgrass among the most prevalent. This marsh type sustains high densities of wildlife, including migrating waterfowl. However, due to saltwater intrusion, Louisiana freshwater marsh area has been dramatically reduced over the past few decades.
Forested Wetlands
Forested wetlands, located at the landward end of estuaries, are divided into two vegetation zones, bald cypress- tupelo swamps and bottomland hardwood forests. The soils are nutrient-rich and are high in organic matter. The almost year-round presence of standing water allows for the growth of aquatic and emergent plants. The diverse microhabitats that exist within the forested wetlands make this zone particularly species-rich. Because dry land is at premium in coastal Louisiana, forested wetlands are some of the only wooded areas that remain untouched by agriculture, industry, and urban use.
Cheniers
Cheniers are coastal ridges, exclusive to western Louisiana, that typically have higher relief than outlying barrier islands. As a result, these ridges are historically known for supporting maritime forests dominated by live oaks (chenier is French for oak). Those forests that escaped the human impacts of deforestation and agriculture play an important ecological role as a temporary habitat for many migrating species. Because cheniers are above sea level, some by as much as 3 meters, it is one of the more important continuous habitats for mammals and birds in coastal Louisiana.
Oyster Reefs
Apart from sustaining oyster communities, oyster reefs also support a diverse and complex biological community. Due to their commercial importance, oysters in the Louisiana estuaries and the surrounding environment have been extensively studied. One of the primary impacts on the oyster population is saltwater encroachment into estuaries. High salinities force the oyster populations to migrate inland into regions of increased predation and parasitism.
The Calcasieu Estuary provides important habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds and valuable nursery and breeding habitat for numerous estuarine-dependent sport and commercial fish and shellfish. Areas of greatest concern are Coon Island Loop, Bayou Verdine, and Bayou d'Inde. The primary contaminants of concern are hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), mercury, copper, and lead. Consumption advisories are currently in effect for fish and shellfish from Bayou d'Inde.
Dredging and Navigation
Artificial canals significantly affect coastal wetlands. Freshwater runoff that used to flow across wetlands, depositing sediment and distributing nutrients, is now shunted through a network of drainage canals. This elaborate drainage system carries the runoff directly into lakes and bays, bypassing swamps and marshes. If runoff were to flow through the marshes, trapped sediments would beneficially minimize wetland subsidence. In addition, the runoff would be naturally filtered through the wetlands, improving the quality of the water delivered to estuarine lakes and bays.
Navigation canals that exist at the seaward edge of estuaries detrimentally affect natural estuarine flow, allowing salt water to encroach inland, converting freshwater and low-salinity marshes into high-salinity marshes. Salt-intolerant species are extirpated, leading to erosion before other species can become established.
Larger dredged channels, used for both commercial navigation and oil- and gas-well access, are significantly correlated to marsh loss rate. These channels directly connect a number of different marsh systems together and are responsible for profoundly altering water circulation. The channels are responsible for allowing saltwater encroachment, along with circulating contaminants released from wells, refineries, and vessels.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are non-indigenous aquatic species that enter a body of water or aquatic ecosystem outside their historic or native ranges. Most non-indigenous introductions are a direct result of human impacts; bays and estuaries are particularly vulnerable due to the abundance and variety of human activities. Non-indigenous aquatic flora and fauna have profoundly influenced different environments of coastal Louisiana. Introduced plants, such as alligatorweed and water hyacinth, choke out indigenous plants and hinder navigation and drainage. Introduced animal species, such as nutria, graze marsh plants to decimation, causing erosion and displacing native animals.
More than 1900 square miles of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands have disappeared.[53] 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.”[54] “It’s hard to fathom, but in just 250 years, some 2.5 million acres of coastal prairie that once blanketed southwest Louisiana have dwindled to just 200 in scattered parcels.”[55]
Coastal Louisiana has lost over 900,000 acres since the 1930’s. As recently as the 1970’s, 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. Coastal Louisiana will experience a 320,000-acre net loss by the year 2050.
Wetland Commercial Values
Currently, over half of the human population in North America lives in coastal cities. In 1960, there were 80 million coastal residents.[56] By 2010, over 120 million people will call coastal regions home, a growth rate of 60 percent. In the Gulf Coast alone, real estate value is accelerated with projected population growth of nearly 37 percent by 2025.[57] Louisiana has 7,721 miles of shoreline, bays, tidal lakes, estuaries, sounds, lagoons, and brackish bayous[58] with a coastal population of 2,044,880 residents.[59]
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.[60] “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.”[61]
Approximately 70% of the commercial fisheries in the United States depend on estuaries and salt marshes for nursery or spawning grounds.[62] In 1995, the commercial fishery catch totaled 4.5 million metric tons and was valued at a record $3.8 billion.[63]
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.[64]
In 1991, Louisiana’s coastal marshes produced a commercial fish and shellfish harvest amounting to 1.2 billion pounds worth $244 million.[65] 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.[66]
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.
On average, 40% of Louisiana landings are in inshore state waters, 43% are in the state’s offshore waters, and 17% are in federal waters off Louisiana’s coast from 1976 to 1990. 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.[67]
From 1970-1990 just over 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 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.[68]
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.[69]
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.[70] 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.[71] In 1945, trappers took 8,500 pelts.[72]
Louisiana Wetland Management
“In 1990, passage of the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection Restoration Act, (PL-101-646, Title 111, CWPPRA), locally referred to as the Breaux Act provided authorization and funding of an investigative multi-agency task force assigned to seek solutions to 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.
The plan, “Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana,” focused wetland protection on restoring and mimicking the natural processes which originally formed coastal Louisiana. The plan sub-divides Louisiana’s coastal zone into four regions of nine hydrologic basins proposing ecosystem restoration strategies. The plan seeks to implement the most complex wetland program in Louisiana history.[73]
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 the two government entities) towards a common goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem”.[74] In addition, Strock signed the Chief of Engineer’s Report, a summary 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.”[75]
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 in 1995 federal and matching state funds. These monies are committed for coastal wetlands restoration projects in Louisiana where 34 of the 91 projects that the task force approved for construction completed, with 15 more under construction.[76]
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. The state has 5 state refuges and WMA’s located in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, totaling over 428,000 acres, which the state manages with the assistance of the federal government. The division 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,”[77] such as hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, birding and botanizing.
Ramsar Convention
History
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.[78]
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.[79]
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”.[80]
M.J. Bowman calls the Ramsar Convention in its original form, “…an extraordinarily simple, almost simplistic, legal instrument”.[81] 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.”[82]
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”.[83] 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.
U.S. support of Ramsar has remained strong since the Convention’s inception. In fact, 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.”[84]
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, plus 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 leverage in securing funding and other assistance with management.[85]
The Convention promotes the sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems, allowing communities to gain economic benefits from these areas while maintaining the ecosystems’ viability.[86] Ramsar designations have brought many environmental and economic benefits to sites in the United States, including 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, which halts the worldwide loss of wetlands and to conserve those that remain through wise use and management an international imperative enriching communities and continents. 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.
The mission statement of Ramsar is the guiding principle of the treaty. 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.”[87]
Eco Tourism
Ramsar sites attract visitors, researchers, naturalists and recreational enthusiasts. The Convention views tourism activities as beneficial to the local, and even national, economy’s of member partiers. Ramsar calls for “…a positive presumption in favor of providing access and appropriate facilities for visitors”.[88]
Ramsar favors design objectives, prescriptions and management projects developed for public access. Knowledge of wetland issues, biological diversity, ecological threats and other issues of wetland conservation are lessons visitors learn. “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.”[89]
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. “Cameron is the ideal location for such events,” said Dr. Jay Huner of the ULL Center for Cultural Studies and Ecotourism.
Huner, notes, that migrants 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.”[90] As a result, the refuge complex draws birders and visitors throughout the year where they find “…loons, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, wading birds, vultures, waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, gulls, terns, doves, nightjars, woodpeckers, flycatchers, vireos, crows, swallows, wrens, thrushes, warblers, tanagers, sparrows, grosbeaks and buntings, blackbirds and orioles, and finches in the Cameron area during these migration periods.”[91]
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.”[92]
Rather than being traditional “protected areas”, Ramsar sites are generally places where wise use is practiced, and as such, they are demonstration sites for the principles and approaches to sustainability. Traditional preservationists prefer stricter management of wildlife refuges. Beth Kruchek explains, “The limited federal definition of a wetland does not comply with Ramsar’s wise use obligation because it fails to protect the integrity of the wetland ecosystem.”[93]
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 and as far as possible the wise use of wetlands in their territory. The 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Regina, Canada in 1987, adopted the following definition of wise use of wetlands:
“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.
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.[94]
“The wise use provisions apply to all wetlands and their support systems within the territory of a Contracting Party, both those wetlands designated for the List, and all other wetlands. The concept of wise use seeks both the formulation and implementation of general wetland policies, and wise use of specific wetlands.”[95] According to Ramsar, these activities are integral parts of sustainable development.
Governments can use several instruments to promote policy such as legislative tools; five different mechanisms are necessary in order 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 which enjoy the highest degree of protection; institution of a permit system for activities affecting wetlands. This should include a threshold under which a permit would not be required, as well as a general exemption for activities which, because of their nature, are deemed to be compatible with any performance obligation; execution of an environmental impact assessment in order to determine if a proposed project is compatible with the general requirements of wise use and the maintenance of the ecological character of the wetlands concerned. Special rules relating to the contents of an environmental impact assessment will be needed in order to ensure that no important factor specifically related to wetlands is overlooked. The cumulative effects of separate projects should also be taken into consideration.
Environmental impact assessments should also be prepared not only for activities and projects in the wetlands concerned but also for activities outside these areas when they may have significant effect on wetlands. Environmental impact assessments should also cover the long-term effects of proposed activities, projects, plans and programs between all components of the water system at the catchment level.
Monitoring of the effects of authorized actions and carrying out unbiased enviromental audits of these actions when they have been completed, institution of a system of management agreements between relevant government agencies, landowners and land-users to provide for positive management measures by the latter when this is required for the maintenance of the ecosystem; provision of financial incentives including taxes and subsidies to encourage activities which are compatible with the maintenance of wetlands, and which promote and contribute to their conservation.
Financial tax incentives should not permit activities which have detrimental effects upon wetlands; obligation to refrain from introducing invasive alien species and to take preventive measures to minimize the risk of accidental introductions; existing guidelines for these purposes need to be taken into consideration; obligation to make all appropriate efforts to eradicate introduced and translocated species which may cause significant ecological disturbances in water systems and, in addition, provide for the possibility of claiming civil damages from those responsible for unlawful introductions; and right of appeal by private organizations against governmental agency decisions which might violate obligations laid down by law.
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).
Such legislation will generally apply to large wetland areas where human activities compatible with the conservation of the ecosystem should be maintained, encouraged and developed for the benefit of local populations. This legislation will be in addition to those provisions laid down in the previous paragraph in respect of wetlands in general.
It should consider the following points: definition of a special legal status for large wetland areas allowing for the control of any potentially damaging activity, including agriculture, forestry, tourism, fishing, hunting, aquaculture; division of those wetlands into different zones with particular regulations applying to each type of zone.
These regulations would be defined to ensure that the carrying capacity of the area concerned is not exceeded in respect of each activity authorized; encouragement of traditional and other ecological and sustainable activities in these areas through incentives and advice; establishment of a management system in each area which should have legal support and of a management body to oversee the implementation and to ensure that regulations are observed.
Association of populations living in or close to the area with its management, through appropriate representation; scientific institutions and conservation NGOs should also be associated with management, at least in an advisory capacity; application of special environmental impact assessment rules to these areas in view of their particular environmental sensitivity; and submission of activities which may have adverse effects on the area, to environmental impact assessment or to other forms of evaluation. Such activities should only be authorized when the evaluation has shown that no significant damage to the area will occur.
4) Review of division of jurisdiction among government agencies.
This issue, which concerns both territorial and functional matters, often constitutes a considerable obstacle to integrated management of wetlands since it needs to be based on a catchment-wide approach. A review of legal and administrative constraints which prevent management at the correct scale (e.g., catchment-wide management) should be undertaken with a view to developing appropriate solutions to jurisdictional problems. 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. This will entail the conclusion of agreements for the conservation, management and wise use of such systems as required by Article 5 of the Convention. As relevant, elements of the present guidance should be used in the development of these agreements.[96]
Ramsar advocates claim the Convention is about finding ways to use wetlands sustainably.[97] 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 requires that 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.”
The current criteria for gaining designation on the List of Wetlands of International Importance reads,[98]
Group A of the Criteria
Sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types
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.
Group B of the Criteria
Sites for conserving biological diversity, criteria based on species and ecological communities
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.
Specific criteria based on waterbirds
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.
Specific criteria based on fish
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.
Nominated sites must meet any one of the criteria in order to comply with the Convention’s tenets. In 2002, the Convention adopted the Strategic Framework for Listing of Wetlands of International Importance with detailed guidelines for application. The criteria under this agreement says,[99]
[iii]Group A of the Criteria
Sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types
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.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List:
To have included in the Ramsar List at least one suitable representative of each wetland type, according to the Ramsar classification system (Section IV), which is found within each biogeographic region.
Guidelines
Contracting Parties are encouraged to:
· determine biogeographic regions within their territory or at the supranational/ regional level;
· within each biogeographic region, determine the range of wetland types present (using the Ramsar classification system for wetland type, Appendix A), noting in particular any rare or unique wetland types; and
· for each wetland type within each biogeographic region, identify for designation under the Convention those sites which provide the best examples
Wetlands playing a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role in the natural functioning of a major river basin, watershed or coastal system are given priority. Article 2 of the Convention encourages wetlands selected for hydrological importance to the List under this criterion, which may include the following attributes,
· play a major role in the natural control, amelioration or prevention of flooding;
· be important for seasonal water retention for wetlands or other areas of conservation importance downstream;
· be important for the recharge of aquifers;
· form part of karst or underground hydrological or spring systems that supply major surface wetlands;
· be major natural floodplain systems;
· have a major hydrological influence in the context of at least regional climate regulation or stability (e.g., certain areas of rainforest, wetlands or wetland complexes in semi-arid, arid or desert areas, tundra or peatland systems acting as sinks for carbon, etc.);
· a major role player in maintaining high water quality standards.
Group B of the Criteria for determining wetlands of international importance considers the international importance of conserving biological diversity. These Criteria are based on species and ecological communities.
Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.
Desired sites for inclusion into the Ramsar List are those wetlands that are believed to be of importance for the survival of vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.
Guidelines
Ramsar sites have an important role in the conservation of globally threatened species and ecological communities. Notwithstanding the small numbers of individuals that may be involved, or poor quality of quantitative data or information that may sometimes be available, particular consideration should be given to listing wetlands that support globally threatened species at any stage of their lifecycle using Criterion 2 or 3.
“Contracting Parties are encouraged to seek to include in the Ramsar List, wetlands that include threatened ecological communities or are critical to the survival of species identified as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered under national endangered species legislation”[100]
Supporting the complex or cluster proposition of nomination, whereby adjacent or nearby wetlands are submitted as a contiguous complex, Contracting Parties are urged under this Criterion to note “…greatest conservation value will be achieved through the selection of a network of sites providing habitat for rare, vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species.”[101] Ideally, the sites in the network will have the following characteristics. They:
· “support a mobile population of a species at different stages of its life cycle; and/or
· support a population of a species along a migratory pathway or flyway – noting that different species have different migratory strategies with different maximum distances needed between staging areas; and/orare ecologically linked in other ways, such as through providing refuge areas to populations during adverse conditions; and/or
· are adjacent to or in close proximity to other wetlands included in the Ramsar List, the conservation of which enhances the viability of threatened species’ population by increasing the size of habitat that is protected; and/or
· hold a high proportion of the population of a dispersed sedentary species that occupies a restricted habitat type.”[102]
The Strategic framework for identifying threatened ecological communities sets out characteristic guidelines for identification. The framework outlines those characteristics as communities that,
· include significant areas having certain communities, particularly where these are of high quality or particularly typical of the biogeographic region; and/or
· are sites which have rare communities; and/or
· include ecotones, seral stages, and communities which exemplify particular processes; and/or
· have communities that can no longer develop under contemporary conditions (because of climate change or anthropogenic interference for example); and/or
· have communities at the contemporary stage of a long developmental history and which support a well-preserved paleoenvironmental archive; and/or
· are sites which have communities that are functionally critical to the survival of other (perhaps rarer) comunities or particular species; and/or
· contain communities which have been the subject of significant decline in extent or occurrence.
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.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List
To have included in the Ramsar List those wetlands which are believed to be of importance for maintaining the biological diversity within each biogeographic region.
Guidelines
When Contracting Parties are reviewing candidate sites for listing under this Criterion, greatest conservation value will be achieved through the selection of a suite of sites that have the following characteristics. These sites,
· are hotspots of biological diversity and are evidently species-rich even though the number of species present may not be accurately known; and/or
· are centers of endemism or otherwise contain significant numbers of endemic species; and/or
· contain the range of biological diversity (including habitat types) occurring in a region; and/or
· contain a significant proportion of species adapted to special environmental conditions (such as temporary wetlands in semi-arid or arid areas); and/or
· support particular elements of biological diversity that are rare or particularly characteristic of the 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.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List:
To have included in the Ramsar List those wetlands which are the most important for providing habitat for plant or animal species during critical stages of their life cycle and/or when adverse conditions prevail.
Guidelines
Critical sites for mobile or migratory species are those which contain particularly high proportions of populations gathered in relatively small areas at particular stages of life cycles. This may be at particular times of the year or, in semi-arid or arid areas, during years with a particular rainfall pattern. For example, many waterbirds use relatively small areas as key staging points (to eat and rest) on their long-distance migrations between breeding and non-breeding areas.
Non-migratory wetland species are unable to move away when climatic or other conditions become unfavourable and only some sites may feature the special ecological characteristics to sustain species’ populations in the medium or long-term.
Specific criteria based on waterbirds
Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List
To have included in the Ramsar List all wetlands which regularly support 20,000 or more waterbirds.
Guidelines
When Contracting Parties are reviewing candidate sites for listing under this Criterion, greatest conservation value will be achieved through the selection of a network of sites that provide habitat for waterbird assemblages containing globally threatened species or subspecies.
Consideration may also be given to turnover of waterbirds at migration periods, so that a cumulative total is reached, if such data are available.
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.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List:
To have included in the Ramsar List all wetlands which regularly support 1% or more of a biogeographical population of waterbird species or subspecies.
Guidelines
When Contracting Parties are reviewing candidate sites for listing under this Criterion, greatest conservation value will be achieved through the selection of a suite of sites that hold populations of globally threatened species or subspecies.
Consideration may also be given to turnover of waterbirds at migration periods, so that a cumulative total is reached, if such data are available.
To ensure international comparability, where possible, Contracting Parties should use the international population estimates and 1% thresholds published and updated every three years by Wetlands International as the basis for evaluating sites for the List using this Criterion.
Specific criteria based on fish
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.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List:
To have included in the Ramsar List those wetlands that support a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families and populations.
Guidelines
Fishes are the most abundant vertebrates associated with wetlands. Worldwide, over 18,000 species of fishes are resident for all or part of their life cycles in wetlands.
Criterion 7 indicates that a wetland can be designated as internationally important if it has a high diversity of fishes and shellfishes. It emphasizes the different forms that diversity might take, including the number of taxa, different life-history stages, species interactions, and the complexity of interactions between the above taxa and the external environment.
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.
Long-term target for the Ramsar List:
To have included in the Ramsar List those wetlands which provide important food sources for fishes, or are spawning grounds, nursery areas and/or on their migration path.
Guidelines
Many fishes (including shellfishes) have complex life histories, with spawning, nursery and feeding grounds widely separated and long migrations necessary between them. It is important to conserve all those areas that are essential for the completion of a fish’s life cycle if the fish species or stock is to be maintained.
The productive, shallow habitats offered by coastal wetlands (including coastal lagoons, estuaries, salt marshes, inshore rocky reefs, and sandy slopes) are extensively used as feeding and spawning grounds and nurseries by fishes with openwater adult stages.
These wetlands therefore support essential ecological processes for fish stocks, even if they do not necessarily harbour large adult fish populations themselves.
Furthermore, many fishes in rivers, swamps or lakes spawn in one part of the ecosystem but spend their adult lives in other inland waters or in the sea. It is common for fishes in lakes to migrate up rivers to spawn, and for fishes in rivers to migrate downstream to a lake or estuary, or beyond the estuary to the sea, to spawn. Many swamp fishes migrate from deeper, more permanent waters to shallow, temporarily inundated areas for spawning. Wetlands, even apparently insignificant ones in one part of a river system, may therefore be vital for the proper functioning of extensive river reaches up- or downstream of the wetland.
This is for guidance only and does not interfere with the rights of Contracting Parties to regulate fisheries within specific wetlands and/or elsewhere.
U.S. Listing Procedures.
The April 6, 1990 Federal Register, Vol. 55 established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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, which is deemed to be self-implementing.[103]
The National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan ensures compliance with the articles of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar. The USFS reviews sites eligible for inclusion to the list if theses nominees exist under certain rules. The USFWS considers only sites that comply 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 both the State, Commonwealth or territory where the site(s) is (are) located and a Congressional Representative.”[104]
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 time frame for submissions and deposit 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.
Supporting information for site nominations include the following:
“Nominating authority. Include name, address and other pertness information on the administrative authority submitting the site nomination.
Geographical location. Details such as latitude and longitude coordinates, and nearby features, settlements, and other identifying characteristics should be provided.
In addition, include detailed maps of both the site as well as the surrounding areas if they are available.
Site description. This section comprises both a physical and a biological description of the site. The physical description includes details of geomorphology, hydrology and climate, which the biological description includes a brief review of habitat types, with lists of both typical and noteworthy fauna and flora.
Criteria for inclusion. Specify the criterion (a) as listed by the Convention of Parties, that qualifies the site as a Wetland of International Importance. Highlight those factors for which the site has been generally considered to be of particular importance.
Area. Identify the total area (in hectares) of the proposed site including information on terrestrial and aquatic components.
Management practices. Note management practices and traditional activities that take place.
Changes in ecological character. Give a brief synopsis of the natural history of the area and note any land use changes impacts to the ecological functions or character of the area.
Degree of protection. Note any State, local, national or international recognition or designation afforded to the site. Indicate if any activities are controlled or prohibited.
Scientific research and facilities. Highlight research underway or facilities provided (if any) for research interests.
Reference material. Note any key publications, reports, or documents used to compile the information presented. This is not intended to be a complete reference list.”[105]
The USFWS administers review procedures for nominated site(s) 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
The Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP) assembled guidelines for application of defining criteria to aid parties to the Convention when assessing the suitability of any potential nominee.[106] 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 COP1 meeting of the Convention 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 COP6 in 1996 added new Criteria based on fish and fisheries.[107] In 2002, the Conference of Parties 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.
Guidelines for criteria 1 read:
“A wetland could be considered of international importance under Criterion 1 if, because of its outstanding role in natural, biological, ecological or hydrological systems, it is of substantial value in supporting human communities dependent on the wetland. In this context, such support would include:
· provision of food, fiber or fuel; or
· maintenance of cultural values; or
· support of food chains, water quality, flood control or climatic stability. The support, in all its aspects, should remain within the framework of sustainable use and habitat conservation, and should not change the ecological character of the wetland”[108]
Cluster Sites and Coastal Zone Guidelines in Ramsar
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 Conference agreed that an estimated 60% of the world’s population and many development activities are concentrated along the coastal strip that extends from shoreline to less than 60 km or 37.2 miles inland.
The Conference expressed interest in adopting coastal zone guidelines because of increasing population and development, which, “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.”[109]
Ocean, Marine, Coastal and wetland resources are under increasing pressure from population growth and development. Coastal areas of the United States host over 50% of the total population while only comprising 17% of the nation’s land area. Coastal areas are the most developed in the nation. This narrow fringe–comprising 17% of the contiguous U.S. land area–is home to more than 53% of the nation's population. Further, this coastal population is increasing by 3,600 people per day, giving a projected total increase of 27 million people between now and 2015.[110]
Coastal areas are crowded and becoming more so every day. More than 139 million people–about 53% of the national total–reside along the narrow coastal fringes.[111] This population is expected to increase by an average of 3,600 people per day, reaching 165 million by the year 2015. This rate of growth is faster than that for the nation as a whole. Between 1994 and 2015, coastal population is projected to increase by 28 million people.[112]
In 2002, the Strategic Framework for the Implementation of the Ramsar Convention noted the importance of nominating sites that were representative of wetland networks.
“When Contracting Parties are reviewing candidate sites for listing under Criterion 2, greatest conservation value will be achieved through the selection of a network of sites providing habitat for rare, vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species. Sites in the network will have the following characteristics:
· Support a population of a species along a migratory pathway or flyway – noting that different species have different migratory strategies with different maximum distances needed between staging areas; and/or
· Ecologically linked in other ways, such as through providing refuge areas to populations during adverse conditions; and/or
· Adjacent to or in close proximity to other wetlands included in the Ramsar List, the conservation of which enhances the viability of threatened species’ population by increasing the size of habitat that is protected.”[113]
Coastal zone population predictions of pressure resulted in the U.S. program to address 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%).[114] State and federal coastal zone management operate under three guidelines; “sustain coastal communities, sustain coastal ecosystems, and improve government efficiency”.[115]
At the state level, 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 (LCP’s) for implementation at the parish level. Once an LCP has received federal and state approval, A federally and state approved 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. R.S. 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.”[116]
A Coastal Use Permit (CUP) Program is part of the LCRP, the state Coastal Management Division uses a coastal use, permitting program (CUP) for uses associated with the coastal territory. The CUP is a mechanism for granting permits dealing with the management and development and use projects affecting wetlands located within the state’s coastal zone.[117]
Methodology
Recommending to Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance Candidates
RIS Procedure
The RIS follows Ramsar’s stipulated procedures outlined in “Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for completing the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands”. Once completed, the RIS and accompanying maps of the nominated site or site cluster is submitted to the Ramsar Bureau in Gland, Switzerland.
Recommendation 4.7 of the Conference of the Parties established that the data sheet developed for the description of Ramsar sites be used by Contracting Parties, and listed the information categories covered by the data sheet.[118] A completed RIS and site map should be provided upon nomination for the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Nominating authorities are urged to submit an electronic (MS Word) copy of the RIS and digital copies of maps.
The Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for Completing the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands are attached to the format. The total length of a completed RIS is not expected to exceed 12 pages. Additional information on each site, 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 image submissions of the wetland are encouraged.
Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Proposal
Cameron Prairie, Lacassine and Sabine Refuges
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, manages, protects and restores over 360,000 acres of wetlands habitat in that is the Complex.
The Complex also provides a wide variety of wildlife dependent public uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, environmental education, wildlife interpretation and observation. 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.
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. Personnel on the ground are required to manage expansive areas of wetlands.”[119]
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.[120]
“The Calcasieu-Sabine Basin was historically interconnected with the Mermentau Basin, but human-induced hydrologic alterations caused by navigation corridors have made the two basins more hydrologically distinct. Industrialization of the estuary started in the early 1920s with the discovery of nearby petroleum and gas reserves. The ease of access to water transportation provided a stable base of operations to support major petroleum refining and chemical operations, which produce a wide range of industrial chemicals, petroleum products, and commercial feedstocks. Over 30 major industries are located within the watershed, including corporations such as PPG, Conoco, Citgo, Equistar, and Firestone.
Calcasieu Estuary is nestled among the urban districts of Lake Charles in the southwestern corner of Louisiana, approximately 15 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico. The estuary incorporates the area of the Calcasieu River from northern Moss Lake to the saltwater barrier at Lake Charles. Many areas of the estuary, such as Moss Lake, Prien Lake, and Lake Charles, were once fresh water, are more saline due to human alterations to the hydrography. The estuary is divided into four major areas:
Bayou d'Inde Map
Lower Calcasieu Map
Upper Calcasieu Map
Bayou Verdine Map
At the southern terminus of the Calcasieu estuary is Calcasieu Lake, approximately 4 miles downstream of Moss Lake. The lake is a coastal lagoon system that is predominantly less than six feet deep. Originally, the Calcasieu River passed through the lake; however, when a ship channel was dredged through the lake, a spoil bank was constructed in order to separate it from the river and ship channel. While Calcasieu Lake is still connected to the Calcasieu River and the ship channel at its northern and southern ends, the river’s flow largely bypasses the lake.
Cameron Prairie NWR
“Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, encompasses 9,621 acres of fresh marsh, prairie, and manipulated moist-soil units and provides for nesting, migrating, and wintering waterfowl and their critical habitats. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, located in Cameron and Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana, encompasses 34,886 acres and was established to preserve marshlands and to provide habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Lacassine refuge also manages a 3,345-acre wilderness area, a 20,000-acre private lands mini-refuge program for migrating waterfowl in six refuges, and oversees wetland easements in Jefferson Davis Parish.”[121]
The Gibbstown Unit and East Cove Unit of the refuge 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.
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. Researchers record more than 200 bird species at the refuge including waterfowl, songbirds, seabirds, shore birds, upland game birds, raptors and others including white-fronted and Canada geese, green-winged teal, ringnecked ducks, northern bobwhite, mourning doves, hawks, ospreys and eagles.[122]
Lacassine NWR
“The Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was completed in 1943 and contains a large 16,000 acre impoundment built to enhance waterfowl resting and nesting habitat. The input of water for the impoundment comes entirely from rainfall, and the pool is drained through three control structures into Bell City Drainage Canal and Bayou Lacassine.
Management plans state that the water is drawn down to 3.5 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL) during 15 October-15 January, when stop logs are placed to allow the pool to fill to 5 ft MSL. This enhances fishing and opens up areas of the marsh for desirable plant species.
The 15 management objectives are to have the pool provide loafing area for migratory waterfowl, while adjacent areas (some of which are planted) support feeding. The submerged aquatics within the pool and the accompanying invertebrates provide excellent food sources for diving ducks, grebes, and other species. Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and bulltongue (Sagittaria lancifolia) are the dominant emergent plants, but they have little food value for waterfowl. Refuge officials observe that, while waterfowl do utilize the area as a stopover, they usually leave the pool to feed.”[123]
Sabine NWR
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge of Cameron Parish is at Lat/Long: Lat. 29.1’30”, Long. 93.11’30” comprising over 125,000 acres of diverse habitat and fresh, intermediate, and brackish wetlands.[124] Boundaries of the refuge include that to the North - Calcasieu Lake, South - 1.5 miles N of Highway LA 27, East - 1.5 miles W of Creole Canal, West - .5 mile E of Calcasieu River. By Federal law, all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive conservation plan. The plan guides management decisions and identifies refuge goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving refuge purposes. The planning process will consider many elements including wildlife and habitat management, public recreational activities, and cultural resource protection.
Ramsar Criteria Applied to The Southwest NWR Complex
· 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
Specifically, there are four types of marsh found in Louisiana, all representing excellent examples of wetland ecosystems.
Main categories of salt, intermediate/brackish, and marsh are divided into sub-categories of marsh that exist in within the main typology. Renowned researchers, Mitsch and Gosselink detailed these in 1987.
Salt marsh wetlands exist at the margins of ocean or gulf sounds and estuaries, backs of barrier islands, and flooded deltas near closed inlets with regular saltwater tides. Louisiana contains 40 percent of the saltwater marsh in the contiguous United States.[125]
Spartina alterniflora, smooth cordgrass or oyster grass, is the dominant vegetation at the lower elevations of the salt marsh, typically between mean low tide and mean high tide. The Spartina, which prefers high salinity content, is the desired plant of management officials, as this grass is native to the wetland landscape of south Louisiana’s coastal zone.
Smooth cordgrass shares habitat with the perennial glasswort (Sarcocornia perennis) in low tidal marshes where saltwater inundation is greatest.[126] In these saline areas some components of the southern cordgrass prairie include saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens).
The dynamic activity of the salt marsh contributes to the high productivity and biological diversity of this wetland community. Tidal flows and wave action transports organic matter into and out of the marsh, continually flushing and enriching the environment. Less saline or brackish marsh exists within narrow zones at the upper edge of the gulf. These exist as part of the salt marsh, while larger expanses in the heads of bayous and in the interior of large marsh islands exist as separate brackish marsh communities.
Brackish or intermediate marsh exists along the margins of sounds and bays, and estuaries somewhat removed but not distant nor separate from the vital connection with the Gulf of Mexico. Freshwater inflow from channels and rivers dilutes much of the salinity of the water in these marshes. Typically, the range of these wetlands is less than that of salt marshes as is the degree of tidal flow. Brackish marshes have a diminished tidal environment. 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 (Scirpus americanus).[127]
Tidal freshwater marsh exists at the margins of estuaries, or rivers and bayous. These marshes regularly or irregularly flood with freshwater tides. “Historically in Louisiana, this marsh type was extensive, but its range has steadily reduced since the mid-1950’s due to numerous factors including subsidence, sea-level rise, salt water intrusion, and altered hydrology as a result of river leveeing and oil and gas access canals”. Species that occur in freshwater or slightly brackish 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).[128] “A sawgrass meadow is a good indication of regular freshwater flow.”[129] Tidal freshwater marsh is distinguished from adjacent swamp forest and upland forests by the lack of a dominant tree or shrub layer.
Wetland Forest (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed)
Flooding frequency characterizes the wetland forests of Louisiana. Areas that experience permanent to semi-permanent flooding exist as deepwater swamps while those affected by seasonal river flooding exist as bottomland hardwood forests. Tree species within the community is a defining characteristic of these environments. In these particular wetland environments, the cypress tree (Taxodium sp.) and water tupelo tree (Nyssaceae Nyssa aquatica) or water gum tree, cover the deeper water swamps of the forested wetlands. These wetland communities typically exist with permanent or near permanent standing water on the ground.[130]
Bottomland hardwood forests exist between aquatic and upland ecosystems but have distinct vegetation and soil characteristics.[131] The vegetation in bottom land hardwood forests is dominated by diverse trees which adapt to the wide range of soil, water, and environmental conditions that exist within a floodplain. Differing species of trees exist in this environment, 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).
Wetland Shrub/Scrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed)
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”.[132] The scrub-shrub phase acts as a climax community grading shoreward from newly created wetland such as ponds or lakes. Species composition is dependent on the length of water inundation, 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. The soils in this community typically are wet phases of alluvial soils. They may have been cropland at one time, particularly where they border large constructed reservoirs. They also may be present along the flanks of spoil disposal areas particularly spoil banks along canals dredged through marsh.[133]
· Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.
The 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 (FWS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS 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”[134]. 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 within the foreseeable future.
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”.[135]
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. 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.[136] Section 6 of the ESA encourages each state to develop and maintain conservation programs for resident federally listed threatened and endangered 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.”[137]
Table 4 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 b.bear) ( Ursus americanus)
T
Bear, Louisiana black ( Ursus americanus luteolus)
T
Eagle, bald (lower 48 States) ( 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 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 marshes of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex and surrounding region include a range of habitats utilized by both freshwater and saltwater species.
· 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 coastal waters of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex comprise numerous species of estuarine-marine invertebrates including 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. Throughout February and March the brown shrimp larvae move into the lower estuaries, where postlarval and juvenile growth takes place. As young adults the shrimp emigrate into deeper estuarine waters, eventually moving into the nearshore Gulf of Mexico in early to mid summer. Emigration is keyed to lunar tides (Blackmon 1974). White shrimp follow a similar pattern of migration with few exceptions. Most notably, inshore development occurs in June through August with emigration into the Gulf driven by late fall/early winter cold frontal passages (Mac et al. 1998)[138].
Although decapod species found in coastal waters are quite diverse and prevalent, the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is the most common and important commercial crab species in the north central Gulf of Mexico. The blue crab can survive in a range of 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 (Mac et al. 1998).
The mollusk recorded in greatest numbers within the estuaries is the brief squid (Lollinguncula brevis). Long fin (Loligo pealei) and arrow squid (Doryteuthis plei) are also common and are commercially important as bait for commercial and recreational fishing, as well as for human consumption. Louisiana’s innumerable surface freshwater hydrologic systems, brackish estuaries, and deeper coastal waters provide essential habitats and conditions for the state’s hundreds of nektonic species and together form what is considered part of one of the world’s most productive fisheries regions.
Louisiana’s coastal intertidal and subtidal zones, brackish bayous, and inlets provide essential habitat for the development of the oyster. The oyster filters seawater through tiny, hair-like structures on the gills, removing oxygen, mineral salts, and microscopic floating plants (diatoms)/other microscopic organisms. A single oyster can pump 100 gallons of water a day through its shell, thereby feeding and cleansing itself (Dugas 1982)[139]. Of ecological significance, the processes of straining and filtration cleanse the water of the estuaries. In addition, oysters build extensive reefs or beds. Oyster reefs comprise the majority of hard substrate found in Louisiana’s coastal waters. These structures provide protection and support for both the oyster and other diverse macrofauna.
· Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more 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.”[140]
Large wintering concentrations of white-fronted and snow geese utilize the refuges. Pintail, blue-winged and green-winged teal, mallards, ring-necked ducks, gadwalls, and American widgeon are common on the refuges during the winter months. Breeding populations of black-bellied whistling-ducks, wood ducks, and blue-winged teal are found on the refuges during the summer months. The mottled duck, is a resident species with estimated numbers averaging over 50,000.[141]
Duck numbers reported in the state’s October 2003 habitat flyover estimate totaled 779,000 of mixed species just in southwest Louisiana with a the state’s total of mixed species coming in at 1,270,000.[142] Biologists found an estimated 2.5 million birds along the coastal zone when they flew aerial surveys in January of 2004.[143]
The most diverse and abundant land animal in Louisiana is the bird. Louisiana has no less than 411 different bird species that live in the state for part or all of the year (Lowery 1974)[144]. These species descend from 19 orders and 66 families. The diversity and abundance of birds in Louisiana is attributed to the state’s geographic position and climate, which support numerous habitat types. Rivers, streams, bayous, lakes, ponds, coastal marshes, and tidal beaches and estuaries provide unequalled habitat for the hundreds of bird species.
Louisiana has abundant hardwood swamplands, beech-oak uplands, pine forests, and treeless grassy plains, all of which provide habitat to land birds. The single greatest factor providing such great diversity is the presence of the Mississippi River. Louisiana lies in the Mississippi and Central flyways, routes for birds migrating from the Rocky Mountain region, the midwest, and the east. The yearly mass movement of birds to the south in the fall brings many northern nesting birds to Louisiana. Some remain all winter, while others rest before continuing on to destinations further south.
This Criterion will apply to wetlands of varying size in different Contracting Parties. While it is impossible to give precise guidance on the size of an area in which these numbers may occur, wetlands identified as being of international importance under Criterion 5 should form an ecological unit, and may thus be made up of one big area or a group of smaller wetlands.
· 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 refuge preserves a major wintering site for waterfowl in the United States. Historical wintering duck populations and geese at Lacassine are among the largest in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The sanctuary provided at Lacassine Pool is critical to the long-term viability of continental pintail populations and is one of the key pintail wintering areas in the continent, with a wintering pintail population that has reached almost 400,000 - which is 50% to 80% of the entire southwest Louisiana midwinter survey.[145] Additionally, the Mottled Duck, a distinct species of duck is a permanent resident of the NWR Complex, nesting, breeding, and over wintering in all areas of the marshes of south Louisiana.[146]
Table 5. 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
Several hundred different species of wading birds seek refuge on the complex and in the adjacent wetlands, particularly during the breeding season. Common marsh and water birds include neotropic cormorants; anhingas; great blue, tricolored, and little blue herons; great, reddish, and snowy egrets; black-crowned and yellow-crowned night herons; white and white-faced ibises; king rails; American coots; common moorhens; purple gallinules; and black-necked stilts.
The refuge hosts the first discovered American nesting colony of cattle egrets outside of Florida. Additionally, one of the only roseate spoonbill nesting rookeries in Louisiana is located in Lacassine Pool, a 16,000-acre freshwater impoundment managed on the refuge.
Specific criteria based on fish
· 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 brackish waters of the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex provide essential habitat for many species of fish. Species include the red drum or redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia petronus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), catfishes (lctaluridae), sheephead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates), livebearers (Poeciliidae) killifishes (Fundulide), silversides (Membras sp.), and gobies (Gobiidae).
The deeper coastal waters offshore are habitat to many finfish common to the Gulf of Mexico. Many species congregate around the stanchions of the deepwater drilling rigs. These artificial reefs provide shelter to offshore species including the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus), and blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus). The following fish have a greater association with the rigs themselves: red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber), and gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus).
Louisiana’s oil industry uses offshore rigs and structures that act as artificial reefs and supplement the natural habitat comprised of oyster reefs, mud flats, breakwaters and jetties. These structures provide habitat to encrusting organisms (epibenthic organisms), including hydroids and corals (Phylum Cnidaria), bryzoans (Phylum Entoprocta), sponges (Phylum Porifera), barnacles, amphipods, decapods, and other crustaceans (Phylum Arthropoda). These encrusted structures in turn attract bait fish, shrimp, crabs, squid and other reptiles, fish and animals, which supply the food chain of the area. Those environs farthest offshore often support species of tropical origin that migrate through the coastal zone of Louisiana to feast on the rich food sources the wetlands offer.
In 2002, the USFWS and the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex notified the public of their intent to seek input for preparation of Comprehensive Management Program. Through public notice and subsequent public meetings, management staff began formulation of a program true to the original mission of the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. In a May 2005 Lake Charles American-Press, newspaper article, the manager of the Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex Don Voros said, “We want to go back to the original purpose for which the refuge was established. That impoundment was built to manage waterfowl.”[147] The official mission statement of the refuge reads,
“To protect, restore, enhance, and manage a respresentative portion of freshwater wetland and associated habitats for the benefit of wintering waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and people.”[148]
NWR management staff are charged with upholding the regulatory policy of the USFWS, whereby these refuges were established and set aside in the early 1900’s as resting areas for wintering migratory waterfowl. Taking into consideration the pleas from recreational anglers “where the suggestions and concerns brought forward by the public were focused on what would be done to improve fishing in these refuges”[149], was a major concern for Complex staff. According, NWR Complex staff announced plans to complete and release a Comprehensive Management Plan for the sites that would reflect the interest of all- humans, flora and fauna-in the summer of 2005.[150]
Findings
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
Louisiana Wetland of International Importance Ramsar SiteEstablished in 1958, Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is 25 miles northeast of Alexandria, Louisiana. Catahoula Lake of the NWR is a 26,000-acre Wetland of International Importance, a historic concentration area for shorebirds, waterbirds and a migrating and wintering waterfowl habitat.
Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) trees naturally line swamps, bayous, and lowland hardwood forests that emerge from the annual flooding of Catahoula Lake located in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. White-tailed deer, small game mammals, songbirds, raptors and waterbirds coexist on the refuge with an interesting variety of reptiles and amphibians, including alligators.
Biologists record populations of waterfowl that peak at 75,000 ducks.[151] The refuge has an appropriately named artificial water impoundment, Duck Lake, constructed in the 1970’s to provide additional management capabilities for waterfowl. Catahoula Refuge also borders a portion of the Dewey Wills Wildlife Management Area, providing a cohesive clustehring of wildlife habitat separated only by the bureaucracy of federal and state administration.
Everglades
Florida Wetland of International Importance Ramsar Site
Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Satisfies Ramsar Criteria
Potential to Extend to Other Louisiana Wetlands
Conclusions
Recommendations
Complete and Submit Official RIS
Begin Lobbying at State and National Level
Extend to Other Louisiana Wetland Sites
References
Appendix
Glossary
Anaerobic: living in the absence of oxygen
Aquatic: lives in or on water
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.
Bottomland: lowlands along streams and rivers, usually on floodplains
Buffer zone: land adjacent to a sensitive area that minimizes outside impact
Conservation easement: a legal device that allows owners to divide up 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
Detritus: dead and decomposing plant and animal material
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
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
Estuary: an area where fresh water and marine water mix
Estuarine wetlands: tidal marshes that are semi-enclosed by land and have changing salinity levels due to the estuarine environment
Facultative: a plant species that has an equal possibility of occurring in wetlands and uplands; one of five categories used to determine whether or not 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 of time
Floodplain: the flat area of land adjacent to a stream; stores and dissipates floodwaters
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
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
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
Hydrologist: a scientist who studies the properties, distribution and effects of water on the earth
Hydrologic regime: how water moves in and out of the wetland system
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
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: wetland characterized by frequent or continual flooding and herbaceous vegetation such as cattails and rushes
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
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
Native: originally living, growing or produced in a certain place; indigenous
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
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
Saturation: condition in which all available spaces are filled with water
Standing water: water collected on the surface of the land
Stewardship: behavior that exhibits a long-term commitment and sense of personal responsibility
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: 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
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 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
Zonation: distinct bands of vegetation; common in wetlands because different areas are dominated by different species
[1] “Wetland,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005, online http://encarta.msn.com
[2] “What’s Happening to Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats?” U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS, National Wetlands Research Center, (Lafayette LA September 2001).
[3] J. Sommer, “Legal Protection of Wetlands in Poland”, in Legal Aspects of the Conservation of Wetlands, IUCN Environmental Policy & Law Paper No. 25 (1991) p. 107.
[4] M. J. Bowman, “The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age”, Netherlands International Law Review, XLII: 1-52, (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, Netherlands, 1995).
[5] Ibid, Bowman 1995.
[6] Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Final Text adopted by the International Conference on the Wetlands and Waterfowl (Ramsar, Iran, February 1971).
[7] P.J. Dugan, “Wetland Conservation: a Review of Current Issues and Required Action” (The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.
1990) p. 5.
[8] S. Lyster, International Wildlife Law. Grotius Publications, (Cambridge, UK. 1985), p. 470.
[9] “Wetlands, The Nature of Water”, Environment Canada, (Sept. 2003) online http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/nature/wetlan/e_wet.htm.
[10] Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Final Text adopted by the International Conference on the Wetlands and Waterfowl (Ramsar, Iran, February 1971).
[11] M.W. Holdgate, “Wetlands in a Changing World”, the Keynote Address at the Fourth Meeting of the Conference, (INF. C.4.7, Montreux, Switzerland, 1990).
[12] M. J. Bowman, “The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age”, Netherlands International Law Review, XLII: 1-52, (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, Netherlands, 1995).
[13] David J. Welsch, James N. Boyer, David L. Smart, et. al, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “Forested Wetlands, Functions, Benefits and the Use of Best Management Practices”, (1995).
[14] Institute For Wetland & Environmental Education and Research, Short Courses For Environmental Professionals, online http://www.wetlanded.com/primer.html.
[15] Ibid, Welsch, et. al.
[16] Shaw, Samuel P. and C. Gordon Fredine, “Wetlands of the United States - their extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife,” U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Circular 39, 1956, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/uswetlan/uswetlan.htm, (Version 05JAN99).
[17] “What Are Wetlands?” Wetland Primer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., online http://northeast.fws.gov/wetlandfest/primer.html.
[18] L. M. Cowardin, et al., “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, (U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1979), 131.
[19] Ibid, L. M. Cowardin, et al., “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
[20] 33 CFR 328.3(b); 40 CFR 230.3(t)
[21] 33 CFR 328.3(b) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 40 CFR 230.3(t) Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
[22] “What are Wetlands”, EPA, Washington D.C, March 23rd, 2005, online http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/vital/what.html.
[23] Ibid, “What are Wetlands”
[24] Weber State, Department of Botany, http://faculty.weber.edu/sharley/AIFT/wetlands.htm.
[25] “What Are Coastal Wetlands”, NOAA, Washington D.C., online http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/wetlands.htm.
[26] EPA Document 843-F-04-011a, “Wetlands Overview”, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, (Washington, D.C., December 2004).
[27] 40 CFR Part 230 Section 404(b),(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material”, Subpart A—General, Sec. 230.1 Purpose and Policy, (EPA, Washington D.C.).
[28] Douglas A. Wilcox, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.Editor-in-Chief, Wetlands, Journal of the Society of Wetlands Scientists, National Biological Service, Great Lakes Science Center, “Wetland,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005, online http://encarta.msn.com.
[29] USFWS, “Wetland Primer, What is the Current Status of Wetlands?” online http://northeast.fws.gov/wetlandfest/primer.html
[30] Ibid, USFWS online
[31] Association of State Wetland Managers, “Wetland and Watershed Protection Toolkit”, (February 2002), online http://www.aswm.org/lwp/nys/section3.htm.
[32] Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M. C. and Knowler, D. 1996, “Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A guide for Policy Makers and Planners”, (Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1997).
[33] Association of State Wetland Managers, “Wetland and Watershed Protection Toolkit”, (February 2002), online http://www.aswm.org/lwp/nys/section3.htm.
[34] Coastal Zone Management Act Of 1972 as amended through P.L. 104-150, The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996 § 1452, Congressional declaration of policy (Section 303).
[35] Coastal Zone Management Act Of 1972 as amended through P.L. 104-150, The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996 § 1451, Congressional findings (Section 302).
[36] U.S. Dept. of Energy, Environmental Policy and Guidance, Coastal Zone Management Act, Purpose and Organization, Washington, D.C., (Jan. 1996), http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/laws/czma.html.
[37] “Evolution of International Environmental Governance”, Natural Resources Defense Council, May 2005, online http://www.nrdc.org/international/fgovernance.asp
[38] Future Paths, A Look at Four Leading Concepts, RAND Corporation (2003), online http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/Newworld/sec7_futurepaths.html.
[39] Ibid, Future Paths.
[40] “Wetland,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005, online http://encarta.msn.com.
[41] Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, opened for signature Feb. 2, 1971, T.I.A.S No. 11084, 996 U.N.T.S. 245.
[42] Beth L. Kruchek, “Extending Wetlands Protection Under the Ramsar Treaty’s Wise Use Obligation”, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, (2003).
[43] “Wetlands: Water, Life, and Culture”, New Guidelines for Management Planning of Ramsar Sites and Other Wetlands, Section III, 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Valencia, Spain, (November 2002).
[44] Ibid, Future Paths.
[45] Ibid, Future Paths.
[46] Future Paths, A Look at Four Leading Concepts, RAND Corporation (2003), online http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/Newworld/sec7_futurepaths.html.
[47] Farrow, DRG., Arenstam, A., DeSouza, A., et. al., Coastal Zone Boundary Review, National Summary, State Characterization Reports, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring MD (1992), p. 141.
[48] “Calcasieu Coastal Environment”, Calcasieu Estuary Watershed, Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, NOAA Washington, D.C., online http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/watershed/calcasieu/calc_html/calcenv.html.
[49] Don Moser, “1976 - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: much to do just undoing what's been done” Smithsonian Magazine, April 1995.
[50] “What Is the Current Status of Wetlands”, Wetland Primer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., online http://northeast.fws.gov/wetlandfest/primer.html
[51] LSU Highlights, Science and Technology, “Barrier Island Breakdown, Ship to Shoal to the Rescue”, (Baton Rouge LA, Spring 2005) online http://www.lsu.edu/highlights/051/barrier.html.
[52] Louisiana, Association of State Wetland Managers, online http://www.aswm.org/swp/la9.pdf
[53] The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, “Turning the Tide, the Fight to Keep Coastal Louisiana on the Map”, Department of Natural Resources, LaCoast.gov.
[54] LSU Highlights, Science and Technology, “Barrier Island Breakdown, Ship to Shoal to the Rescue”, (Baton Rouge LA, Spring 2005) online http://www.lsu.edu/highlights/051/barrier.html.
[55] John Pitre, “Lost and Found: Louisiana’s Coastal Prairies”, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Larry Allain, U.S. Geological Survey
[56] Gosselink, James G., et al., “Coastal Louisiana”, Status and Trends of the Nation Biology, United States Geological Survey, (1999, 2003) online http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/gc138.htm.
[57] Burkett, Virginia Rose PhD., “Why are Wetlands Important?”, (March 2003), online http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/textbook/habitat/wetlands/transcript.htm.
[58] Farrow, DRG., Arenstam, A., DeSouza, A., et. al., Coastal Zone Boundary Review, National Summary, State Characterization Reports, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring MD (1992), p. 141.
[59] Louisiana, Association of State Wetland Managers, online http://www.aswm.org/swp/la9.pdf.
[60] The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, “Turning the Tide, the Fight to Keep Coastal Louisiana on the Map”, Department of Natural Resources, LaCoast.gov.
[61] The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, “Turning the Tide, the Fight to Keep Coastal Louisiana on the Map”, Department of Natural Resources, LaCoast.gov.
[62] Teal, J.M., “Salt Marshes: They Offer Diversity of Habitat,”14 Oceanus 13 (1996).
[63] Oceans and Coastal Resources: A Briefing Book, 23 Congressional Research Service
Rep. 97-588ENR (1997).
[64] Oceans and Coastal Resources: A Briefing Book, 23 Congressional Research Service
Rep. 97-588ENR (1997).
[65] “America’s Wetlands, Our Vital Link between Land and Water”, EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, (Washington, D.C., 1992).
[66] The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, “Turning the Tide, the Fight to Keep Coastal Louisiana on the Map”, Department of Natural Resources, LaCoast.gov.
[67] Louisiana Shrimp and Shrimping, Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service, Baton Rouge, LA, (Feb. 2000).
[68] Louisiana Shrimp and Shrimping, Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service, Baton Rouge, LA, (Feb. 2000).
[69] The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement”, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, (May 2003).
[70] “America’s Wetlands, Our Vital Link between Land and Water”, EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, (Washington, D.C., 1992).
[71] Jim Lee, Trade and Environment Database, “Nutria in the U.S. and Trade”, Washington University, (Washington D.C., April 1996).
[72] James Evans, About Nutria and their Control, (Denver, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1970).
[73] Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Louisiana-Ecosystem Restoration Plan, online http://lca.gov/.
[74] “La. Governor, Corps Chief Will Sign Historic Agreement” LCA News Release, (Baton Rouge, LA January 2005).
[75] Ibid, “La. Governor, Corps Chief Will Sign Historic Agreement” LCA News Release, (Baton Rouge, LA January 2005).
[76] Ibid, “La. Governor, Corps Chief Will Sign Historic Agreement” LCA News Release, (Baton Rouge, LA January 2005).
[77] Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Fur and Refuge Division, Baton Rouge LA, online http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawlf&pid=57.
[78] Ramsar Bureau, “What is the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Ramsar Info Pack, Information Paper #2”, (Gland, Switzerland, 2005), online http://ramsar.org/about_infopack_2e.htm#top.
[79] M. J. Bowman, “The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age, Netherlands International Law Review”, XLII: 1-52, (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, Netherlands, 1995).
[80] Ibid, Bowman, “The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age, Netherlands International Law Review”, XLII: 1-52, (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, Netherlands, 1995).
[81] Ibid, Bowman, “The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age”.
[82] Ibid, Bowman, “The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age”.
[83] 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), “Wetlands: Water, Life, and Culture”, (Valencia, Spain, November 2002).
[84] “Testimony about Ramsar before the U.S. Congress” Statement of the U.S. National Ramsar Committee Submitted to the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations (Washington D.C., April 1997).
[85] Prof J. Bennett, S. Whitten, M. Handley, W. Moss and Dr B. Phillips, “Wetland Management Assistance for Private Landholders”, Environment Australia, 2002 online http://www.deh.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/management/sheet11.html
[86] Testimony about Ramsar before the U.S. Congress, Statement of the U.S. National Ramsar Committee Submitted to the [United States] Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, (Washington D.C., April 1997).
[87] The Convention on Wetlands, Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage, June 2004, online, http://www.deh.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar/.
[88] “Wetlands: Water, Life, and Culture”, New Guidelines for Management Planning of Ramsar Sites and Other Wetlands, Section III, 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Valencia, Spain, (November 2002).
[89] “Wetlands: Water, Life, and Culture”, New Guidelines for Management Planning of Ramsar Sites and Other Wetlands, Section III, 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Valencia, Spain, (November 2002).
[90] Dr. Jay Huner, “Birding Opportunities Abound in Louisiana”, Center for Cultural and Eco-Tourism, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, (ULL), March 2004, online http://ccet.louisiana.edu/04a_Environmental_Tour_Files/Birdwatching.html.
[91] Ibid, Huner.
[92] “Future Paths: A Look at Four Leading Concepts”, Environmental Alliances\Clusters, RAND Organization December 2003, online http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/Newworld/sec7_futurepaths.html.
[93] Beth L. Kruchek, Extending Wetlands Protection Under the Ramsar Treaty’s Wise Use Obligation”, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2003.
[94] 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Regina, Canada in 1987
[95] Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, First adopted as an annex to Recommendation 4.10 of the 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Montreux, Switzerland, 1990), online http://www.ramsar.org/key_guide_wiseuse_e.htm
[96] The Ramsar Convention toolkit for the conservation and wise use of wetlands (including Guidelines adopted by the 7th and 8th Conferences of the Parties), 2nd Edition wise use of wetlands includes guidance on: Guidelines for implementation of the wise use concept, Additional guidance on implementation of the wise use concept.
[97] Prof J. Bennett, S. Whitten, M. Handley, W. Moss and Dr B. Phillips, “Wetland Management Assistance for Private Landholders”, Environment Australia, 2002 online http://www.deh.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/management/sheet11.html
[98] The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, “The Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance”, as adopted by the 4th, 6th, and 7th Meetings of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) to guide implementation of Article 2.1 on designation of Ramsar sites.
[99] Key Documents of the Ramsar Convention, Strategic Framework for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, edition 2002, Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) (adopted as the Annex to Resolution VII.11 by the 7th Conference of the Contracting Parties, San José, Costa Rica, 1999, with the text of the Annexes to Resolutions VII.13, VIII.11, and VIII.33 incorporated into the appropriate sections following COP8, 2002).
[100] Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), (adopted as the Annex to Resolution VII.11 by the 7th Conference of the Contracting Parties, San José, Costa Rica, 1999, with the text of the Annexes to Resolutions VII.13, VIII.11, and VIII.33 incorporated into the appropriate sections following COP8, 2002).
[101] Ibid, Strategic Framework COP8
[102] Ibid, Strategic Framework COP8
[103] Federal Register U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs, “Listing Wetlands of International Importance”, Vol.55 (71):13856-13857, (Washington D.C., 1990).
[104] Ibid, Federal Register.
[105] Ibid, USFWS.
[106] “The Ramsar Convention Manual: a Guide to the Convention on Wetlands”, (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 3rd ed. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004.
[107] The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, The Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance as adopted by the 4th and 6th Meetings of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) to guide implementation of Article 2.1 on designation of Ramsar sites (Annexes to Recommendation 4.2, Montreux, Switzerland, 1990, and Resolution VI.2, Brisbane, Australia, 1996).
[108] Ramsar COP8 DOC. 31: “Further elaboration of the Ramsar criteria and guidelines” , Ramsar COP8 DOC. 31, Discussion Paper for Technical Session 4 and COP8 - DR 10, (Valencia Spain 2002).
[109] 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, “Recommendation 6.8: Strategic Planning in Coastal Zones”, (Brisbane, Australia, March 1996).
[110] Thomas J. Culliton, “Population: Distribution, Density and Growth”, NOAA's State of the Coast Report, (Silver Spring, MD 1998) online http://state_of_coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_01/pop.html
[111] Ibid, Culiton.
[112] Ibid, Culiton.
[113] “Key Documents of the Ramsar Convention, Strategic Framework for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, 2002, Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), (adopted as the Annex to Resolution VII.11 by the 7th Conference of the Contracting Parties, San José, Costa Rica, 1999, with the text of the Annexes to Resolutions VII.13, VIII.11, and VIII.33”, COP8, Valencia, Spain 2002).
[114] Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington D.C., (May 2003), http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/.
[115] Ibid, Coastal Zone Management.
[116] Coastal Management Division (CMD) of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, online http://www.dnr.state.la.us/crm/coastmgt/coastmgt.asp.
[117] Local Coastal Programs, Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, online http://www.dnr.state.la.us/crm/coastmgt/interagencyaff/lcp/lcp.asp
[118] 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties Recommendation 4.7, “Mechanisms for improved application of the Ramsar Convention”, (Montreux, Switzerland, July 1990).
[119] Interview with Mike Stewart USFWS (retired), 31-year employee with Lacassine NWR, Lake Arthur LA, (May 21, 2005).
[120] Interview with Judy McClendon, USFWS Natural Resource Planner, SW Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Cameron Prairie NWR office, Bell City LA (May 11, 2005).
[121] EPA, Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 12, (Washington, D.C., January 2003).
[122] USFWS, Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, (Bell City, LA February 2004).
[123] “Hydrologic Investigation of the Louisiana Chenier Plain”, Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (Baton Rouge, LA October 2002).
[124] Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division, “Gulf Ecological Management Site”, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, (Cameron, LA February 2001).
[125] Executive Order, MJF 00-41, Saltwater Marsh Die-Off Action Plan, Louisiana Governor Mike Foster, (Baton Rouge January 2000).
[126] Duncan, Wilbur H, Duncan, Marion B., The Smithsonian guide to seaside plants of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts from Louisiana to Massachusetts, exclusive of lower peninsular Florida, Smithsonian Institution Press, p. 409, Washington, DC 1987.
[127] Palmisano, Angelo W., Jr. and Newsom, John D., “Ecological factors affecting occurrence of Scirpus olneyi and Scirpus robustus in the Louisiana coastal marshes”, Proceedings, 21st Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissions, 1968, 21: 161-172.
[128] Kuchler, A. W., “Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States”, Special Publication No. 36, American Geographical Society, p. 77, (New York, 1964).
[129] USGS, Center for Coastal Geology, “Gulf of Mexico Tidal Wetlands, Marsh Grasses”, (Washington D.C., February 23, 1991), online http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/wetlands/gallery/grasses.html.
[130] Mitsch and Gosselink 1987.
[131] Ibid, Mitsch and Gosselink 1987.
[132] NOAA, Department of Restoration and Research, Restoration Research Planning Document, “The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Regional Restoration Plan”, RRP_DPEIS.doc, Region 2, September 2003, online, www.darp.noaa.gov/partner/rrpp-la/pdf/la2041app.pdf.
[133] Ibid, NOAA
[134] Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531, et seq.
[135] Ibid, ESA.
[136] Louisiana Endangered Species, online http://www.endangeredspecie.com/states/la.htm.
[137] Chris Reid, “Botanizing on LDWF Lands”, Louisiana Conservationist, Vol. 58, No. 2, (March 2005).
[138] Mac, M.J., Opler, P.A., Puckett Haecker, C.E., and Doran, P.D., “Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources”, 2 Volumes: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, (Reston, VA, 1998), p. 385-436.
[139] Dugas, R., “The Louisiana Oyster”, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Moran Colorgraphic Incorporated, (Baton Rouge, LA, 1982), p.33.
[140] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “Lacassine, National Wildlife Refuge Bird List”, (Lake Arthur LA, August 2002)
[141] S. Durham, M. Perot, J. Butcher, “Waterfowl Population Estimates Date: Coastal Zone November 3-5, 2003 in Louisiana’s Coastal Zone Below NW La. Oct 30 U.S. Highway 90 and on Catahoula Lake”, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, (Baton Rouge LA October 31 2003).
[142] S. Durham, M. Perot, J. Butcher, “Waterfowl Population Estimates Date: Coastal Zone November 3-5, 2003 in Louisiana’s Coastal Zone Below NW La. Oct 30 U.S. Highway 90 and on Catahoula Lake”, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, (Baton Rouge LA October 31 2003).
[143] “Duck numbers rise in January, but hunting success still spotty”, Louisiana Sportsmen Magazine 2005, online http://www.louisianasportsman.com/news/2005/jan05/finalduckreport.htm
[144] Lowery, G.H., Jr., “Louisiana Birds”, Louisiana State University Press, (Baton Rouge, 1974), LA, p. 567.
[145] Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, http://lacassine.fws.gov/.
[146] Personal Interview, Southwest NWR Complex Biologist, May 2005.
[147] John N. Felsher, “Official Plan Meeting on Lacassine Pool Water”, Lake Charles American Press, Sports Section, (Lake Charles, LA May 12, 1995).
[148] USFWS, “Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex”, (Lake Arthur, LA April 2004).
[149] Randy Powell, randall.powell@us.sasol.com, Posted On: 3/26/05 11:47 PM at http://www.insideline.net/index.html., confirmed by Mitch Coffman at May 4, 2005 Public Hearing on Lacassine Management.
[150] USFWS Public Hearing on Lacassine Management, Mitch Coffman, attendance and subsequent discussion with Complex staff, Lake Charles, LA May 4, 2005.
[151] Catahoula NWR, Big Game Hunt, online http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Louisiana/public_lands/page2.html.
[i] The Montreux Record is a register of wetland sites on the List of Wetlands of International Importance where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference. The Ramsar Sites Database oversees the record.
[ii] 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).
[iii] For each Criterion, guidelines are also provided to assist Contracting Parties in taking a systematic approach to identifying their priority sites for designation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment