DOCSLIB.ORG

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Catahoula National Wildlife USFWS Photo Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive Catahoula National

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Catahoula National Wildlife USFWS Photo Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive Catahoula National U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Catahoula Contact Info: Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Andrew Hammond - Refuge Manager National P.O. Drawer Z Rhinehart, LA 71363-0201 Catahoula Phone: (318) 992-5261 FAX: (318) 992-6023 Wildlife E-mail: [email protected] National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD Refuge http://www.fws.gov Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive ConservationPlan September 2007 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge USFWS Photo USFWS Photo Photo provided by Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region September 2007 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN CATAHOULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LASALLE AND CATAHOULA PARISHES, LOUISIANA U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia September 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3 Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4 Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 5 National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5 North American Bird Conservation Initiative .......................................................................5 North American Waterfowl Management Plan ....................................................................6 Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan ...........................................................................6 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................................................................6 Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan ...............................................................6 U.S. Woodcock Plan ...........................................................................................................6 Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ..........................................................................................7 II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9 Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9 Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13 Oil and Gas Activities ........................................................................................................ 13 Partnerships ...................................................................................................................... 13 Globally Important Bird Area .............................................................................................16 Ramsar Designation of Catahoula Lake ...........................................................................16 Ecosystem Context .....................................................................................................................17 Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................17 Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 20 Forest Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................................21 Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................23 Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................23 Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants .............................................................................23 Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 24 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 24 Geology and Topography ..................................................................................................24 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 24 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 25 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................25 Water Quality and Quantity ...............................................................................................27 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 27 Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 27 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 34 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 39 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 41 Refuge Administration and Management ...................................................................................42 Land Protection and Conservation ....................................................................................42 Table of Contents i Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 42 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 46 III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 49 Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 49 Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 49 Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 51 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 52 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 53 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 54 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 55 IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 57 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57 Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 59 Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 62 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 72 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 74 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 80 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 83 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild Patagonia & Central Chile
    WILD PATAGONIA & CENTRAL CHILE: PUMAS, PENGUINS, CONDORS & MORE! NOVEMBER 1–18, 2019 Pumas simply rock! This year we enjoyed 9 different cats! Observing the antics of lovely Amber here and her impressive family of four cubs was certainly the highlight in Torres del Paine National Park — Photo: Andrew Whittaker LEADERS: ANDREW WHITTAKER & FERNANDO DIAZ LIST COMPILED BY: ANDREW WHITTAKER VICTOR EMANUEL NATURE TOURS, INC. 2525 WALLINGWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 1003 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746 WWW.VENTBIRD.COM Sensational, phenomenal, outstanding Chile—no superlatives can ever adequately describe the amazing wildlife spectacles we enjoyed on this year’s tour to this breathtaking and friendly country! Stupendous world-class scenery abounded with a non-stop array of exciting and easy birding, fantastic endemics, and super mega Patagonian specialties. Also, as I promised from day one, everyone fell in love with Chile’s incredible array of large and colorful tapaculos; we enjoyed stellar views of all of the country’s 8 known species. Always enigmatic and confiding, the cute Chucao Tapaculo is in the Top 5 — Photo: Andrew Whittaker However, the icing on the cake of our tour was not birds but our simply amazing Puma encounters. Yet again we had another series of truly fabulous moments, even beating our previous record of 8 Pumas on the last day when I encountered a further 2 young Pumas on our way out of the park, making it an incredible 9 different Pumas! Our Puma sightings take some beating, as they have stood for the last three years at 6, 7, and 8. For sure none of us will ever forget the magical 45 minutes spent observing Amber meeting up with her four 1- year-old cubs as they joyfully greeted her return.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregation of Bird Families Listed on Cms Appendix Ii
    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 2nd Meeting of the Sessional Committee of the CMS Scientific Council (ScC-SC2) Bonn, Germany, 10 – 14 July 2017 UNEP/CMS/ScC-SC2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II (Prepared by the Appointed Councillors for Birds) Summary: The first meeting of the Sessional Committee of the Scientific Council identified the adoption of a new standard reference for avian taxonomy as an opportunity to disaggregate the higher-level taxa listed on Appendix II and to identify those that are considered to be migratory species and that have an unfavourable conservation status. The current paper presents an initial analysis of the higher-level disaggregation using the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World Volumes 1 and 2 taxonomy, and identifies the challenges in completing the analysis to identify all of the migratory species and the corresponding Range States. The document has been prepared by the COP Appointed Scientific Councilors for Birds. This is a supplementary paper to COP document UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.3 on Taxonomy and Nomenclature UNEP/CMS/ScC-Sc2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II 1. Through Resolution 11.19, the Conference of Parties adopted as the standard reference for bird taxonomy and nomenclature for Non-Passerine species the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Non-Passerines, by Josep del Hoyo and Nigel J. Collar (2014); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Rely on Catahoula Lake in Central Louisiana Enforcement of New Clean Water Rule Still Unclear for Farmers
    New Sorghum Pest Youth Wetlands Program Water and Food Safety page 12 page 20 page 26 Vol. 58, No. 3, Summer 2015 Waterfowl rely on Catahoula Lake in central Louisiana Enforcement of new Clean Water Rule still unclear for farmers Olivia McClure EDITORIAL BOARD: John S. Russin, Chairman Although a rule that revises which bodies of water are subject to Clean Water Linda Foster Benedict Act regulations has taken effect, the agricultural community continues to be Michael Blazier Rick Bogren concerned about how strict federal scrutiny will be. Melissa Cater Agricultural water has always been Glen T. Gentry exempt from Clean Water Act regulations, Kurt M. Guidry but the new Clean Water Rule incorporates Dustin Harrell Claudia Husseneder several types of water that were never reg- Kathy Kramer ulated before and are common on farms. Megan La Peyre Tributaries and waterways adjacent or connected to a previously jurisdictional EDITOR: Linda Foster Benedict waterway must now comply with the Clean ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Rick Bogren Water Act, said LSU AgCenter economist DESIGNER: Kathy Kramer Naveen Adusumilli. Drainage ditches and PHOTO EDITOR: John Wozniak CONTRIBUTORS: Tobie Blanchard, Craig irrigation runoff, for example, are not Gautreaux, Randy LaBauve, Elma Sue specifically regulated by the act but drain McCallum, Olivia McClure and Bruce Schultz into those that are. WEB DESIGN: Ronda Clark and Kathy Kramer “Can farmers dig a ditch now, and how Louisiana Agriculture is published quarterly by will it be regulated? It is unclear right now,” the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. Subscriptions are free. You may also subscribe Adusumilli said. to a Web version of the magazine, which is The changes are spelled out in the available at www.LSUAgCenter.com.
    [Show full text]
  • A 2010 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World by Paul A. Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences 2010 The World’s Waterfowl in the 21st Century: A 2010 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciducksgeeseswans Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "The World’s Waterfowl in the 21st Century: A 2010 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World" (2010). Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World by Paul A. Johnsgard. 20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciducksgeeseswans/20 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World by Paul A. Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The World’s Waterfowl in the 21st Century: A 200 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World Paul A. Johnsgard Pages xvii–xxiii: recent taxonomic changes, I have revised sev- Introduction to the Family Anatidae eral of the range maps to conform with more current information. For these updates I have Since the 978 publication of my Ducks, Geese relied largely on Kear (2005). and Swans of the World hundreds if not thou- Other important waterfowl books published sands of publications on the Anatidae have since 978 and covering the entire waterfowl appeared, making a comprehensive literature family include an identification guide to the supplement and text updating impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • References.Qxd 12/14/2004 10:35 AM Page 771
    Ducks_References.qxd 12/14/2004 10:35 AM Page 771 References Aarvak, T. and Øien, I.J. 1994. Dverggås Anser Adams, J.S. 1971. Black Swan at Lake Ellesmere. erythropus—en truet art i Norge. Vår Fuglefauna 17: 70–80. Wildl. Rev. 3: 23–25. Aarvak, T. and Øien, I.J. 2003. Moult and autumn Adams, P.A., Robertson, G.J. and Jones, I.L. 2000. migration of non-breeding Fennoscandian Lesser White- Time-activity budgets of Harlequin Ducks molting in fronted Geese Anser erythropus mapped by satellite the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Condor 102: 703–08. telemetry. Bird Conservation International 13: 213–226. Adrian, W.L., Spraker, T.R. and Davies, R.B. 1978. Aarvak, T., Øien, I.J. and Nagy, S. 1996. The Lesser Epornitics of aspergillosis in Mallards Anas platyrhynchos White-fronted Goose monitoring programme,Ann. Rept. in north central Colorado. J. Wildl. Dis. 14: 212–17. 1996, NOF Rappportserie, No. 7. Norwegian Ornitho- AEWA 2000. Report on the conservation status of logical Society, Klaebu. migratory waterbirds in the agreement area. Technical Series Aarvak, T., Øien, I.J., Syroechkovski Jr., E.E. and No. 1.Wetlands International,Wageningen, Netherlands. Kostadinova, I. 1997. The Lesser White-fronted Goose Afton, A.D. 1983. Male and female strategies for Monitoring Programme.Annual Report 1997. Klæbu, reproduction in Lesser Scaup. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis. Norwegian Ornithological Society. NOF Raportserie, Univ. North Dakota, Grand Forks, US. Report no. 5-1997. Afton, A.D. 1984. Influence of age and time on Abbott, C.C. 1861. Notes on the birds of the Falkland reproductive performance of female Lesser Scaup.
    [Show full text]
  • AEP's 2017 GRI Report
    For more information contact: Sandy Nessing Managing Director Corporate Sustainability American Electric Power [email protected] Melissa Tominack Sr. Sustainability Coordinator American Electric Power [email protected] 2 American Electric Power –2017 GRI Report 2017 Global Reporting Initiative AEP follows the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 reporting principles in terms of data quality, report content and organizational boundaries. This report was developed according to the fourth generation of GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, otherwise known as G4, in accordance with a core adherence level. The GRI guidelines provide a voluntary reporting framework used by organizations around the world as the basis for sustainability reporting. We also responded using the Electric Utility Sector Supplement for reporting on industry-specific information. G4 Description Report Location Indicator Strategy and Analysis Message from the G4-1 Statement from the most senior decision-maker Chairman 2016 Form 10-K Risk Factors pg. 33 G4-2 Description of key impacts, risks, and opportunities Managing Risk Carbon Profile Analysis Strategy for Growth Organizational Profile G4-3 Name of the organization See homepage G4-4 Primary brands, products, and/or services About Us Columbus, OH G4-5 Location of organization’s headquarters About Us G4-6 Countries in which the company has operations About Us G4-7 Nature of ownership and legal form 2016 Form 10-K pg. 1 G4-8 Markets served 2016 Form 10-K pg. 1 G4-9 Scale of the reporting organization About AEP 17,634 (see appendix G4-10 Total number of employees by employment contract & gender 1) G4-11 Total employees covered by collective bargaining agreements Labor Relations Significant changes in organizations size, structure, ownership, or its G4-13 2016 Form 10-K pg.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
    NATIONAL WETLANDS NEWSLETTER, vol. 29, no. 2. Copyright © 2007 Environmental Law Institute.® Washington D.C., USA.Reprinted by permission of the National Wetlands Newsletter. To subscribe, call 800-433-5120, write [email protected], or visit http://www.eli.org/nww. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Assessment of International Designations Within the United States The Ramsar Convention is an international framework used to protect wetlands. At this time, the United States has 22 designated sites listed as wetlands of international importance. In this Article, the authors analyze survey data collected from each of these 22 sites to determine whether and how Ramsar designation benefits these wetland areas. BY ROYAL C. GARDNER AND KIM DIANA CONNOLLY ssues related to wetlands and wetland protection often involve engage in international cooperation.6 Its nonregulatory approach boundaries. Sometimes the lines are drawn on the ground, has led some to ask what benefits are associated with Ramsar des- delineating between so-called “jurisdictional” wetlands and ignation. For example, the United States has a maze of federal, uplands. Sometimes the boundaries are conceptual: trying state, and local laws that protect wetlands, so does the international Ito determine the proper relationship between the federal and state recognition of a site provide any additional returns? To answer governments with respect to wetland permits, or trying to balance this question, we surveyed all 22 U.S. Ramsar sites.7 Although the the need to protect the aquatic environment without inappropri- results varied from site to site, we found that Ramsar designation ately limiting activities on private property. Other times interna- adds some value to all sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 114/Thursday, June 13, 2002/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Notices 40735 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Dated: June 7, 2002. pages of comments from numerous Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: Art Payne, commenters, including the parties 202–564–3261; facsimile: 202–565– Acting Director, National Center for requesting more time. EPA believes that 0050; e-mail: [email protected]. Environmental Assessment. it has appropriately responded to the [FR Doc. 02–14993 Filed 6–12–02; 8:45 am] comments received. Furthermore, EPA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BILLING CODE 6560–50–P is establishing these TMDLs pursuant to Foundation for Global Action on deadlines established in a consent Persistent Organic Pollutants: A United decree in the case styled Sierra Club, et States Perspective, developed by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96–0527, (E.D. scientists from EPA, other federal and AGENCY La.) which does not at this late date state agencies, and the academic permit EPA to grant additional time for [FRL–7227–3] community, is a technical support public comment, absent relief from the document aimed at informing decision Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Final court, which the Agency does not makers, general academia, and the Agency Action on 98 Total Maximum believe is necessary to seek here. public on the scientific foundation and Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Final Agency However, EPA will continue to accept relevance to the United States of the Action on 20 Determinations That information submitted regarding Stockholm Convention on Persistent TMDLs Are Not Needed potential errors in the TMDL, and/or to Organic Pollutants (POPs).
    [Show full text]
  • Point Source Implementation Strategy for Nutrients in the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Program
    Point Source Implementation Strategy for Nutrients in the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Program In Support of the Louisiana Nutrient Management Strategy Strategic Action 9.d. Monitor nutrients in point sources Water Permits Division Office of Environmental Services Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality August 3, 2016 Point Source Implementation Strategy for Nutrients Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality August 3, 2016 Table of Contents 1. Overview of Nutrient Monitoring in the LPDES Program ...................................................... 3 2. Enhanced Nutrient Monitoring Approach ............................................................................... 4 3. Language for Permit Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis ............................................................... 6 4. Laboratory Costs of Nutrient Monitoring ................................................................................ 8 5. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 8 6. References ............................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A – Nutrient Monitoring in Permits Resulting From Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin ................................................................................... 10 Appendix B – Nutrient Monitoring in Point Source Wetland Assimilation Projects ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Element Transport in a River-Lake Continuum Across Forest- Dominated Landscapes: a Case Study in Central Louisiana
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School March 2020 Element Transport in A River-lake Continuum across Forest- dominated Landscapes: A Case Study in Central Louisiana Zhen Xu Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Geochemistry Commons, and the Hydrology Commons Recommended Citation Xu, Zhen, "Element Transport in A River-lake Continuum across Forest-dominated Landscapes: A Case Study in Central Louisiana" (2020). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 5181. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/5181 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ELEMENT TRANSPORT IN A RIVER-LAKE CONTINUUM ACROSS FOREST-DOMINATED LANDSCAPES: A CASE STUDY IN CENTRAL LOUISIANA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The School of Renewable Natural Resources by Zhen Xu B.S., College of Idaho, 2012 M.S., Louisiana State University, 2014 May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who helped and supported me on this lifetime achievement. First and foremost, thank you to my major advisor, Dr. Yi-Jun Xu, whose training set the foundation for this achievement. You let me swim upriver on my own, yet were always willing to pull me out of unhappy waters when I floundered.
    [Show full text]
  • 50660 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
    50660 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 6 supplement also provided detailed 1996±97 late-season frameworks. For information on the 1997±98 regulatory those topics where a Council Fish and Wildlife Service schedule and announced the Service recommendation is not shown, the Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Council supported continuing the same 50 CFR Part 20 and Flyway Council meetings. On June frameworks as in 1996±97. RIN 1018-AE14 27, 1997, the Service held a public hearing in Washington, DC, as General Migratory Bird Hunting; Final announced in the March 13 and June 6 Written Comments: The Humane Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Federal Registers to review the status of Society of the United States (Humane Bird Hunting Regulations migratory shore and upland game birds. Society) expressed concern that the The Service discussed hunting public was not well represented in the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, regulations for these species and for regulations-development process and Interior. other early seasons. On July 23, 1997, requested establishment of a system ACTION: Final rule. the Service published in the Federal directly involving the non-hunting Register (62 FR 39712) a third public. In addition, they recommended SUMMARY: This rule prescribes final late- document. This document contained the that the Service undertake efforts to season frameworks from which States final regulatory alternatives for the obtain population estimates for all may select season dates, limits, and 1997±98 duck hunting season and the hunted species. Finally, they other options for the 1997±98 migratory proposed early-season frameworks for recommended pre-sunrise shooting be bird hunting season.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
    The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Ramsar Convention What Ramsar Is: Who can nominate a site stakeholders associated with the proposed site greatly contribute to • In 1971, an international convention • Any local government, group, the nomination process; and was held in Ramsar, Iran and community, private organization, participants signed a treaty entitled, or landowner can nominate a A completed Ramsar Information “The Convention on Wetlands of site for inclusion on the Ramsar Sheet, is available online at http://bit. International Importance, Especially List of Wetlands of International ly/1HIU7PR as Waterfowl Habitat.” Importance. The Federal government can also nominate sites, such as Nine Criteria for “Wetlands • The Ramsar Convention provides a National Parks, National Forests, or of International Importance” framework for voluntary international National Wildlife Refuges. Designation: cooperation for wetland conservation. A wetland should be considered • A written agreement is required internationally important if it meets • The U.S. acceded to the Ramsar from all landowners and a Member Convention April 18, 1987. any one of the following criteria. The of Congress representing the site: geographic area. What Ramsar Does: 1. contains a representative, rare, • Recognizes wetlands’ importance to Nomination package or unique example of a natural communities, cultures, governments, The petitioner must submit a complete or near-natural wetland type and businesses and encourages nomination package to the Director, found within the appropriate wetland conservation and wise use of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), biogeographic region; or wetlands. 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006, with a copy to the Global 2. supports vulnerable, endangered, • Establishes criteria for designating Program, Division of International or critically endangered species rivers, marshes, coral reefs and other Conservation, FWS.
    [Show full text]