MSU Extension Publication Archivearchive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/extension_publications/RR554/RR554.pdf ·...

MSU Extension Publication Archive Archive copy of publication, do not use for current recommendations. Up-to-date information about many topics can be obtained from your local Extension office. Wetland Identification and Protection: North American and European Policy Perspectives Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service Research Report Gerhardus Schultink, Richard van Vliet, Resource Development Issued October 1997 52 pages The PDF file was provided courtesy of the Michigan State University Library

Scroll down to view the publication.

1

R E S E A R C HR E P O R T

Michigan AgriculturalExperiment StationMichigan State University

Wetland Identification andProtection: North American andEuropean Policy Perspectives

October 1997 n Research Report 554

2

Table of Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Defining wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7National . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

United States and the state of Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Wetland functions and values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Socioeconomic values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Hydrological and biochemical values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Ecosystem values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Global wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13International protection of wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13International criteria for wetland classification and designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Wetlands in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Wetland protection in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Legal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Wetland protection policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Federal laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Planning and zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Michigan laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Local regulations in Michigan: land use planning and zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Criteria and classification of wetlands of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Wetland protection in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Pan-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Criteria and classification of wetlands of Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Wetland protection in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Legal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30National planning policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Regional and local planning and zoning in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32National park De Weerribben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Criteria and classification of wetlands in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Wetland protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Legal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Wetland restoration criteria in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Wetland protection in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Legal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Wetland protection in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Wetland protection in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Legal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Wetland protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Legal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Trends in wetland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Wetland protection in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Appendix 1—Michigan local governments with local wetland ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Appendix 2—National ecological network of the Netherlandss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4

Wetland Identification and Protection:North American and European

Policy Perspectives1

By:Gerhardus Schultink and Richard van Vliet2

Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University

ForewordThis research report is part of an

effort to assist Michigan units of gov-ernment in identifying wetlands,their functions, perceived public val-ues and critical roles in contributingto the quality of life (QoL) of its resi-dents. Comparative perspectives andapproaches to wetland identificationand preservation are useful in devel-oping guidelines for local govern-ments, which, under Michigan legis-lation, are faced with a delegatedmandate to protect wetlands of 5acres or less.

At the core of this issue is the con-version of rural space, including wet-lands, resulting from new settlementpatterns. Increasingly, Michigan’s citi-zens, elected officials, planning pro-fessionals and scientists are express-ing concerns about the impacts ofurbanization (expansion of residen-tial, commercial, transportation andindustrial land uses) on open space,resulting in a rapid conversion ofprime farmlands, wetlands andwoodlands, and environmentaldegradation. Estimates indicate thatland use conversions have exceeded200 acres per day in the mid-1990s.According to Rusk (1996), during the1960-90 period, Michigan urbanizedgrowth areas (with populationincreases ranging from 40 to 90 per-cent) have expanded at a rate 1.9 to2.6 times faster than population

growth, signifying a decreasing den-sity of settlement patterns. The con-version rate is even higher for the rel-atively stagnant urban growth areas(2 to 17 percent population increasesfor the 30-year period), where adecline of socioeconomic conditionsis marked by a “suburban flight”with rapid land conversion and pop-ulation growth ratios of 6.9 to 27. Inpart, this is caused by an urban plan-ning policy that lacks incentives torevitalize residential, commercial andindustrial land uses of core urbanareas. This has resulted in a decline ofthe urban service infrastructure,including a loss of quality in educa-tional, medical, recreational, culturaland retailing functions, and anincrease in crime rates.

Most notably, the population ofolder central cities has declined.Detroit, for instance, lost 821,000 per-sons in the 1950-90 period. Though asignificant number of these popula-tion losses may be attributed to out-of-state migration in the ‘80s, thispopulation movement illustrates thestatewide process of urban to subur-ban migration, with land develop-ment ratios of up to 27 acres of ruralland replacing one acre of urban landuse.

For Michigan’s rural areas, theUSDA (1994) estimates that the totalland area in farms declined from

17,562,000 acres in 1900 to 10,700,000acres in 1994, or almost 40 percent.This trend is associated with anincrease in land prices from $33 peracre to $1,212, a decline in the num-ber of farms from 203,261 to 52,000,and an increase in average farm sizefrom 86 to 206 acres.

Increasingly, environmentalimpacts associated with these landuse conversions are becoming a sig-nificant concern in urbanizing andrural regions alike. Impacts vary fromoverextraction of groundwaterresources by residential wells,groundwater contamination bynitrates and phosphates from privateseptic systems, and contaminatedrunoff caused by pesticide and fertil-izer applications on golf courses andresidential lawns, to contaminationfrom industrial and commercialacreage and toxic substances frompoorly designed landfills. In addition,land conversion reduces groundwa-ter recharge rates, increases surfacewater runoff and flood risks, reducesopen space and ecosystem habitat,and limits opportunities forrecreation and tourism.

In light of these concerns, the bene-ficial functions of wetlands, withtheir ability to reduce and mitigatethese impacts, are receiving increas-ingly international recognition. Theidentification of these functions and

1 Research supported, in part, by funding and support from the Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University.2 Respectively, professor of Resource Development, Michigan State University, and visiting M.S. scholar, Department of Environmental Sciences and Center for Energy and

Environmental Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

5

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank the vari-

ous individuals and institutions thathave graciously provided referencesand shared professional perspectivesand insights. We especially appreci-

the public policies enacted to protectand enhance these functions in inter-national settings are the focus of thiscomparative review. Wetland protec-tion policies and strategies are alsocompared.

ate the comments and suggestionsfrom Kenneth Verburg, DelbertMokma and Eckhart Dersch and theeditorial assistance from LeslieJohnson at MSU.

SummaryThis report presents a comparative

literature review of wetlandprotection policies of the UnitedStates and several European nations.The Netherlands, Germany, theUnited Kingdom, Denmark, Norway,Sweden and Finland were selectedbecause they represent regions withsimilar economic developmentimpacts on the natural environment.Of these countries, the Netherlands,Germany and the United Kingdomexemplify the most significant popu-lation pressures.

In defining wetlands, Europeannations use the International RamsarConvention definition. The U.S., incontrast, uses slightly different defini-tions originating from various federalagencies: the U.S. departments of theInterior and Agriculture, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency.

The United States lacks acomprehensive national wetland policyaddressing specific wetland preserva-tion goals, time-based planning objec-tives, evaluation measures andperformance standards. Rather, wet-land policy is somewhat fragmentedby agency objective and regulatoryinitiative and by the optional delega-tion of protection measures to thestates. For instance, the NationalWetlands Priority Conservation Planlargely provides guidelines for wet-land identification and mapping.Various wetland protection policies,laws and regulations represent thefunctional emphasis of U.S. policymeasures. Examples include theestablishment of the Wildlife RefugeSystem (preservation of waterfowlsanctuaries), and the Rivers andHarbor Act (maintain navigation byregulating dredging and filling), andthe Water Pollution Control Act and

the remaining wetlands, problemssuch as fragmentation, pollution andeutrophication have yet to beresolved.

One unique aspect of Dutch wet-land preservation policies is that newwetlands were created in areasreclaimed from portions of theZuiderzee, a former tidal basin of theNorth Sea, and along some coastalareas. This includes the naturepreserve “Oostvaardersplassen” ,about 13,000 acres in the most recent-ly reclaimed Flevoland Polder, desig-nated as a national biospherepreserve. In addition, discussions aretaking place to take considerablelowland acreage out of agriculturalproduction by raising the groundwa-ter table and even inundating somepolders reclaimed from inland lakesduring the past three centuries. Thislast initiative reflects changed priori-ties in the EC and the Netherlands,where agricultural overproductionand its environmental impacts, com-bined with increasing awareness ofthe public values of wetlands, havestarted to reshape environmentalpolicy.

Most other northwestern Europeancountries preserve wetlands throughnature and wildlife habitat protectionmeasures. Norway and Finland havea Wetland Conservation Plan andRiver Protection acts, respectively.The efficacy of these measures seemsunknown. In Denmark, the DanishNature Protection Act is according tothe Danish Bird ProtectionAssociation, adequate to meet its pro-tection objectives. In most Europeancountries, except for the less populat-ed Scandinavian countries, wetlandssuffer from increasing eutrophicationand pollution.

its Amendments of 1972 (later calledthe Clean Water Act, emphasizingpollution control measures).

Many states rely on federal protec-tion measures. A few state govern-ments have chosen to self-regulatewetlands by adopting federalwetland protection measures, as isthe case with Michigan’s adoption ofthe Wetland Protection Act in 1979,later replaced by the NaturalResources and EnvironmentalProtection Act. In Michigan, localgovernments are permitted to enactmore specific wetland protectionmeasures in the form of localordinances. More recent amendmentsmake this more difficult, however,because of the requirement tocomplete a wetland inventory as abasis for adopting wetlandordinances.

In spite of existing preservationpolicies, wetland acreage continues todecline in the U.S. and Europe. U.S.wetland conversions are expected tocontinue at a rate of 290,000 to450,000 acres (117,408 to 182,186 ha.)annually. In Europe, the Netherlandsrepresents a nation with a long, hier-archical land use planning history.Here, four planning documents arerelevant to wetland protection. TheNature Policy Plan (Ministry ofAgriculture, Nature Managementand Fisheries) is the most significant.Its goal is to reverse the fragmen-tation of nature areas by establishinga National Ecological Network withwetlands representing mostly the“core areas”. Ecosystem habitat pro-tection is identified as the principalreason for wetland protection. As aresult of these policies, thedestruction of existing Dutchwetlands has almost been halted. For

6

IntroductionWetland ecosystems, inland as

well as coastal, are a landscapeelement that drew special attentionin the late 1960s (Williams, 1990).This included the recognition thatwetlands perform several importantsocietal and environmentalfunctions. Wetlands support manyspecies during their life cycle, rang-ing from fish spawning to migratorybirds’ feeding and breeding habitat.They also protect shores from erosionthrough storm abatement, preventflooding by increasing storage capac-ity and containing runoff, and arecritical in recharging aquifers. Inaddition, wetlands enhance waterquality by recycling nutrients andstoring (toxic) chemicals.

Despite these widely establishedpublic values, wetlands are globally ahighly threatened ecosystem. Europehas lost most of its natural wetlandsand the U.S. more than 50 percentsince early European settlement(Mitch and Gosselink, 1993). The rateof wetland conversion has decreasedbut continues.

In northwestern Europeancountries and the U.S., attempts havebeen made to protect wetlands fromuncontrolled development. The judi-cial systems and the perceivedimportance of public vs. privaterights, responsibilities and values inthe Old and the New World aresomewhat different and lead to dif-ferent policies, laws and regulations.In the U.S., for example, national andstate-level laws aim to protectwetlands for various functional rea-sons, while optional developmentcontrols may be exercised at the locallevel. In the Netherlands, with itscentralized policy framework,national preservation and restorationmeasures are emphasized. Policiesand laws on both sides of theAtlantic may represent similar goals,but they differ in enforcement strate-gy, efficacy, and national and region-al priorities. For example, one coun-try may emphasize habitat or biodi-versity protection, while anotherfocuses on flood protection.

These differences make it difficultto measure the success of preserva-tion policies. This is exacerbated bythe differences in legal systems andemphasis on property rights, whichplays a significant role. In the U.S.,private land ownership historicallyinvolves property rights that includesa “bundle of rights” (Barlowe, 1972),including mineral and water rights,development rights, transfer rightsby lease, mortgage or sale—with orwithout deed restrictions —or theprovision of easements. Here, feesimple ownership of land entitles theowner to the most complete set ofrights where use may include rightsto exploit (emphasize short-term eco-nomic gain), degrade (exceed long-term use capacity) or even destroythe land by permanently altering itsfuture economic or public use capaci-ty. Although this right is the mostcomplete and the broadest privateproperty right yet developed, it is yetexclusive and not absolute. Ownershiprights are always subject tolimitations and conditions as promul-gated by federal, state or local juris-dictions reflecting societal interestsand values. Especially in the U.S.,that difference in judicial interpreta-tion of these formalized public inter-ests, in the form of land use policies,laws and regulations, variessignificantly by jurisdiction and overtime. For instance, the perceived needand willingness to implement effec-tive land use controls such as zoningand wetland ordinances at the locallevel and their practical implementa-tion vary greatly.

As such, public land use controlsfor wetland protection are more diffi-cult to exercise in the federal U.S. sys-tem than in European countries char-acterized by centralized and national-ly consistent public policies. In theU.S., this especially influences natureconservation policy options because74 percent of all wetlands in the con-tiguous 48 states are controlled byprivate landowners (USDI, 1990).

This comparative research address-es two primary world regions: Europeand the United States. The Europeancountries of the Netherlands,

Germany, Denmark, Norway,Sweden, Finland and the UnitedKingdom were chosen because theyexperience a degree of economicdevelopment pressure on wetlandresources similar to that in the UnitedStates. Also, legislation of theEuropean Union (E.U.) is discussedbecause all European nations includ-ed, except for Norway, are members.

Michigan serves as an example ofstate wetland legislation but does notnecessarily represent the other states,which mostly rely on federal policies.Because Michigan, with its fresh-water ecosystems, has no marine andestuarine (tidal) wetlands, policies onmarine coastal zone managementwere not included.

This research represents a compar-ative literature review of the mostreadily available sources. In addition,personal interviews were conductedwith specialists from the severalcountries and state agencies.

Defining wetlandsDuring the past 20 years, a number

of interested parties in the U.S. havechallenged the principles and defini-tions used in federal wetland regula-tions. In part, this reduced the credi-bility of national and state regulatorypractices, including methods of wet-land characterization, delineation andfunctional evaluation. Though theseissues are perceived as critical inmany countries, no parallel to thischallenge is evident in Europeancountries.

The term “wetland” as a collectivedefinition distinguishing it from ter-restrial ecosystems has been used toreplace the term “swamp” in the lat-ter part of this century. The globalextent of wetlands is estimated to befrom 7 million to 8 million km2

(Mitch, 1994). Though internationaldefinitions vary, basic similarityexists in temporary or permanentwaterlogging and peat-formingcapacities due to an impermeablelayer of clay. Differences are found infeatures such as salinity, hydrology,climate and successional stage

7

(Williams, 1990). The term “wetland”is usually synonymous with severalwetland ecosystems, such as marshes,(raised) bogs, mires, fens, swamps,carrs and schwingmoor. The term“mire” is more often used in Europeinstead of peatland (National ScienceFoundation, 1995). When comparingwetland policies among countries, itis important to compare the practicalimplications of the scientificdefinitions in use.

InternationalDuring the Ramsar Convention of

1971 (IUCN, 1993), wetlands wereidentified as “areas of marshes, fen, peat-land or water, whether natural orartificial, permanent or temporary, withwater that is static or flowing, fresh,brackish or salt, including areas of marinethe depth of which at low-tide does notexceed six meters”. Subsequently, mostcountries adopted this definition intheir wetland identification andpreservation efforts. In addition, theconvention provides that wetlandsmay incorporate riparian and coastalzones adjacent to the wetland area,estuarine waters, and islands or bod-ies of marine water deeper than 6meters at low tide lying within thesewetlands. The convention’s definitioncovers a wide range of ecosystemtypes, from rivers to coastal areas andeven coral reefs.

National The United States and thestate of Michigan

According to the ConservationFoundation (1990), in the U.S. alone,more than 50 different non-regulatorydefinitions are in use. Because of thewide variety of landscape features(hydrology, sediment and climaticconditions), the composition and wet-land functions are perceived as mostimportant. All those regional defini-tions (marshes, fens, bogs, wet mead-ows, potholes, bottomlands, moor,etc.) fall under the common denomi-nator of “wetlands” at the present.

In 1972, amendments to theFederal Water Pollution Control Act

(later called the Clean Water Act[CWA] gave the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) and theEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) authority to regulate uses inareas with potential pollution impactson water quality. This included 15 per-cent of the total wetland acreage.Between 1972 and 1977, judicialauthority broadened considerably andcreated a need for a regulatory defini-tion of all wetlands in the UnitedStates. This definition was finalized in1977 and upheld until 1985, when theFood Security Act (FSA), via the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)established a separate regulatory defi-nition used concurrently with theUSACEs definition.

Given the need for greater nationaluniformity in the delineation andidentification of wetlands, theUSACE issued a national delineationmanual in 1987 (USACE, 1987). Afterthis, the USACE collaborated withthe U.S. Department of the Interior’sFish and Wildlife Service (FWS), theEPA and the USDA in preparing arevised manual, released in 1989.These revisions were not implement-ed because the manual was stronglycriticized by various individuals andspecial interest groups as being exces-sively inclusive. In their opinion, landthat should not be defined as wetlandwas regulated under these provi-sions, strongly restricting futuredevelopment. For instance, 80 percentof Louisiana would be protected fromdevelopment (Davis, 1991). In 1991,the Bush administration attempted tocreate a revised manual, which alsowas not implemented because of crit-icism that too many wetlands wereexcluded from regulatory control.Estimates indicated that from 30 to 80percent of wetlands now classified assuch would have lost protected statusin some regions (Engineering NewsRecord, 1991) because inundation orsaturation requirements wereincreased from 7 to 14 days (NationalScience Foundation, 1995 andSilverberg, 1993).

As a result, three definitions areused currently in the United States:the USACE 1977 definition, the

Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS) definition in the FoodSecurity Acts (FSA) of 1985 and theFWS 1979 definition (Cowardin et al.,1979). The USACE and the FSA defin-ition have direct regulatory signifi-cance through implementation of theCWA and the FSA. The FWS defini-tion is also significant because it cap-tures the perspective of a federalagency that interacts with regulatoryagencies, comments on permits, andis charged with reporting to the U.S.Congress on the statues of thenation’s wetlands and serves as thebasis for national assessment andmapping of wetlands (NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1995).

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers.

The federal regulation used by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers forimplementing a dredge and fill per-mit system required by section 404 ofthe 1977 Clean Water Amendmentsdefine wetlands as:

Those areas that are inundated or satu-rated by surface or groundwater at a fre-quency and duration sufficient tosupport, and that under normal circum-stances do support, a prevalence of vege-tation typically adapted for life insaturated soil conditions. Wetlands gen-erally include swamps, marshes, bogs andsimilar areas.

U.S. Department of AgricultureIn the Food Security Act (1985), the

following definition is used:The term “wetland,” except when such

a term is part of the term “converted wet-land”, means land that:

A. Has a predominance of hydric soils;B. Is inundated or saturated by surface

water or groundwater at a frequen-cy and duration sufficient to sup-port a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and

C. Under normal circumstances does support a prevalence of such vegetation.

For purposes of this Act and any otherAct, this term will not include lands inAlaska identified as having high potential

8

for agricultural development which havea predominance of permafrost soils.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe non-regulatory definition that

the FWS uses defines wetlands in thefollowing way:

Wetlands are lands transitionalbetween terrestrial and aquatic systemswhere the water table is usually at ornear the surface or the land is covered byshallow water. Wetlands must have oneor more of the following three attributes:(1) at least periodically, the land supportspredominantly hydrophytes, (2) the sub-strate is predominantly undrained hydricsoil, and (3) the substrate is non-soil andis saturated with water or covered byshallow water at some time during thegrowing season of each year (Cowardinet al., 1979).

Reference definitionBesides these official definitions,

the National Research Council’sCommittee on the Characterizationof Wetlands3 developed a referencedefinition in 1995. This scientific defi-nition (see also Figure 1) falls outsidethe mandate of any particular federal

agency, policy or regulation. It states:A wetland is an ecosystem that depends

on constant or recurrent, shallow inunda-tion or saturation at or near the surface ofthe substrate. The minimum essentialcharacteristics of a wetland are recurrent,sustained inundation or saturation at ornear the surface and the presence of physi-cal, chemical and biological features reflec-tive of recurrent, sustained inundation orsaturation. Common diagnostic featuresof wetlands are hydric soils andhydrophytic vegetation. These featureswill be present except where specific phys-iochemical, biotic or anthropogenic factorshave removed them or prevented theirdevelopment (National Academy ofSciences, 1995).

MichiganAccording to part 303 of

Michigan’s Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Act (1994),which replaced the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, awetland is:

Land characterized by the presence ofwater at a frequency and duration suffi-cient to support and that under normalcircumstances does support wetland veg-

etation or aquatic life and is commonlyreferred to as a bog, swamp or marsh andis any of the following:

(i) Contiguous to the Great Lakes orLake St. Clair, an inland lake or pond, ora river or stream.

(ii) Not contiguous to the Great Lakes,an inland lake or a pond, or a river orstream; and more than 5 acres in size;except this subdivision shall not be ofeffect, except for the purpose of invento-rying, in counties of less than 100,000population, until the department certifiesto the commission of natural resources ithas substantially completed its inventoryof wetlands in that county.

(iii) Not contiguous to the Great Lakes,an inland lake or pond, or a river orstream; and 5 acres or less in size if thedepartment determines that protection ofthe area is essential to the preservation ofthe natural resources of the state frompollution, impairment or destruction andthe department has so notified the owner;except this subdivision may be utilizedregardless of wetland size in a county inwhich subdivision (ii) is of no effect;except for the purpose of inventorying atthe time.

3 The National Research Council is an organization founded by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916.

Figure 1. Diagram of relationship between the reference definition, criteria, general indicators and specific indicators for wetlands (source: National Science Foundation, 1995).

9

CanadaIn Canada, the term “wetland” has

been defined and used by variousnational and provincial agencies. Thefreshwater edges of lakes and rivers,inland marshes, swamps, sloughsand peatlands, the marine waters ofestuaries and the tidal oceanshorezone are all identified as includ-ing wetlands. Following the Ramsarconvention, Canadian wetlands meetnational or provincial criteria relatedto the presence of soil and floraadapted to wet environments as wellas the occurrence of waters that aregenerally restricted to a maximumdepth of 2 meters.

In Canada, wetlands are definedas:

...land having the water table at, nearor above the wetland surface or which issaturated for a long enough period to pro-mote wetland aquatic processes as indi-cated by hydric soils, hydrophytic vegeta-tion, and various kinds of biologicalactivity which are adapted to the wetenvironment (Mitsch and Gosselink,1993).

EuropeThe Netherlands, the UK, Finland,Germany, Sweden, Denmark andNorway

In all these countries, the Ramsarwetland definition is used.

Wetland functionsand values

Wetlands represent one of the mostimportant landscape elements in pre-serving environmental quality. Thisincludes protecting surface andgroundwater quality and quantity;reducing loss of biological diversityand surface water runoff, therebyassisting in flood protection; and pro-viding erosion and sedimentationcontrol. Increasingly, citizens arebecoming aware of the importance ofwetlands in protecting public andprivate interests by preserving orenhancing property values, protect-ing the environment and preservingrecreational opportunities. InMichigan, for instance, wetlands are

of great importance in replenishingthe groundwater supplies of shallowaquifers in rural areas and improvingthe water quality of residential wellsby recycling and storing chemicalsintroduced by agricultural land use(e.g., nitrates, phosphates and pesti-cides) and runoff from residentialproperties.

Wetlands may be viewed as one ofthe most productive environments inthe world, covering about 4 percentof the planet. They providetremendous economic benefits topeople through their production offisheries resources, the maintenanceof water tables for agriculture, timberproduction, water storage and reduc-tion of natural impacts such as water-shed flooding and shoreline erosion.According to Environment Canada(1997), wetlands have been estimatedto provide over $10 billion a year inbenefits to Canadian society.Wetlands’ ecological functions andvalues include being sinks for naturalcontaminants, heavy metals andother pollutants; enhancing waterpurification; and providing popularrecreational and hunting areas world-wide. In particular, wetlands includecritical habitats for countlessmammal, bird, reptile, amphibian,fish and invertebrate species.Especially in the industrializedworld, many of these species arethreatened with extinction.

The productivity and functionalcapacity of wetlands depend on theirecological quality. However, wetlandsare among the most threatened habi-tats in the world because of drainage,eutrophication, land reclamation, pol-lution and incompatible land uses.

Wetland acreage losses in the con-terminous U.S. and Michiganbetween the early settlement daysand the National Wetlands Inventoryin the mid-1980s (Dahl, 1990) are esti-mated to be 53 percent and 50percent, respectively. Though most ofthe early losses can be attributed tothe conversion of wetlands to agricul-tural use, more recent losses—espe-cially since the 1950s—are mainlycaused by conversion to residential,commercial and transportation uses.

Drainage of wetlands for agriculturaluses has significantly decreased sincethe 1970s as a result of the enactmentof federal wetland protectionmeasures and incentives in recentfarm bills (Food Security Acts) suchas the Conservation Reserve andSwampbuster programs.

The emphasis of this report is onwetland preservation policies andassociated legislation. But becauselegislation aims to preserve publiclyrecognized values, this chapterdiscusses the most importantfunctions and values. “Functions”generally refer to ecological process-es, whereas “values” connote ananthropogenic orientation inmonetary terms (Benhart and Margin,1994). Most wetland values were notexplicitly recognized in the past, butcurrently, most functions are morerealistically valued and acknowl-edged by our society. More specifical-ly, the contributions of the variouswetlands function to the overall qual-ity of life are increasingly recognized,especially in suburban and rural areasmost affected by the environ-mentalimpacts. This in itself is very signifi-cant because most legal protectiongenerally results from recognizedsocietal values (Mitsch and Gosselink,1993). In the view of many in the pro-fessional and scientific communities,however, much needs yet to beaccomplished to raise public under-standing and awareness.

Williams (1990) identified fourbroad categories of wetlandfunctions:

1. Physical functions: flood mitiga-tion, coastal protection, sedimenttrapping and climatic functions.

2. Chemical functions: pollutiontrapping, removal of toxic residuesand waste processing.

3. Biological functions: produc-tivity and provider of habitats.

4. Socioeconomic functions: foodproduction (fish, fowl and fauna) andrecreational and aesthetic benefitsthat are difficult to quantify.

Because the public understandingof these functions varies, they are val-ued differently by society. In general,values can be divided in three main

10

• Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, which establishes a national program on non-point pollution control.

• Section 6217b of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, which requires that states with coastal management programs develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for approval bythe EPA and NOAA.

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requiring fed-eral agencies to assess environ-mental impacts of proposed leg-islation and “other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-ment.” Subsequently, this author-ity has been extended to include any (partially) government-funded actions, even carried out by the private sector, requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS). Though cost-benefit analysis is discussed under the NEPA, it is not required. When a cost-benefit analysis is conducted, discussion of the relationship between the analysis and the unquantifiable environmental impacts, values and amenities is mandatory.

• The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and its amendments, requiring the preparation of fishery management plans underfederal jurisdiction by fisheries management councils. This act requires cost-benefit analysis under the regulatory impact review component of the plan. To assist in this process, the National Marine Fisheries Service, under the auspices of NOAA and the Department of Commerce, provides guidance.

• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which mandates the preparation of regulations to assess natural resources damage from oil spills or hazardous substances to

categories: socioeconomic, hydrologi-cal/biochemical and ecosystem func-tions. All are not exclusive—manyvalues fall into more then one cate-gory. The most important values arediscussed below.

Socioeconomic valuesAssessing the “real” public

“values” of wetlands is one of thevaluation challenges in resource eco-nomics. “Value”, in the context ofassessing wetland resources, has adifferent meaning to different usersand specialists. To the general public,it may represent recreational oppor-tunities such as hunting, fishing,boating or wildlife observation. To anecologist, the value of a marsh maybe its significance as critical breedinghabitat. To a land use specialist orresource manager, it may be shorelinestabilization, sediment retention,flood control and groundwaterrecharge. All these values are basedon important use functions ofwetlands, frequently well document-ed in the form of empirical evidenceand scientific theories, and some-times reflecting public perceptionsand preferences based on personalexperience, knowledge or privateinterest perspectives.

In this context, it is important toemphasize the fundamental purposeof impact assessment of land usealternatives on the sustained produc-tion capacity of our renewableresources. It necessarily representsthe broader, long-term public interestsof multiple generations rather thanthe short-term monetary gains of nar-rowly defined private interests.

Placing an economic value on theloss of natural resources orexpressing public preferences associ-ated with impacts of policy changesor project alternatives on the naturalenvironment is an objective of envi-ronmental valuation and resourceeconomics. As such, it represents afundamental distinction from otherdisciplines—attempting to reflect thefunctionality or public utility in eco-nomic terms. This economic value isa measure of the extent to which auser is willing to forego one set of

alternative goods and services toobtain or maintain a particular set ofgoods and services, such as those rep-resented by a wetland. This conceptis typically referred to as the willing-ness to pay (WTP) and reflects a wel-fare measure or desire to maintain ahabitat in its original, undisturbedfunctional or unpolluted state.

Economic theory and federal lawsand regulations have progressed toaddress the challenges of economicvaluation and public policy analysis.In the U.S., environmental valuationhas its origin in the River and HarborAct of 1902, requiring a systematicassessment of project benefits andcosts to commerce. Lipton et al. (1995)list other milestones of this legislativehistory:

• The Flood Control Act of 1936.• The national thrust to broaden

valuation by including intangi-bles and concerns of the environ-mental movement in the ‘50s and‘60s.

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, with its systematic impact assessment requirements.

• The Clean Air Act of 1970.• The Clean Water Act of 1972.• The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, including natural resource damage assess-ment.

• Executive Order 12291 of 1981 onRegulatory Impact Analysis.

• The Oil Pollution Act of 1990. With regard to mandates associat-

ed with coastal and marine resourcemanagement and public policy, thefollowing legislation is specificallyrelevant:

• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which addresses the wetland permitting process nec-essary to convert wetlands for development. It charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assess public and private ben-efits and costs and, specifically, totake into account environmental values.

11

compensate society for losses incurred prior to the full restora-tion of the natural resources.

• The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, which specifically mandates regulations for the assessment of damages from oil spills. Both CERCLA and OPArequire the development of a sys-tematic damage claim by which the values of lost resources and service flows, pending full restoration, are to be included. This may also include the value of wildlife and the existence value that society attaches to a natural habitat or wilderness area. These acts are rather com-prehensive in identifying valua-tion methods and the range and types of values that may be included.

• The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which identifies coastal resource uses subject to management that may require benefit-cost analysis. These include the siting of major facili-ties such as energy, commercial and industrial development, transportation and recreation.

• The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (as amended), which requires assess-ment of socioeconomic benefits derived from sanctuary designa-tion, in combination with an EIS, and fisheries management guide-lines and pollution regulations.

• The National Estuary Program (NEP), established under sections 317 and 320 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (amended to the Clean Water Act), which directs the development of com-prehensive conservation and management plans (CCMPs), which are critically dependent onthe valuation of estuarine func-tions and services.

Valuation of socioeconomic bene-fits may be based on the real marketprice of goods and services producedby wetlands or, alternatively, on theso-called non-market goods and ser-vices and non-use value, such as aes-thetic considerations. The first cate-

gory is represented by socioeconomicbenefits such as food production(fish, fowl and fauna) and other ani-mal products harvested. Anotherexample is forested wetlands as asource of fiber with high harvest volumes due to high productivityrates—e.g., bottomland hardwood inthe southeastern part of the UnitedStates. The second category, non-market goods and services, representsother societal benefits of wetlands notformally “traded” in the marketplace,such as flood protection, erosion andsedimentation control, preservation ofbiodiversity and the provision ofrecreational opportunities.

In assessing negative projectimpacts or cost, opportunity cost—representing (short-term) benefitsforegone by not developing orexploiting wetlands—may be consid-ered as well. Examples of these costsmay include protection measures pre-venting use of bogs for cranberryproduction or other forms of agricul-ture in reclaimed (drained) wetlandswith excellent soils for certain special-ty crops due to high organic soil con-tent, acidity or nutrient supply.Historically, drained wetland soilshave typically contributed dispropor-tionately more to the regional econo-my than higher situated mineral soils.

Another important example is theuse of wetlands as a source of peat, aclean-burning fuel source with a rela-tively high caloric value. Peatproduction is concentrated in coun-tries with vast deposits. Theseinclude Russia, with 89 percent of theworld production total; Ireland, with6.2 percent; and Finland, with 3.4 per-cent (Williams, 1990, and Mitsch andGosselink, 1993). Peat mining in low-land areas of the Netherlands andnorthern Germany has created wet-land resources with unique ecosys-tems, permitting various stages ofwetland succession and habitatformation varying from floating bogsto forested wetlands. The mining ofpeat as a non-renewable energysource, however, typically destroysmore unique wetland habitat than itcreates. This is especially significantwhen it involves the destruction of

elevated bogs, an oligotrophic ecosys-tem that, by its unique nature andlimited acreage worldwide, is ascarcer ecosystem than lowland bogs,which are (increasingly) subject toeutrophication.

Recreational and aesthetic benefitsare also non-market socioeconomicvalues. If hunting is seen as a form ofrecreation, hunter expenditures maybe counted as revenues to the localcommunity and as a contingent valueof wetlands. Aesthetic values aremore difficult to quantify, however,because of the inevitable subjectivity.Here contingent values may be basedon the public’s willingness to pay tohave these values preserved.

Non-market goods and servicesprovided by wetlands have tradition-ally been considered secondary inimportance to the economic value ofquantifiable market products.However, as more scientificknowledge and public understandinghave emerged on the functional bene-fits of wetland protection, societalwillingness to endorse preservationpolicies has increased.

Hydrological andbiochemical values

Hydrologic values, because theyrepresent significant aspects of thequality of life, may be viewed as partof socioeconomic values and, there-fore, considered very important.

Wetlands in low-lying areas have animportant water storage and peak-flow retention function, especiallyduring severe rainstorms and duringhigh water levels in the spring charac-terized by high soil moisture balancesbecause of low evapotran-spirationrates, high precipitation and meltingsnow. As illustrated in Figure 2, reduc-ing peak runoff reduces flood risk.

In 1977, the Carter administrationacknowledged this risk, specifically,by issuing an executive order to pro-tect floodplains (see p. 17, Wetlandprotection policies). The accompany-ing statement indicated that the fed-eral government had invested $ 10billion between 1936 and 1977 toreduce flood hazards. Despite these

12

efforts, annual losses from floods con-tinued to increase (EnvironmentalLaw Institute, 1993). In 1975, U.S.flood damage was estimated at $3 bil-lion to $4 billion.

Development in floodplains thatreduces water storage increases floodrisks. In general, the function of floodabatement seems undervalued—floodplain development is the mostsignificant cause of wetland destruc-tion (Darnay, 1994). Coastal wetlandscan absorb most of the destructivepower of storm surges. A 30-meterwetland buffer is enough to dissipatemost wave energy, and at the sametime, wetland vegetation, with itscomplex root systems, protectsagainst erosion (Mitsch andGosselink, 1993; Kusler, 1983;Williams, 1990).

Wetlands also perform animportant function in maintainingwater quality by recycling and accu-mulating nutrients, trappingsediments and transforming a varietyof toxic chemical substances(National Science Foundation, 1995;Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993; Kusler,1983; Williams, 1990). A study byHouck and Rolland (1995) indicatedthat a loss of 50 percent of America’sremaining wetlands would result inincreased sewage treatment plantexpenditures of up to $75 billion justto remove nitrogen. A Swedish studyconcluded that the benefits of using

land for wastewater treatment aregreater than the value of the sameland used for agricultural production(Benhart and Margin, 1994).

Ecosystem valuesGlobally, biodiversity is threatened.

Present estimates indicate that one tosix plant and animal species becomeextinct per day. According to Dannay(1994), this number will increase toone species per hour by the year2000. Increasingly, biodiversity is rec-ognized as an important socioeco-nomic value.

The presence of wetlands is highlycorrelated with biodiversity. Wetlandsrepresent a fertile breeding habitat formany species of flora and fauna, andmany plants exist only within wetlandecosystems. Scientists estimate that150 bird species and 200 fish speciesdepend entirely on wetland ecosys-tems (Berhart and Margin, 1994). Ofthe 97 species that became extinctsince 1600, approximately one-thirdwere wetland birds. Of the speciesvulnerable to extinction, 16 percent arewetland birds (Buisson, 1994). Manyof Europe’s most threatened speciesrely on wetlands for their survival,including 20 of Europe’s most threat-ened birds. A quarter of the mostthreatened and most vulnerable plantsare concentrated in wetland habitat(Institute for European

Environmental Policy, 1991). Coastalwetlands are used as nursery groundfor many fish species that feed onwetland-dependent food. Nearlytwo-thirds of the U.S. commercialand saltwater fish catch probablydepends on the coastal estuaries andtheir wetlands (Williams, 1990).

The most well-known wetlandfunction is providing wintering andbreeding grounds to migratorybirds. Scholars have discovered astrong correlation between thediminution of numbers of migratorybirds and the reduction of wetlandsthrough drainage and cultivation.The breeding and wintering areas ofmigratory birds are linked by severalflyways, such as the Palearcticflyway in Europe (see p. 26,European Union). The presence ofsmall stopover wetlands along theseflyways is crucial to the survival ofmigratory birds (IEEP, 1991), which,according to a Fish and WildlifeService inventory, include more than23.3 million birds (Williams, 1990).The Waddenzee, with almost half amillion waders present, is a coastalwetland between the Netherlands,Germany and Denmark that is alsoof major significance for migratorybirds (Williams, 1990). Some wetlandwaterfowl in the Netherlands areknown to represent 20 to 77 percentof the total breeding population ofwestern and central Europe(Ministry of LNV, 1990)

Global wetlandsOnly wetlands of the selected

countries are chosen for this compar-ative research. To present a contextualreview, however, the global situationis also briefly discussed. This discus-sion includes aspects of internationallegislation because of its significantinfluence on wetland protection inthe selected countries.

HistorySeveral studies have estimated the

global extent of wetlands. Estimatesrange from 5.25 million to 8.5 millionsquare kilometers. Globally, wetlandecosystems (including rice paddies),

Figure 2. The general effect of wetlands on stream flow (Source: Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).

13

at an estimated 7 to 8 million squarekilometers, account for 6 percent ofthe land area (Mitsch, 1994; OECD,1992).

As mentioned earlier, the totalacreage of wetlands declined drama-tically during the past decades. Wet-lands are considered to be among themost threatened ecosystems of allenvironmental resources. In Europe,except for Scandinavia, natural wet-lands have vanished almostcompletely.

A significant proportion of theworld’s wetland ecosystems is peat-forming. Peatlands in the developedcountries have been altered by twomain processes: conversion to agricul-tural or forestry use, and mining ofpeat for energy and horticulture(IUCN, 1992). Peatlands in their nat-ural condition impose restrictions onintensified agricultural utilizationbecause of the high water table andthe physical-chemical characteristicsof the organic profile. Historically,peat has been cut in limited quantitiesto satisfy the energy needs of manyisolated communities. Since the turnof the century, however, the use ofpeat on an industrial scale for powergeneration and district heating plantshas expanded considerably. Fuel peatproduction worldwide nearlydoubled between 1950 and 1980, from47 million tons to 90 million tons(IUCN, 1992). For example, 90 percentof the peat cut in Finland is used togenerate power. Estimates show that,on a global scale, 50 percent of thewetlands that once existed have beenlost (IUCN, 1991).

Trends in wetland areasDespite the increased recognition

around the world of the importanceof wetlands, their destruction contin-ues (Mitsch, 1994). Contributing tothe currently lower rate of wetlandlosses in the industrialized world isthe fact that most sites that werereadily accessible and could bereclaimed at a lower cost havealready been lost. In the developedworld, the network of protected areascovers only small portions of the total

wetland area. Outside such parks andreserves, wetlands continue todecline (IUCN, 1991).

International protectionof wetlandsRamsar Convention (1971)

The Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance, also knownas the Ramsar Convention – namedafter the city in Iran—was adopted in1971 through the cooperation of 18nations. The convention is anintergovernmental treaty thatprovides the framework for interna-tional cooperation in conserving theworld’s wetland habitats.

All E.U. states and the UnitedStates are contracting parties of theRamsar convention. At present, thereare 96 contracting parties to the con-vention with 858 wetland sites, total-ing nearly 55 million hectares, desig-nated for inclusion in the Ramsar Listof Wetlands of InternationalImportance. Western Europe has 53percent (408) of all Ramsar sites andNorth America has the greatest totalarea (14,894,800 hectares) designatedunder the Ramsar Convention(Wetland International, 1996).Convention parties formallyrecognized that wetlands are essen-tial for hydrological and ecologicalprocesses, the rich flora and faunaand support of human activities. Theconvention’s objectives focus onstemming the loss of wetlands andensuring their conservation and sus-tainable wise use for futuregenerations. The treaty is unique inits focus on a particular ecosystemand provides the framework for theinternational protection of wetlandsas habitats for migratory fauna, forthe benefit of human populations.Countries that have ratified theagreement commit themselves to“wise use” of all areas that constitutewetlands. It recommends the creationof nature reserves to conservewetlands and waterfowl.

The Ramsar Convention Bureaufosters cooperation among countriesby promoting wetland conservation,recognizing that many wetland

systems either cross or are affected byinternational water systems. It alsorecognizes that migratory fauna man-agement requires international coop-eration. Hence, international action isrequired to promote the establish-ment and maintenance of an interna-tional network of protected wetlandareas to ensure the conservation ofcritical functions and values. Theseobjectives are enhanced by thepromotion of sound national land useplanning practices based on environ-mental carrying capacity. Contractingparties to the convention undertaketo respect four main obligations:

• Designation of at least one wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance.

• Promotion of the wise use of wetlands within their nation, particularly through the implementation of wetland conservation and management policies.

• Consultation with other contract-ing parties about implementing the obligations arising under the convention, particularly for thosewetlands shared between nations.

• Establishment of protected wet-land areas throughout their nation.

One of the doctrines of the conven-tion was the establishment in 1990 ofthe Ramsar Wise Use Principles, com-plementing global sustainable devel-opment goals. In industrialized anddeveloping countries alike, land useimpacts on wetlands are frequentlyincompatible with the objective ofsustaining ecosystem functions.These principles address this issue bycalling on the contracting parties to:

• Establish and implement nation-al wetland conservation policies.

• Undertake review and revision of the legislative and govern-mental infrastructure to promote wetland conservation.

• Undertake wetland inventories for wetland management.

• Promote wetland research.

14

• Establish protected wetland reserves.

• Promote public education and awareness of wetland values andconservation.

Wetlands of InternationalImportance are selected on the basisof ecological, botanical, zoological,hydrological, fisheries and humanuse criteria. Sites can be nominatedbecause they represent rare or unusu-al wetland types in a biogeographicalregion. Sites of international impor-tance that are subject to potentialchanges in ecological character dueto technological developments,pollu-tion or other human interfer-ence are listed in the “MontreuxRecord”, an international “earlywarning” list maintained as part ofthe Ramsar Database. The record wasestablished by recommendation 4.8of the 1990 Montreux conference toidentify priority sites for positivenational and international conserva-tion attention. The Montreux Recordis reviewed regularly by the conven-tion’s Scientific and Technical ReviewPanel (Ramsar Convention Bureau,1997).

World Heritage Convention(UNESCO, 1972)

The full name is the Conventionfor the Protection of the WorldCultural and Natural Heritage. Itsobjective is to protect natural and cul-tural areas of outstanding value.These areas are selected by the WorldHeritage Committee and make upthe World Heritage List or, forseriously threatened sites, the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger. Each con-tracting party is obliged to take allpossible measures to protect the sitesincluded in these lists.

Bonn Convention (1979)The Convention on the Conserva-

tion of Migratory Species of WildAnimals arose from one of the recom-mendations of the action plan adopt-ed at the UN Conference on theHuman Environment in Stockholmin 1972. Article III states that partiesthat are range [areas that a migratory

species inhabits] states of a migratoryspecies listed in the appendix shallendeavor to conserve and, where feasibleand appropriate, restore those habitats ofthe species which are of importance inremoving the species from danger ofextinction (Bonn Convention, 1979).

United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development

The main objective of theConvention on Biological Diversity isto conserve biological diversity and itssustainable use of components of thatbiodiversity. Article 6a of the treatystates that: countries will develop nation-al strategies, plans, or programs for theconservation, and sustainable exploitationof the biodiversity (UNCED, 1992).

International criteria forwetland classificationand designation

International criteria for wetlandclassification are identified in theRamsar Convention. Sites are desig-nated on the Ramsar list on the basisof their international importance inecology, botany, zoology, limnologyor hydrology. The Ramsar criteria areclassified into three groups (WetlandsInternational, 1996):

Criteria for representative orunique wetlands.

A wetland should be considered inter-nationally important if:

1. It is a particularly good representa-tive example of a natural or near-natural wetland characteristic of the appropriate biogeographical region.

2. It is a particularly good representa-tive example of a natural or near-natural wetland common to more than one biogeographical region.

3. It is a particularly good representa-tive example of a wetland that plays a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role in the natural functioning of a major river basin or coastal system, espe-cially where it is located in a trans-border position.

4. It is an example of a specific type of wetland rare or unusual in the appropriate biogeographical region.

General criteria based on plants oranimals.


1. It supports an appreciable assem-blage of rare, vulnerable or endan-gered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one ormore of these species.

2. It is of special value for maintain-ing the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora

and fauna.3. It is of special value as the habitat

of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycle.

4. It is of special value for one or moreendemic plant or animal species or communities.

Specific criteria based on the water-fowl.


1. It regularly supports 20,000 or more waterfowl.

2. It regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from par-ticular groups of waterfowls indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity.

3. Where data on populations are available, it regularly supports 1 percent of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

These criteria led to the Ramsarclassification (Figure 3).

1515

Figure 3. Wetland classification used by the Ramsar Convention Bureau (Scott and Jones, 1995)

16

Wetlands in theUnited StatesHistory

By means of the Swamp Actsbetween 1849 and 1860, the U.S.Congress gave 64 million acres (26.32 million hectares) of wetlands to15 states, urging reclamation andsale. The president of the AmericanHealth Association declared in 1876:“The state cannot afford to beindifferent to the presence of swampswhich check production, limit popu-lation, and reduce the standard ofhealth and vigor.” The land area thatcurrently comprises the U.S.contained in 1780 almost 392 millionacres (158.70 million ha) of wetlands,of which 221 million acres (or 89.5million ha) were in the lower 48states. In the 1980s, in the contermi-nous U.S., 104 million acres (42.1 mil-lion ha) of wetlands remained.Alaska has the vast majority of wet-land acreage (Dahl, 1990). SinceEuropean settlement, the UnitedStates has lost 53 percent of all itswetlands (Cwikiel, 1992). Californialost 91 percent and Alaska less then 1percent (Dahl, 1990).

Conversion to agriculture account-ed for 87 percent of the estimated 13.8million acres of wetlands lost in themid-1950s to mid-1970s period(Heimlich, 1989). The rate of conver-sion between 1954 and 1974 wasabout 500,000 acres annually.Between the mid-1970s and the 1980s,the loss was 290,000 acres per year(Dahl, 1991) and from 1987 to 1991,105,000 acres per year (Danielson andLeitch, 1996). Conversions to agricul-tural use dropped to 54 percent.According to Darnay (1994), commer-cial development is the main cause ofwetland destruction since 1985,accounting for more than 50 percent.

Trends in wetland areasPredicting the future is difficult,

but trends are evident (Tiner, 1984). Agrowing population increases devel-opment pressure. In addition, popu-lation is shifting from the industrial-ized Northeastern and North Central

states to the Southeast andSouthwest, which increases develop-ment pressures on wetlands in theseregions. The National PlanningAssociation estimated that 80 percentof the nation’s population growthduring the 1980-2000 period wouldoccur in the South and the West. Thetop 10 states in projected populationincreases are California, Florida,Texas, Arizona, North Carolina,Georgia, Washington, Colorado,Virginia and Tennessee (USDI, 1989).

Especially in the Western states,competition for water increasesbetween agricultural and non-agricultural users and reducesecosystem availability. Suburbanexpansion means more acreage perhousehold. The pressure to drainwetlands will continue to increase.The Fish and Wildlife Service estimat-ed in 1989 that wetland losses werestill continuing at a level as high as450,000 acres annually (USDI, 1989)and will result in an additional4,250,000 acres loss by the year 2000(USDI, 1990).

MichiganMichigan, situated in the heart of

the Great Lakes Basin, is surroundedby freshwater. Like most of the othernorthern states, it is a product ofglacial action, followed by the modi-fying influences of water, wind andrevegetation. The interior is dottedwith lakes and drained by major riversystems (Michigan Society ofPlanning Officials, 1995).

Before European settlement,Michigan had a wide variety of habi-tats, largely forested in the UpperPeninsula and the northern half of theLower Peninsula. The southwest wascovered with oak savannas andprairies (MSPO, 1995). Almost one-third was wetland (Michigan DNR,1988). In fact, wetlands attracted immi-grants into the region in the 1600sbecause of the abundance of fur- bear-ing species that relied on wetlands. Assoon as Michigan was ceded to theUnited States by Britain after theRevolutionary War, immigrants beganto move into southern Michigan andclear land for farming.

With the completion of the ErieCanal from New York to Lake Erie in1816, a rush of settlers entered thestate. In 1810, Michigan had 4,762 res-idents; by 1840, mainly to drainagefor agriculture, that figure hadincreased to 180,628 (MSPO, 1995).Michigan has lost about 50 percent ofits wetland acreage since early settle-ment (MSPO, 1995, MDNR, 1988).This includes uses for horticulturalcrops and for specialty crops such asblueberries. Michigan farmers arebeing encouraged to cultivatecranberries by horticulture marketingexperts. In addition, cranberry grow-ers from southeastern Massachusettsare lured to Michigan (Goodenough,1995). Urban sprawl, however, consti-tutes the most significant threat towetlands. Though the population isbarely rising, more space per capita isbeing used to house Michiganians(MSPO, 1995).

Wetland protection in theUnited StatesLegal system

The U.S. national government dele-gates many powers and responsibili-ties to the individual states. In certainareas of public policy, state govern-ments have a high degree of autono-my, as do local governments such ascounty and municipal governments(cities, boroughs, townships and vil-lages). This autonomy is a directresult of the colonial history anddates back to the early 17th centuryEnglish settlements, which experi-enced an acute localization of author-ity by scattered settlers. Countieswere soon created as the basic unit oflocal government. In New England,seven towns were created shortlyafter the arrival of the first settlersand the town became the sole unit oflocal government. Consequently,local government gained a highdegree of autonomy, which explainsthe current mistrust of distant centralpolitical power (Wood, 1996). This“home rule” principle is still quiteprevalent.

A different legal issue in wetlandprotection is the broader debate over

17

the protection of private propertyrights. It is more difficult to regulateprivate land use in the U.S. than inEuropean nations. A primary reasonis that there is no consensus about theproper reach of government and pub-lic authority (Reilly, 1996). In history,from the beginnings of European set-tlement of the North American conti-nent, land-hungry immigrantsarrived with one paramount goal:finding a piece of secure property.They also imported the feudalEnglish common-law system (FarmFoundation, 1985) with a differentiat-ed bundle of property rights. Privateownership was defined as the right topossess, to use, to manage, to benefit,to be secure and to alienate. This rep-resents an exclusive rather than anabsolute right. The latter disregardsthe interest of others in the exercise ofownership (Farm Foundation, 1985).The only rights retained by govern-ment were taxation rights, the right toacquire the land by eminent domainand compensation, and the right toregulate the use of land.

Even at present, national propertyrights movements, backed by provi-sions of the fifth amendment to theConstitution, have found powerfulchampions in the U.S. Congress. Thisis exemplified by the practical inclu-sion of development rights as part ofprivate property rights and the com-pensation requirements as a result ofthe public “taking” right. Accordingto a major ruling in 1992 (Lucas vs.South Carolina), the U.S. SupremeCourt decided that regulations deny-ing “economically viable use of land”require due compensation no matterhow great the public interestinvolved. The “taking” issue is one ofthe dilemmas of valuing and protect-ing wetlands. In contrast, develop-ment rights are not inherently part ofprivate rights in European countries,and therefore public land use restric-tions limiting “highest and best use”of private property do not have to becompensated.

According to a 1994 study by theNational Association of HomeBuilders, the value of private proper-ty is very dependent on its immediate

surroundings. Favorable regulationsthat limit the expansion of incompati-ble land uses and thereby prevent thereduction of private property valuesare not directly compensated by ben-eficiaries. In essence, land use restric-tions designed to improve or restoreenvironmental quality may beviewed as a taking under the fifthamendment of the U.S. Constitution(Reilly, 1996). As part of the Bill ofRights, the “just compensationclause” is lodged in the fifth amend-ment protecting property ownersagainst uncompensated governmentseizure of property for the publicgood. It states that “private propertyshall not be taken for public use withoutjust compensation”. With the industri-alization of America, governmentfound it necessary to impose regula-tions to protect the public’s healthand safety. In 1922, Justice Holmesdecided that if a regulation goes toofar, it would be recognized as ataking. In U.S. Claims Court, JudgeSmith awarded $64 million plusinterest to property owners injuredby environmental regulations(Brookes, 1991).

Despite the “taking” issue, the con-stitutional hurdle remains high forproperty owners. First, owners arenot automatically entitled to the mostprofitable use of their land. Localzoning, nuisance or wetland ordi-nances restricting the type and natureof development are examples of uselimitations. Second, diminutions ofvalue caused by government regula-tions are uniformly tolerated. Third,virtually all public interests to beserved by environmental laws arelegitimate in the context of the consti-tution. Last, such laws are usuallyfound to substantially advance thepublic interest.

The impact of the property rightsmovement caused several states toadopt legislation to protect propertyrights. The first is the “TakingsImpact Assessment” analogue on theenvironmental impact assessment(EIS). In 1988, the ReaganAdministration issued ExecutiveOrder 12630, which requires stateagencies to evaluate most

government action to determinewhether such action could result in ataking of private property. Thesecond is compensation bills thatrequire states to pay property ownerswhen regulations decrease the prop-erty market value by a certainpercentage.

Wetland protection policiesThe first action taken to protect

wetlands was by the Carter adminis-tration in 1977 with the issuance oftwo executive orders that establishedwetland protection as official federalpolicy. The first, Executive Order11988 on Floodplain Management,established federal policy for the pro-tection of floodplains. It directedagencies to revise procedures andconsider the impact on floodplainsand to avoid direct or indirectsupport of floodplain development ifalternatives existed. The second,Executive Order 11990 on theProtection of Wetlands, required thatall federal agencies minimize thedestruction, loss or degradation ofwetlands. In addition, the preserva-tion and enhancement of natural andbeneficial values of wetlands becamepart of an agency’s responsibilities.Both executive orders applied to allproperty owned by the federal gov-ernment.

No net loss In 1987, a National Wetlands Policy

Forum was convened to investigatethe status of wetland management inthe United States. The forum formu-lated as its major objective to achieveno overall net loss of the nation’sremaining wetlands. This meant thatif, for economic or political reasons,wetlands were destroyed, replace-ment was required by restoration orconstruction. This concept became acornerstone of wetland conservationin the United States (Mitsch andGosselink, 1993). In 1988, the Bushadministration embraced this conceptas a national goal. In response to thisgoal, a “no net loss” Wetland ActionPlan was prepared by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. This action plandraws on existing legislative authori-ties, regulations, and directives to

18

focus and emphasize wetland conser-vation activities toward the goal ofeliminating the net loss of wetlands(USFWS, 1990).

National Wildlife Refuge SystemThe well-being of wildlife depends

on vital habitat. Besides regulatingland, the federal government alsoacquires and manages wildlife habi-tat for wildlife conservation. The firstattempt to create a systematic pro-gram of wildlife refuge acquisitionwas for migrating birds by means ofthe Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1913.The success of this act was limited,and the Migratory Bird ConservationAct was passed in 1929 (Bean, 1977).Funding for refuge acquisition wasobtained from the sale of duckstamps to hunters.

Federal lawsThe United States does not have a

formalized national wetland protec-tion law. Rather, measures of protec-tion are provided through laws thataddress other purposes (Mitsch andGosselink, 1993). Wetlands are man-aged primarily under regulationsrelated to land use and water quality.

Swamp Land Act of 1850This act enabled states with consid-

erable acreage of land that was “wetand unfit for cultivation” to reclaimand develop the land. It stated thatland should be transferred from fed-eral to state ownership to permitdrainage of swamplands. In total,about 64 million acres (25.9 millionha) were granted to the states; halfthe land was considered suitable forfarming (National ScienceFoundation, 1995).

River and Harbor Act of 1899The River and Harbor Act (RHA)

mandated the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) to maintain navi-gation with the responsibility to regu-late dredging and filling of “naviga-ble waters.” Subsequently, the courtsgave the USACE authority to reviewfill permits of submerged land result-ing in potential ecological damage.This resulted in the legal protectionstatus of wetlands. Section 13 of the

RHA, which makes it unlawful todischarge refuse into navigablewaters without a permit, issuperseded by the permit authorityof section 402 and 405 of the CleanWater Act. Today, however, it stillmay be used for enforcement purpos-es (Goodenough, 1995).

Water Bank Act of 1970The U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Water Bank Programfor Wetlands Preservation offerslandowners of important migratorywaterfowl nesting and breeding areas10-year renewable agreements. Inreturn for an annual fee, thelandowners agree “not to drain, burn,fill, or otherwise destroy the wetlandcharacter or to use such areas foragricultural purposes” (Bean, 1977;Gosselink, 1990).

The Clean Water Act of 1972Section 404 of the CWA is the pri-

mary vehicle for wetland protectionand regulation. It is somewhatcontroversial because wetlands arenot specifically mentioned. Itprovides authority to the ArmyCorps of Engineers to establish a per-mit system to regulate the dredgingand filling of materials in all “waters”of the United States. Initially, this waslimited to navigable waters, but aftertwo court decisions (Natural ResourcesDefense Council v. Callaway and UnitedStates v. Riverside Bayview Homes),wetlands were explicitly included(Zinn and Copeland, 1996). As aresult, the following waterways areincluded:

• All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands.

• All other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, the use, degrada-tion or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce.

• All impoundments of water that fit these definitions.

• Tributaries of any defined waters.

• The territorial seas.

• Wetlands adjacent to waters, other than adjacent to other wetlands.

Furthermore, the EPA, to which thesecretary of the army provides thepermit review guidelines, controlswhich areas may be listed as suitabledisposal sites and can prohibit certainmaterials from being discharged at anapproved site on certain grounds.Permits expire at the end of five years(NWSTC, 1993).

Section 404(f)(1) provides thefollowing statutory exemptions forpermit application requirements:

• Normal farming, silviculture or ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, minor drainage and harvesting.

• Maintenance of structures such as dikes, dams, levees, breakwaters, causeways and bridge abutments.

• Construction or maintenance of farm ponds or irrigation or drainage ditches.

• Construction of temporary sedimen-tation basins on construction sites.

• Farm or forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment,under the condition that best man-agement practices are met and the water is neither impaired nor perm-anently changed.

• Actions authorized by an approved state regulatory program.

However, these exemptions aresubject to the “recapture” provisionof 404(f)(2), which requires a permit ifa discharge changes the use of water,impairs its flow or circulation, orreduces the reach of the water. Thisprovides a balance between theexemptions and the recapture provi-sion so that only routine activitieswith relatively minor water qualityimpacts are exempt.

Embodied in the CWA’s statementof policies is Congress’ intent toencourage state implementation of,among others, the federal 404 permitprogram (Environmental LawInstitute, 1993). The 104th Congressindicated that environmental protec-tion was best left to individual statesand suggested that state government,

19

being closer to the people, was moredemocratic (Goodenough, 1995).Until now, only Michigan (see p. 20,Michigan laws) and New Jersey havereceived authorization to administerthe 404 program. Oregon is about tobe the next (Goodenough, 1995).

Endangered Species Act of 1973This act protects threatened species

throughout the country. TheEndangered Species Act (ESA) playsa substantive role in § 404 permittingof the CWA. Section 7 of the ESA pro-hibits all federal actions, includingpermit approvals, that would jeopar-dize listed endangered species oradversely modify habitats critical totheir survival (Houck and Rolland,1995).

Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985The FSA, sometimes also referred

to as the “farm bill”, includes two provisions that are of special impor-tance for wetland protection, namelythe Swampbuster provisions and theWetland Reserve Program.

Swampbuster The Swampbuster provisions

address general wetland preservationobjectives and identify the presenceof wetlands on the basis of threephysical wetland features: wetland-type soils, wetland plants and water.Because normal agricultural and sil-vicultural activities were exemptedfrom section 404 permit require-ments, allowing farm wetlanddrainage and in commercial forests,these Swampbuster provisions wereprovided as a part of the 1985 FoodSecurity Act. They deny federal sub-sidies to any farm owner who know-ingly converts wetlands to farmlandafter the effective date of the act.Swampbuster enforcement is a two-step process (Zinn and Copeland,1996). The Natural ResourceConservation Service (NRCS) deter-mines first whether swampbustinghas occurred. If so, the landowner isreferred to the agencies administeringfarm benefit programs, which thenrender a decision on benefit denial.

Wetland Reserve ProgramThe Wetland Reserve Program was

enacted in the 1990 farm bill. It is avoluntary program entitling land-owners to receive payments forrestoring cropland converted fromformer wetland and protecting thosewetlands (NRCS, 1996). The WetlandReserve Program (WRP) is autho-rized by the Food Security Act of1985 and was amended in the 1990farm bill. The restoration cost-sharecan be up to 75 percent and addition-al economic return is possible. In thisprocess, landowners are offered theappraised agricultural market valueof their land in exchange for signing apermanent easement and restoringthe land to wetland status. Easementsfor 30 years may also be offered for 50percent of the appraised value. So far,the USDA has sought only perma-nent easements (Zinn, 1994).

Tax Reform Act of 1986This act reduced the fiscal benefits

of drainage by eliminating taxexpensing of wetland drainage costsnot in compliance with the Swamp-buster provision. Gains on sales ofconverted wetlands are treated asordinary income rather than as capi-tal gains and, therefore, taxed at ahigher rate (Leitch, 1992).

Emergency Wetlands Resources Actof 1986

The U.S. Congress concluded thatwetlands are nationally significantresources that contribute to the econ-omy, food supply, water supply andquality, flood control, and fish,wildlife and plant resources. This1986 act was enacted to promote theconservation of wetlands by intensi-fying cooperative efforts among pri-vate interests and local, state and fed-eral governments for the conserva-tion, management and/or acquisitionof wetlands (USDI, 1989). Under theact, the USDI was directed byCongress to develop a NationalWetlands Priority Conservation Plan.This plan identifies the locations andtypes of wetlands and interests inwetlands that should receive priorityattention for wetland acquisition pro-jects by federal and state agencies

using Land and Water ConservationFund appropriations. The primarypurpose of the plan is to assist deci-sion-makers in focusing their acquisi-tion efforts on the more important,scarce and vulnerable wetlands inthe nation (USDI, 1989).

Planning and zoningState and local natural resource

management dates back to the 1800s,when park, wildlife and forestry pro-grams were established for lands inthe public domain. Control of the pri-vate use of land was possible only byoutright acquisition. It was not untilthe 1920s that states authorized localunits of governments to adopt zoningand subdivision regulations. In prac-tice, however, lack of effective localcontrol and demand for land close tourban centers resulted in constructionwithin floodplains and destruction ofwetlands (Kusler, 1980).

Rural land use planning is oftenundertaken principally for economicdevelopment with limited emphasison resource protection. Though a sig-nificant number of federal programshave an indirect impact on land usedecision making (137 federal pro-grams in 1979—such as theDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment [HUD] with its urbanrevitalization programs and USDA/NRSC with well intended efforts topreserve prime farmland, etc.), landuse planning remains largely thedomain of local government. Thoughsome states’ programs assumed someresponsibilities after WWII, specifi-cally in the 1970s, most states—including Michigan—re-delegatedplanning authority to the local levelin the 1980-90 period. Oregon andNew Jersey are notable exemptionsbecause of their adoption of state-wide planning strategies and growthmanagement policies. The federalrole is mostly limited to providingfunding for city and regionalplanning activities (Held and Visser,1984), with specific allocations topublic housing assistance (HUD),transportation and economic devel-opment (U.S. Department ofCommerce, Economic DevelopmentAdministration).

20

The implications of this “laissez-faire” policy are significant. Demandfor indiscriminate conversion of openspace, including prime agriculturalland and wetlands, primarily for resi-dential use, has exploded since WorldWar II. This suburban sprawl is asso-ciated with a disinvestment in urbanareas. As pointed out by Richmond(1997), during the 1980-90 period, theU.S. poverty rate in urban areasincreased by 40 percent while thearea associated with this poverty rateincreased by 54 percent. On the basisof current and projected trends,Michigan’s population increase overthe 1980-2010 period is projected totranslate into a tenfold residentialarea increase! Clearly, these trends areassociated with erosion of the localtax base of the inner cities and adeclining service infrastructure.

Nationally, land conversion forurban development, at current rates,is largely (80 percent) associated withsingle family residential use. The pullfactors of urban sprawl include ahigher quality of life with lowercrime rates, better educational andrecreational opportunities, increasingproperty values, comparatively lowtax rates/house value and improvedenvironmental quality.

Public investments associated withthis development are not only costlyand inefficient but they also effective-ly subsidize urban sprawl by provid-ing the necessary capital expendi-tures and services, such as police andfire protection and infrastructuralexpansion. In reality, residential taxa-tion rates are insufficient to cover thecosts of infrastructural developmentand maintenance. Most of these costsare born by non-residential uses and,to some extent, by people outsidelocal jurisdictions. Buchell (1997), indiscussing the fiscal impacts ofsprawl, indicates that in SouthCarolina, public investments neededto accommodate current growth pat-terns are directed primarily to roadconstruction (50 percent). Theremainder is distributed among edu-cation (20 percent), health services (15percent), commerce (5 percent), envi-ronment (3 percent), and recreation

and culture (2 percent). He states thatthis public investment, coupled withgraduated tax abatements over a 33-year period to attract new industriesin an attempt to generate employ-ment opportunities, is clearly notdirectly borne by the principal recipi-ents of these benefits—suburban residents. This shortfall in revenuesassociated with uncontrolled growthwill have to be offset by increases intaxes on fuel, real estate and sales, tollroads and parking fees.

MichiganMichigan lawsClean Water Act

As mentioned above, Michigan isone of the two states authorized toadminister the federal 404 permitprogram of the CWA. In 1977, theMichigan Department of NaturalResources (MDNR) and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers signed aMemorandum of Understanding(MOU, 1977) stating that “a consider-able portion of the duplication which nec-essarily results from processing permitapplications independently can be elimi-nated if application processing is done ina joint matter”. This MOU refers bothto permits under the River andHarbor Act of 1899 and the CleanWater Act.

In 1984, a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA, 1984) betweenMichigan and the USACE delegatedadministrative authority for the sec-tion 404 program. In it, the corps alsowaived its right to review MDNRpermits. Two exceptions were made.The first, for major discharges intoareas that could affect existing or pro-posed Detroit District COE (Chief ofEngineer) projects, and second, fordischarges that may affect navigationin navigable waters of the U.S. “Allwaters within the state of Michigan shallbe regulated by MDNR other than thosewaters which are presently used, or aresusceptible to use in their natural condi-tion or by reasonable improvement as ameans to transport interstate or foreigncommerce shoreward to their ordinaryhigh water mark, including wetlandsadjacent thereto”. Under these

provisions, the EPA retains reviewauthority.

Two laws primarily are used toregulate Michigan’s waters and wet-lands as provided under CWA’s sec-tion 404: the Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Act and theInland Lakes and Streams Act. Theother laws are ancillary state statutesthat partly overlap Michigan’swetland jurisdiction (Goodenough,1995).

Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Act of1994

Part 303 of the Natural Resourcesand Environmental Protection Act of1994 (NREPA) replaced the WetlandProtection Act (Act 203) of 1979, ineffect since 1980. The act prohibitsdraining, dredging or filling of regu-lated wetlands without a permit fromthe MDNR. Because of the broad def-inition of wetlands, the amount ofwetlands regulated by the NREPA isconsiderable. The NREPA covers allwetlands contiguous to the GreatLakes or Lake St. Clair, an inland lakeor pond, or a river or stream; andwetlands not contiguous to the GreatLakes or Lake St. Clair, an inland lakeor pond, or a river or stream that are5 acres (2.02 ha) or larger.

“Contiguous to the Great Lakes”includes every wetland within 1,000feet of those lakes; or those locatedwithin 500 feet of an inland lake,river, pond or stream. Wetlands ofany size in counties of fewer than100,000 population are not coveredby the NREPA wetland provisionuntil the MDNR has conducted aninventory (Sadewasser, 1996).Wetlands contiguous and smallerthen 5 acres can be protected underthe NREPA if the MDNR designatesthem as “essential” (MichiganCompiled Laws Annotated, 324.303).State protection does not depend onthe completion of a wetland inven-tory (Sadewasser, 1996).

To designate a wetland as “essen-tial”, one or more of the following cri-teria have to be met:

a. It supports state or federal endan-gered or threatened plants, fish or

21

wildlife appearing on a list specifiedin section 36505.

b. It represents what the department has identified as a rare or unique ecosystem.

c. It supports plants or animals of an identified regional importance.

d. It provides groundwater recharge documented by a public agency.

A local unit of government inMichigan is allowed to protectcontiguous or not contiguouswetlands that are smaller than 5 acresand meet the wetland protection pro-vision of the NREPA. For wetlandsbetween 5 and 2 acres, local govern-ments have to comply with state reg-ulation by using the same definitionand completing an inventory. In 1995,22 local governments had wetlandprotection ordinances (MDEQ *,1995).

If a local unit of government ofMichigan has adopted a wetlandordinance for a site smaller than 2acres, a development permit cannotbe denied unless the site meets one ofthe following criteria:

a. The site supports state or federal endangered or threatened plants, fish or wildlife appearing on a list specified in section 36505.

b. The site represents what is identi-fied as a locally rare or unique ecosystem.

c. The site supports plants or animals of an identified local importance.

d. The site provides groundwater recharge documented by a public agency.

e. The site provides flood and storm control by the hydrologic absorp-tion and storage capacity of the wetland.

f. The site provides wildlife habitat byproviding breeding, nesting or feed-ing grounds or cover for forms of wildlife, waterfowl—including migratory waterfowl—and rare, threatened or endangered wildlife species

g. The site provides protection of subsurface water resources and provision of valuable watersheds and of recharging groundwater supplies.

h. The site provides pollution treatment by serving as a biologicaland chemical oxidation basin.

i. The site provides erosion control byserving as a sedimentation area andfiltering basin, absorbing silt and organic matter.

j. The site provides sources of nutrients in water food cycles and nursery grounds and sanctuaries for fish.

Potential wetland protectionoptions in Michigan are summarizedon the following page (Fig. 4).

Part 301 of the NREPA replaced theInland Lakes and Stream Act of 1972(MCLA, 324.301). The Inland Lakesand Streams Act (ILSA) generallyextends jurisdiction to any “natural orartificial lake, pond or impoundment,river, stream, or creek ... or any otherbody of water which has .. evidence of acontinued flow or continued occurrenceof water, including the St. Marys, St.Clair and Detroit Rivers.” However,surface areas of less than 5 acres, theGreat Lakes and Lake St. Clair areexcluded from regulation under ILSA(Goodenough, 1995). Prohibitedactivities include dredging or fillingbottomland, setting up constructionsor making canals to connect with aninland lake or stream (ILSA, 1972).

Part 361 of the NREPA alsoreplaced the Farmland and OpenSpace Preservation Act of 1974(MCLA, 324.361).”This Act providesfor farmland development rights agree-ments and open space developmentrights easements;... .” Through the act,a “state or local governing body” canbuy the development rights of alandowner for a period not less than10 years by means of a developmentrights agreement or easement. Openlands that could be considered for anagreement or easement are areas“approved by the local governing body,the preservation of which area in its pre-

sent condition would conserve natural orscenic resources, including: the promo-tion of the conservation of soils, wetlandsand beaches... .” As a practical matter,landowners may file an applicationto have land placed under the act inreturn for a reduction of tax liabili-ties. Early termination of such anagreement is subject to governmentreview and approval and results in a(partial) restitution of the accumulat-ed benefits.

Floodplain Regulatory Act of 1968This act (Act 167) assesses the loca-

tion and extent of floodplains,streambeds and stream discharge forthe state’s watercourses to preventdangerous flooding events. Permitsare required to alter a floodplain.

Part 17 of the NREPA is the formerMichigan Environmental ProtectionAct of 1970 The Michigan Environ-mental Protection Act (MEPA). TheMEPA prohibits any conduct that islikely to pollute, impair or destroy alake, stream, wetland or other naturalresources of the state. Exemptions aremade if investigation shows thatthere are no less harmful feasible andprudent alternatives and the“conduct is consistent with thepromotion of the public health, safetyand welfare in light of the state’sparamount concern for the protectionof its natural resources frompollution, impairment ordestruction”.

Soil Erosion and SedimentationControl Act of 1972

This act (Act 347) is designed toprotect the waters of the state fromsedimentation caused by soil erosion.Permits are required for earthchanges that disturb one or moreacres of land or that are within 500feet (150 m) of a lake or stream, or foralterations of the stream. Plowing,tilling, mining and logging arepermitted under the act.

State Zoning Enabling ActsThe state can convey authority to

local units through acts of the statelegislature. Such powers take twoforms, mandating and enabling. A

* In October 1995, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was separated from the MDNR. The DEQ is now responsible for regulatory wetland compliance issues.

22

Figure 5. Diagram of conditions for potential wetland protection in Michigan. Numbers represent wetland size and countypopulation.

mandating statute directs a townshipboard to exercise certain powers andmay vary from very detailed instruc-tions, as in the laws governinguniform accounting and budgetingprocedures, to broad grants of power,as for the responsibility to provide forthe general health and welfare of thepublic.

Enabling or permissive statutes donot require local units to act but allowlocal officials to do so if they sodesire. Once a township board votesto use the power, the enablingstatutes often prescribe how thetownship should proceed in carryingout the functions. For instance, statelaw does not require a township

board to adopt a zoning ordinance.But if it does, it must give properpublic notice and create a zoningboard of so many members and aboard of zoning appeals (VerBurg,1990).

Michigan has three zoningenabling acts for three types of localgovernment.

23

The first is the City or VillageZoning Act of 1921. This act providesa legal basis for ordinances that regu-late “the use of land and structures, theheight, the area, the size, and location ofbuildings ... the light and ventilation ofthose buildings”. The density of popu-lation can also be regulated by ordi-nance and the designation of the useof certain state-licensed residentialfacilities.

The second, the County RuralZoning Enabling Act of 1943, andthe third, the Township RuralZoning Act of 1943, serve the samepurpose. The basis and considera-tions of both zoning ordinances are:

“The zoning ordinance shall be basedupon a plan designed to promote thepublic health, safety and general welfare,to encourage the use of lands in accor-dance with their character and adaptabil-ity, and to limit the improper use of land,to conserve natural resources and ener-gy, to meet the needs of the state’scitizens for food, fiber and other naturalresources, places of residence, recreation,industry, trade, service and other uses ofland, to insure that uses of land shall besituated in appropriate locations andrelation-ships, to avoid the overcrowdingof population [to provide adequate lightand air*] to lessen congestion on thepublic roads and streets, to reduce haz-ards to life and property, to facilitate ade-quate provision for a system oftransportation, sewage disposal, safe andadequate water supply, education, recre-ation and other public needs, and to con-serve the expenditure of funds for publicimprovements and services to conformwith the most advantageous uses of land,resources and properties”.

Local regulations: land useplanning and zoning

Planning is accomplished by thedevelopment of a land use masterplan and its implementation throughlocal ordinances and regulations forzoning, subdivisions, housing, nui-sance conditions, etc. As specificallyauthorized under the zoning acts,local authorities such as municipali-ties and townships may adopt zoning

ordinances. In open space preserva-tion and wetland protection issues,township actions are the mostrelevant, especially when borderingurbanizing regions.

The development of local govern-ment in the U.S. derives directly fromthe United Kingdom. The Englishshire, which was the unit for judicialadministration and law enforcement,was the predecessor of the Americancounty. The English parish, which wasthe unit for the maintenance of theestablished church, charities and localroads, became the American town ortownship. The English borough, athickly populated area that hadreceived a charter from the king toengage in business as well as govern-mental enterprises, was the prototypeof the American municipality. Thereare distinctive differences in variousparts of the country. In the South, theplantation system was adapted not tothe town but to the county. In NewEngland (northeastern states), thetown is the principal unit of localgovernment (Zimmerman, 1978).

Michigan local governments arepatterned after the town meeting sys-tem of New England. Most countieshave 36 townships, each generallycomprising a 6-by 6-mile area. In the19th century, these two forms of localgovernment became inadequate forurban settlements where people need-ed more local services and required agovernment with stronger regulatorypowers. The legislature provided forthe establishment of city governmentsseparated from the township govern-ments. Villages are an intermediatelevel of government with most of thespecial powers of cities, but theyremain part of the townships in whichthey are located. At present, Michiganhas 83 counties, 1,241 townships, 271cities and 263 villages (LegislativeCouncil, 1995).

Local regulations pertaining toland use development and controlsare implemented in the form of landuse master plans and ordinances suchas zoning, wetland protection,nuisance, woodland protection, etc.Zoning is widely used to protect

sensitive areas, such as groundwaterrecharge areas and wetlands at thelocal level through the regulation ofdevelopment type and density. Itseffectiveness in this regard is continu-ally debated.

Section 8 of Michigan’s formerWetland Protection Act (WPA) allowsa municipality to provide byordinance for more stringent defini-tion and regulation of wetlands thanis provided by state law. A munici-pality must notify the MDNR beforeadopting a wetland ordinance toexecute an agreement providing, inpart, that the MDNR will not issue awetland permit if a municipality hasdenied a permit under its ordinance(Zimmermann, 1992). In 1991, threedozen municipalities had adoptedwetland ordinances, mostly as a partof their zoning ordinances. Thisauthority is supplemental to theexisting authority of a municipalityto enact zoning ordinances under theCounty, Township, City and VillageZoning Enabling Acts (MDNR, 1988).

Many local units of government inMichigan were creating local wet-land protection ordinances that werein general more restrictive andextended authority over more wet-lands than the state and federalstatutes. The former WPA wasamended in 1993, however, torestrict the ability of municipalitiesto adopt wetland ordinances. In thecurrent section 30308 of the NREPA,municipalities were given until June18, 1994, to conduct a local wetlandinventory and file copies of wetlandordinances with the MDNR if theordinances were to remain effective(NREPA, 1994). Also, newordinances require an inventory.

* Extra phrase of the Township Rural Zoning Act of 1943.

24

Criteria and classificationof wetlands of the UnitedStates

The criteria of wetlands in theUnited States are covered by the def-initions mentioned on page 7(United States and the state ofMichigan). The classification of wet-lands was imple-mented by the Fishand Wildlife Service in 1979(Cowardin, 1979). This is veryimportant because landowners areable to recognize if their land isdefined as a wetland and thus pro-tected from develop-ment without apermit. The classification is dividedinto five major systems: marine,estuarine, riverine, lacustrine andpalustrine (Figure 5). The definitionsof these terms are:

A marine system consists of theopen ocean overlying the continentalshelf and its associated high-energycoastline.

The estuarine system consists ofdeepwater tidal habitats and adjacenttidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, part-ly obstructed or sporadic access to theopen ocean and in which ocean wateris at least occasionally diluted byfreshwater runoff from the land.

The riverine system includes allwetlands contained within a channel,with two exceptions: (1) wetlandsdominated by trees, shrubs,persistent emergents, emergent moss-es or lichens, and (2) habitats withwater containing ocean-derived saltsin excess of 0.5 .percent.

The lacustrine system includeswetlands with all of the followingcharacteristics: situated in atopographic depression or a dammedriver channel; lacking trees, shrubs,persistent emergents, emergent moss-es or lichens with greater than 30 per-cent areal coverage; and total areaexceeds 8 ha. If less than 8 ha, they

are included in the lacustrine systemif an active wave-formed or bedrockshoreline feature makes up all or partof the boundary or if the water depthin the deepest part of the basinexceeds 2 meters at low water.

The palustrine system includes allnon-tidal wetlands dominated bytrees, shrubs, persistent emergents,emergent mosses or lichens, and allsuch wetlands that occur in tidalareas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Italso includes wetlands lacking suchvegetation but with all of the follow-ing characteristics: area less than 8 ha;active wave-formed or bedrockshoreline features lacking; waterdepth in the deepest part of basin lessthan 2 m at low water; and salinitydue to ocean derived salts less than0.5.percent.

25

Figure 5. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats, showing system, subsystems and classes. The palustrine sys-tem does not include deepwater habitats. (Cowardin et al., 1979.)

26

EuropeHistory

It is estimated that two-thirds of allwetlands in Europe have vanishedsince the beginning of the century(E.U., 1995). The main causes wereland reclamation, building of hydro-electric dams in rivers and peatextraction. In the 1970s and 1980s,guaranteed (subsidized) high grainprices proved an important incentivefor converting low pastures intofarmland, as was the draining of wet-lands subsidized by the nationalauthorities. Power plants and damconstruction alone led to a loss of13,000 natural floodplains in theRhine watershed (E.U., 1995). Inaddition, the total river forests areaof the Rhine declined dramatically.Of the 40,000 ha in 1830, only 8,500ha remained (E.U., 1995). All thesefactors caused increased peak runoff,downstream velocity and the floodrisk of numerous cities.

These changes, combined withhigh snowmelt conditions in the win-ters of 1994 and 1995, caused theRhine and Meuse rivers to flood sev-eral cities in Germany, Belgium andthe Netherlands (Aarden, 1996).These circumstances are similar tothe major floods along theMississippi River basin in the 1990s.

Trends in wetland areasThe future of Europe’s wetlands is

not bright. Many pressures nowthreatening wildlife habitat show lit-tle signs of abating, while the totalarea of natural and semi-natural habi-tats continues to diminish (Table 1,

[IEEP, 1991]). The total wetland areais also still declining and will be forsome time in the future (E.U., 1995).eutrophication, groundwater extrac-tion and acid rain are considered tobe main threats. Global warming islikely to affect the distribution ofmany sensitive species (IEEP, 1991).Because of the confinement of thosespecies to relatively small, mostly iso-lated areas, it has become difficult forterrestrial species to migrate usingnatural pathways.

Although all member nations aresignatories to the Ramsar Conven-tion, the legal protection of wetlandsis still limited to the functional aspectof water quality. Even importantwetlands are protected only becausethey offer a habitat for endangeredspecies. Other benefits are rarelyspecifically identified.

Wetland protection in Europe

European wetland protection poli-cies have emerged over the past 20years and are specifically designed toprotect sensitive ecosystems of inter-national significance. They reflectpan-European initiatives and morerecent directives by the EuropeanUnion.

Pan-EuropeanBern Convention (1979)

The official name is theConvention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and NaturalHabitats. The Bern Convention originated from the Council ofEurope. “The aims of this Conventionare to conserve wild flora and fauna and

their natural habitats, especially thosespecies and habitats whose conservationrequires the cooperation of several states,and to promote such cooperation.Particular emphasis is given toendangered and vulnerable species,including endangered and vulnerablemigratory species” (Council of Europe,1979).

The Ramsar and Bern conventions,albeit important, are not legally bind-ing. In contrast, the following E.U.directives are.

European UnionE.U. Directive on the Conservationof Wild Birds.

This directive was adapted in 1981and imposes strict legal obligationson European Union member statesto maintain populations of naturallyoccurring wild birds at levels corre-sponding to ecological requirements,to regulate trade in birds, to limithunting to a sustainable exploita-tion, and to prohibit certain methodsof capture and killing. Article 1applies to the conservation of birds,their eggs, nests and habitat. Articles3 and 4 are meant to protect habitats.Article 3 states: “Member States shalltake the requisite measures to preserve,maintain or re-establish a sufficientdiversity and area of habitats for all thespecies of birds referred to in Article 1”.

Article 4 adds special protectionmeasures to conserve the habitats ofthreatened bird species through thedesignation of Special ProtectionAreas (SPAs), as listed in Annex 1(EEC, 1979). Bird habitat selectioncriteria are:

• Species extinction danger.

• Habitat change vulnerability.

• Species rarity due to population size or restricted local distribution.

• Habitat uniqueness.

Article 4.2 states that similar mea-sures shall be taken for regularlyoccurring migratory species not list-ed in Annex 1 and shall pay particularattention to the protection of wetlandsand particularly to wetlands of interna-tional importance (EEC, 1979).

Country Coastal wetlands (ha) Inland wetlands (ha)

Netherlands 404,335 391,134

United Kingdom 372,000 518,713

Germany 680,881 427,424

France 381,280 800,627

Italy 165,070 107,742

Denmark 885,142 64,399

Table 1. Areas of important wetlands in several countries of the European Union.

Source: IEEP, 1991

27

E.U. Habitat DirectiveIn this directive, the particular set

of environmental conditions onwhich an organism or group of inter-dependent organisms depends isdefined as a habitat. Its main goal isto promote maintenance of biodiver-sity by the conservation of fauna,flora and natural habitats of E.U.importance. The fundamentalpurpose of this directive is to estab-lish a network of protected SpecialAreas of Conservation (SACs)throughout the community designedto maintain both the distribution andthe abundance of threatened speciesand habitats, both terrestrial andmarine. Wetlands are an importantpart of this network, especially forcreating steppingstones for migra-tory birds along their flyways (Figure6). The network of proposed SACs,called Natura 2000, will include SPAsof the Bird Directive. Criteria forselection include priority habitats(see page 27, Criteria and classifica-tion of wetlands of Europe) andspecies identified in the annexes(EEC, 1992).

Urban Waste Water TreatmentDirective

This directive sets out rules for thecollection, treatment and dischargeof urban and industrial wastewater.It aims to protect the environmentfrom the adverse effects of such dis-charges while requiring treatment ofall significant discharges. Distinctionis made between discharges in sensi-tive and less sensitive areas. Dis-charges may require more stringenttreatment, such as nutrient removal(EEC, 1991).

Criteria and classificationof wetlands of Europe

In 1985, the Corine program(Coordination of Information on theEnvironment) was established as anexperimental project. It was subse-quently extended to provide apermanent information network toassist the European EnvironmentAgency.

Corine has three main objectives:1. To gather information on the state

of the environment for use in prioritycommunity applications.

2. To coordinate national initiativestaken by member states, and to improveinformation at the international level.

3. To ensure the consistency ofnomenclatures, definitions, etc., as wellas creating the conditions necessary tocompare data (E.U., 1996).

Corine includes projects on thepreservation of quality of air, soil,water, land cover types and biotopes,and reduction of coastal erosion. Thebiotopes project aims to “identifyand describe biotopes of majorimportance for nature conservationin Europe” (Hughes, 1995). Its sitesof major importance for nature con-servation are defined as: “An area ofland or a body of water which forms anecological unit of community signifi-cance for nature conservation, regardlessof whether this area is formally protectedby legislation”.

Sites included in the Corinebiotopes inventory must satisfy thefollowing criteria:

• Presence of vulnerable species of plants or animals.

• Presence of vulnerable habitats.

• Richness of the site for a taxonomic group (e.g. birds, mammals, dragonflies, orchids).

• Richness of the site or phytosoci-ological units (Wageningen Agricultural University, 1996).

It recommends inclusion of all thesites that:

• Contain 1 percent or more of the E.C. population of a vulnerable species.

• Are among the 100 most important sites for such species in the E.C.

• Are among the five most impor-tant sites for a species in a region of the E.C. (WAU, 1996)

The habitat directive uses theCorine classification of habitats (Fig. 7) to identify protected habitatby designation of SACs. Theseinclude the SACs of the Bird Direc-tive. In total, 167 habitats are listed inCorine, of which 45 have priority sta-tus (EEC, 1992). Wetlands are an inte-gral part of these ecosystems.Figure 6. Routes of migratory birds in Europe.

28

Figure 7. Natural habitat types of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservationlisted in Annex 1 of the habitat directive. Habitat types that do not have the priority status are not included (Corine, 1989).

Habitat Priority habitat types

Posidoma beltsCoastal and halophytic habitats Lagoons

Continental salt meadowsSalt steppesGypsum steppes

Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (gray dunes)Decalcified fixed dunes (Empetrum nigrum)

Coastal and sand dunes and continental dunes E.U.-Atlantic decalcified fixed dunesDune juniper thickets (Juniperus spp.)Dune scleorophyllous scrubsWooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster

Freshwater habitats Mediterranean temporary pondsTurloughs (Ireland)

Southern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica siliaris and Erica tetralixDry heaths (all subtypes)

Temperate heath and scrub Dry coastal heaths with Erica tagans and Ulex maritimusEndemic macaronesian dry heathsScrub with Pinus mirgo and Rhododendron hirsutum

Sclerophyllous scrub (matorral) Cistus palhinhae formations on maritime wet heathsMatoral with ZyziphusMattoral with Laurus nobilis

Natural and semi-natural grassland formations Karstic calcareous grasslandsXeric sand calcareous grasslandsPseudo-steppe with grasses and annualsSpecies-rich Nardus grasslands.

Active raised bogsCalcarous fens with Claduon mariscus and Carex davalliano

Raised bogs and mires and fens Petrifying springs with CraroneurionAlpine pioneer formations of Caricresm tucislorus-atrofuscea

Rocky habitats and caves Medio-European calcaususChasmophytic vegetation on limestone pavementsLimestone pavements

Tilio-Acerson ravine forestsCaledonian forestsBog woodlandResidual alluvial forests

Forests Appenine beech forests with Taxus and IlexAppenine beech forests with Abies alba and Abies nebrodensisMacaronesian laurel forestsPalm groves of PhoenixAppenine Abies alba and Picea excelsa forestsMediterranean pine forests with endemic black pinesEndemic Mediterranean forest with Juniperus spp.Tetraclininis articulaca forestsTaxus baccata woods

29

The Netherlands

HistoryA large part of the Netherlands is a

river delta. Though a part of thecountry is situated above sea level,the major part (60 percent) is belowsea level (Saeijs, 1989). For example,the western part has an elevationvarying between slightly above to 5m (16 feet) below mean sea level(MSL) (TNO, 1989). Of the territory ofthe Netherlands, situated at the estu-aries of the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldtrivers, two-thirds consists ofwetlands (Schilstra, 1996). Since therise of the ocean level from prehis-toric times to the present (Fig. 8),inhabitants of the low-lying areas inthe western part of the country regu-larly had to fight against the water.The present country is largely theresult of this struggle, representingthe balance of successes and failures(TNO, 1989).

From of the year 1200, the Dutchenpoldered (reclaimed land fromwater) large acreages of wetlands formany purposes. In the 16th century,technological innovation made wind-mills much more effective. Thisboosted the number of drainedinland lakes and formed polders(areas with artificially maintainedlow groundwater tables). Between1595 and 1635, 23,400 ha werereclaimed in the western parts ofHolland (Williams, 1990). In the1800s, wind power proved to beinsufficient to combat seepagethrough some embankments.

Steam power was introduced dur-ing the industrial revolution, andthree steam engines proved to beenough to drain the Haarlemmermeer(a lake bed of 18,000 ha) between 1845and 1852. In the 20th century, the rateof land reclamation was still accelerat-ing. From 1927 to 1968, variousprojects reclaimed a combined total205,000 ha.

Later in the 20th century, it wasnot the reclamation activities thatthreatened wetlands but“ruilverkaveling”, agricultural parcelconsolidation and improvement. The

object was to create economiesof scale for farmers and marketgardeners (Baldock, 1984).Especially after World War II,parcel consolidation and landimprovement was the maincause of draining. Its main goalwas to create food self-sufficien-cy in the post-World War II peri-od by consolidating scatteredplots into compact farmholdings with improvedinfrastructure, drainage and pro-duction efficiencies.

In 1960, a change in nationalpolicy called for an end towetland reclamation with thegoal of bringing remaining areasunder protection. Reclamation ofheathlands and marshes, in con-trast to bogs, stopped. Theturbary rights and most of thereclamation rights of bogs werein the hands of private compa-nies. It took the government untilthe early 1970s to obtain owner-ship for the remaining 8,000 ha ofbogs (Beusekom, 1990).

In total, as much as 7,000 km2

of wetlands have been reclaimedor drained (TNO, 1989). Only 36percent remain (OECD, 1995).The government estimates that27 percent (995,125 ha) of theDutch territory is wetlands(Ministry of Agriculture, NatureManagement and Fisheries orLNV, 1996).

Trends in wetland areasThe Netherlands, the most

densely populated country inEurope with 407 inhabitants perkm2 (OECD 1995), is usedintensely. In 1993, 64 percent ofthe total area was used for agri-culture, with natural areas repre-senting a mere 4 percent (Tempel andOsieck, 1994). The direct destructionof wetlands has more or less beenhalted, though land use impacts con-tinue to degrade natural areas(Osieck, 1996). Other causes for envi-ronmental degradation include:

• Declining natural habitat areas.

Figure 8. The Netherlands in the years 800,1500 and 1900 AD.

• High degree of fragmentation of habitat.

• Use impacts such as eutrophica-tion, lowered water tables and disturbance (Ministry of LNV, 1990).

30

Pollution from heavy metals inmanure, fertilizers and micropollu-tants causes serious problems and isdifficult to resolve (TNO, 1989;Ministry of LNV, 1990). Groundwater,in particular, is threatened by exces-sive manure applications—nitratesleach easily through soil, contaminat-ing the relatively high groundwatertables. In addition, excessive ground-water extraction lowers groundwatertables of nature preserves while con-centrating pollutants (Ministry ofLNV, 1995c).

Wetland protection in theNetherlandsLegal system

The Netherlands is a unitarymonarchy in which the national gov-ernment (with the largely ceremonialrole of the queen) executes allgovernment functions. Thesubnational units, provinces andgemeentes (local governmentscomprising municipalities with theirsurrounding rural areas), administermatters within their jurisdictionswith powers mandated and dele-gated by the national authority.

Property rightsAt the beginning of the 19th century,

private ownership was considered tobe inviolable. It was “the most com-prehensive right a man can enjoy”,although excluding mineral rights.However, the law also includesrestrictions on the use of property tothe effect that its use may not conflictwith laws and regulations and maynot interfere with the rights of thepublic or other citizens. Equalcompensation under the law isemphasized (Lambers, 1996). Lawsand regulations may limit propertyrights, especially when land use issubject to a local “structuurplan”(land use structure plan) or “bestem-mingsplan” (land use allocation ordesignation plan). Normally, theseplans may authorize already existingland uses but may restrict certainmanagement practices. In the case ofa public taking, the owner receivescompensation based on current prop-

erty market price. In addition, finan-cial compensation may be given forloss of derived income based on pre-vious use. However, compensatorypayments for the loss of developmentrights are not a legal issue in theNetherlands (Held & Visser, 1984).

In addition to land use rights, thedistribution of land ownership alsoaffects comparative environmentalpolicy. In the Netherlands, two-thirdsof the natural areas are in publicownership and managed for the pub-lic benefit. Public land as a wholeaccounts for 5 percent of the totalland area (in 1977), compared with 32percent in the United States in 1987(Held & Visser, 1984; Darnay, 1994).

Water administrationWater administration in the

Netherlands is one of the earliest stillexisting forms of government admin-istration. Starting in the Middle Ages,polders and watersheds were com-bined to form water managementdistricts administered by districtwater management boards (“water-schappen”). These elected waterboards still administer inland waterbodies, streams and polder hydrolog-ical units. In the past, elected councilsused to represent farmland ownersand were dominated by narrow agri-cultural interests, such as drainage.However, current law permits anyresident in a particular watermanagement district to participate inboard elections. This results in abroader representation of communityinterests, including nature and wet-land conservation objectives. Theseinterests are reflected in the decisionsand management practices of waterboards (Ministry of LNV, 1996).

Though supervised by provincialauthorities, municipalities and waterboards operate with a high degree ofindependence. However, the nationalgovernment decides on such mattersas water quality and distribution(TNO, 1989). This is importantbecause wetlands are very vulnerableto water supply and quality. Thisarrangement provides assurancesthat national wetland preservationand management objectives prevailin local decision making.

LawsNature Conservation Act

Just as in the United States, laws inthe Netherlands do not specificallyaddress wetland preservation objec-tives. Rather, they reflect nature policy with an emphasis on the man-agement and preservation of ecosys-tems. Objectives include thepreservation of biodiversity and thedevelopment of complete ecosystems—wetlands as integrated componentsof river, coastal zone and forestecosystems (Ministry of LNV, 1996).

To this end, the Nature conserva-tion Act (NBW) aims to protectecosystem habitat in general and isthe most important and effective poli-cy instrument. Implementationstrategies include land purchase, landdesignation and ownership transferto government nature organizationsby providing “state naturemonument” status. Sometimes landis purchased by private natureconservation organizations withfinancial assistance from the govern-ment and “nature monuments” areformed (Ministry of LNV, 1985). By1991, the total surface owned by theNational Forest Service was 180,192ha, of which 79,000 ha were managedas state nature reserves. The total sur-face owned by private nature conser-vation organizations was 135,834hectares (Tempel and Osieck, 1994).Designation under the NBW hasthree legal consequences (Tonnaer,1994):

1. It introduces a system of licens-ing to regulate all potentially damag-ing activities.

2. It permits the secretary of theministry of LNV to set up a manage-ment plan with the consent of theowner.

3. It results in the prohibition ofcertain activities in these naturereserves.

In addition, the NBW includes alsoanother important policy instrument,conservation easements (see p. 31,National planning policies).

31

Physical Planning ActThis act can designate national

parks with a size of at least 1,000 ha(2,500 acres). These areas have specialnatural or landscape values and aspecial animal and plant biodiversity(Tonnaer, 1994). Designating areas ispossible only with the consent of theowner of the area. This limits theimportance for nature conservationpurposes (Held and Visser, 1984).

The framework for public planningis laid down in the Physical PlanningAct, which makes references to gov-ernmental planning agencies, differ-ent categories of plans, the legal pow-ers of planning authorities and regu-lations for compensating citizens neg-atively affected by public planningmeasures (Cammen, 1984). It alsoauthorizes provinces to prepareprovincial land use structure plans(“streekplannen”) and municipalitiesto adopt Land Use Allocation Plans(“bestemmingsplannen”) andincludes the obligation to set up simi-lar plans for their rural areas (Heldand Visser, 1984). The provincial plan-ning process involves the preparationand implementation of national plan-ning policy and outlines land alloca-tion guidelines for municipalities (seepage 32, Regional and local planningand zoning in the Netherlands). Theact provides significant centralauthority because it provides nationaland provincial governments withreview power and the potential toinstruct local authorities to changeland use plans (Cammen, 1984).

National planning policiesIn the Netherlands, no explicit wet-

land policy exists. Because the coun-try is densely populated, with virtu-ally every square meter of land usedesignated, land use planning is criti-cal. As part of this land use policy,Dutch nature management has beenoutlined in the ‘90s in four publicland use planning and policydocuments (Romijn, 1995).

The first is the Nature Policy Plan(NBP), developed by the Ministry ofAgriculture, Nature Managementand Fisheries (LNV). Its objective is tohalt natural area deterioration. The

legal basis for the NBP is provided inthe Nature Conservation Act. Since1950, almost 500 of the 1,400 higherplant species declined in numbersand 70 have become extinct. In thesame period, the number of species ofbreeding birds has fallen by a third(Ministry of LNV, 1990). This plan isthe most important nature conserva-tion initiative in the Netherlands andresulted in the National EcologicalNetwork (NEN). The NEN (seeappendix 2) is of paramount impor-tance to develop sustainable conser-vation practices and restore anddevelop ecological values. Theecological network consists of coreareas and nature development areasconnected by ecological corridors.

Core areas are areas with existingecological values of (inter)nationalimportance. Here, policy aims to safe-guard and increase existing ecologicalvalues. Negative development iscounteracted.

Nature development areas representopportunities for the development ofecological values of (inter)nationalimportance. These areas may receivesome initial human intervention, butecological development is encour-aged.

Ecological corridors connect coreareas and nature development areas,thereby improving the migratorypathways and distribution of plantand animal species. This increases theopportunity for populations to colo-nize new habitats and also compen-sates, in part, for area fragmentation.

Buffer zones are created aroundnature areas to achieve and maintainthe desired ecological values. Forexample, local hydrological bufferzones may be created around core wet-land areas vulnerable to desiccation.

Two implementation measures areused for the NEN: land purchasesand conservation easements. Since1975, and before the establishment ofthe NEN when the governmentbrought out the “Relatienota”,farmers, owners or users couldalready obtain subsidies to promoteecological farming. The same incen-tive is used for NEN purposes(Bouwer and Leroy, 1995).

Conservation easements are differ-entiated on the basis of three func-tional areas:

• Management areas, where future agricultural use is planned but minor management adjustments may be considered because of thepresence of inherent natural and landscape values, such as a wide range of rare plant and bird species (Bouwer and Leroy, 1995).

• Reservation areas, designated to maintain high quality nature conservation values. In these areas, the objective is to buy out farmers because any form of long-term agricultural use is found to be incompatible. To facilitate future land purchases by the “Bureau Beheer Landbouwgrond” (BBL, or Bureau of Agricultural Land Management) and the intermedi-ate modification of current management practices, farmers may sign use agreements with the BBL and receive compen-satory payments to promote less input-intensive farm manage-ment. Compensation is based on the difference in economic returns resulting from current and alternative ecological man-agement practices. In return, the BBL obtains land purchase rightsand obligations.

• Problem areas. The European Union originated this specific policy. Problem areas typically do not represent nature conser-vation needs per se but are designated by the E.U. if natural conditions, such as high groundwater tables, make agricultural production difficult but it is still desirable to deter urbanization orto maintain rural landscapes. Compensation is relatively low, compared with the previous two conservation easements.

Eighteen wetland areas have beendesignated in the Netherlands underthe Ramsar Convention, covering atotal of 320,217 hectares—32 percentof all Dutch wetlands. Of the 674,908hectares without this status, 20,765 ha

32

(3 percent), are protected under theNature Conservation Act. A signifi-cant part of the remaining wetlands isincluded in the National EcologicalNetwork (Ministry of LNV, 1996).

The second land use planning andpolicy document is the NationalEnvironmental Policy Plan (NMP) ofthe Ministry of Housing, PhysicalPlanning and Environment (Ministryof VROM). Whereas the nature policyplan is largely area-oriented, theNMP is more general and deals withthe reduction and prevention of pol-lution (Ministry of LNV, 1990). Itspecifies target groups (traffic, indus-try, agriculture, etc.) and manage-ment problem themes (desiccation,acidification, eutrophication, etc.).The NMP aims for ... an environmentalquality in which the ecological functionsassigned to ecosystems can be met ...(Ministry of LNV, 1990; Ministry ofVROM, 1989).

The theme of desiccation is of greatimportance to the Dutch wetlands.Peatlands for example, suffer fromirreversible desiccation consequencesdue to mineralization and decay ofsoil structure. In collaboration withthe Ministry of Agriculture and theMinistry of Water Management,efforts have been undertaken to dealwith desiccation. The goal is toreduce it by 25 percent comparedwith the 1985 level (Ministry of LNV,1995c).

The third document is the FourthPolicy Document on Physical PlanningExtra (VINEX), also by VROM.Herein, spatial planning preferencesare identified. In a densely populatedcountry with many competing landuse needs, proactive land use plan-ning is needed. The hierarchicalstructure in the Netherlands is one inwhich the central government identi-fies general land use goals and objec-tives. Provinces and municipalities, incoordination with the central govern-ment, carry out actual implementa-tion. In this plan, four policy koersen(policy directives or action plans) areidentified, portrayed in map form asdifferent colors (Bouwer and Leroy,1995):

a. The first directive (mapped in yellow) represents all intensive forms of agriculture.

b. The second directive (brown) is almost identical but is associatedwith less intensive agricultural management practices. In both directives, nature conservation isspatially segregated from agri-culture and nature development.

c. The third directive (blue) represents areas with no poten-tial for economically viable agri-culture. Here, long-term goals are nature management and open air recreation.

d. The fourth and final directive (green) emphasizes predomi-nantly ecological preservation. Here, every management function adapts to nature devel-opment goals and sustainable land use practices to preserve nature values.

The last and fourth planning docu-ment is the Third National PolicyDocument on Water Management bythe Ministry of Transport, PublicWorks and Water Management (Vand W). It promotes rules for themanagement of water systems to ful-fill ecological functions. The policycan be summarized as: “To have andmaintain a safe and habitable country asthe prior condition and to develop andmaintain healthy water systems whichguarantee sustained use” (Departmentof V&W, 1991).

It recognizes the problems of waterpollution (nutrient loads, heavy met-als, etc.) and dehydration and speci-fies target objectives to tackle theseproblems with multiple strategies.This means that policy is carried outsimultaneously with regard to relatedissues and objectives. It is expectedthat a multiple strategy or systemsapproach will result in higher overallpublic benefits that exceed the sum ofthe benefits of the subcomponent policy objectives.

Regional and local planning and zoning inthe Netherlands

As mentioned above, provincialstructure plans connect nationalstrategic planning and the executiveallocation plan of municipalities. Theprovincial structure plans can becharacterized as a policy programcontaining a broad outline of regionalpolicy goals, administrative andfinancial implementationinstruments, and broad design ofstructural physical elements.

Local authorities are required toprepare allocation plans(bestemmingsplannnen) for new devel-opment and conservation in ruralareas. They are considered the corner-stone of Dutch planning law. It is theonly plan that has direct legal conse-quences for local inhabitants. Theallocation plan is restrictive in nature:it is primarily designed to preventundesirable forms of development orurban renewal (Cammen, 1984).Development is permitted inaccordance with the allocation plan.The provinces designate nature areasin their regional structure plans andin compliance with national naturedevelopment policy. Although it doesnot occur often, municipalities areentitled to designate nature areas if incompliance with national and region-al nature policies (de Roo, 1996).

National park De Weerribben

De Weerribben is a national parkthat covers 3,500 hectares. It is a rem-nant of a former vast, low peat min-ing area together with the nearbynature reserves "De Wieden"(Ministry of LNV, 1991). Peat miningtook place in this area beginning inthe Middle Ages and stopped in 1956when other fuels became price com-petitive. Dried peat was used as aneffective fuel in people's homes.Long, narrow strips of waterremained where peat was removed.

The area is, therefore, greatlyaffected by human activities, which,in fact, have been advantageous for

33

nature development. Without inter-vention, the area, through naturalsuccession, would have developedinto one large swamp forest within 20to 30 years and the unique characterof the low peatland would have beenlost. Instead, the Weerribben has avaried landscape of open waterponds, floating mats of vegetation informer peat holes, and quaking bogs,reed marshes, wet meadows, shrubbymarshes and woodlands. A greatdiversity of vegetation exists in theWeerribben. For example, dark sedge,a threatened species throughoutEurope, occurs in the transition zonebetween the quaking bog and drier,unfertilized pastures. Also, fauna isabundant and the presence of pikemeans that water in the Weerribbenhas become relatively clean.

Traditional agricultural practiceshave been retained to ensure mainte-nance of the characteristics of thearea. They include reedcutting,woodland coppicing, haymaking,grazing, and the dredging of ditchesand waterways. A declining marketand increased labor and managementcosts made state subsidies necessaryto enable local inhabitants to continuetheir traditional activities. Efforts con-tinue to keep eutrophic water frompenetrating nearby canals.

The Weerribben ecosystem is stillthreatened. During the past decades,its nature conservation values havedecreased. Because of agriculturalrationalization, wooded banks,important ecological corridors, havebeen reduced and "improvements" ofwatercourses hamper fish migrationroutes. Farming activities in the areasurrounding the Weerribben alsocause an outflow of groundwateraffecting the quaking bog vegetationin dry summers. Compensating riverwater is eutrophic and hampersmaintenance of the mesotrophic andoligotrophic conditions essential forthe diversity of the peat and aquaticvegetation complexes (Ministry ofLNV, 1996a). At the moment, theWeerribben is an "ecological island"in a "sea" of ecologically degradedlandscape. Wetland "De Wieden" isnearby and has an ecosystem linkage

with the Weeribben. With the NEN,the provincial authorities are creatingecological corridors between the twocore areas. Spatial segregation ofintensive agriculture and naturalareas is planned so both can coexistin their future development. Farmersin the area are provided withfinancial incentives to relocate;remaining farmers are supported andencouraged to find additionalincome-generating activities such astourism and recreation (Ministry ofLNV, 1996a).

Criteria and classificationof wetlands in theNetherlands

The Dutch government gives thehighest priority to protectingbiodiversity, transboundary(European) nature protection policiesand the protection of several keyecosystems, including wetlands(Ministry of LNV, 1996b). The factthat a quarter of all threat-ened andmost vulnerable plants in theNetherlands rely on wetlands fortheir survival (IEEP, 1991) underlinesthe importance of wetland ecosys-tems for preserving biodiversity. Inaddition, the Netherlands is also acontracting party to the BiodiversityConvention in Rio. Following its rati-fication, a Biodiversity Action Planwas developed. In the context ofEuropean nature conservation, theDutch government promoted theneed for a European ecologicalnetwork.

Safeguarding biodiversity is themain objective of Dutch nature policy.That is why 657 species from 10 taxo-nomic groups have been selected astarget species. This selection is basedon an assessment of international sig-nificance and on a national ("red") listof threatened and endangeredspecies. But biodiversity can be main-tained only if target species' habitatsare maintained or restored. As men-tioned on pg. 31, in Nationalplanning policies, the NEN wasdeveloped to restore those habitats(Ministry of LNV, 1995a).

The NEN provides a methodical

approach to identify a comprehensiveset of 132 nature target types (Ministryof LNV, 1995a). Each of the 132 unitsin this classification specifies an eco-logical objective in terms of biotic andabiotic components at a particularscale. These 132 nature target typeshave been identified to reverse theloss of species in the Netherlands andare chosen to support a maximumnumber of these species. Selectionquality criteria include diversity(ecosystems and species), naturalnessof ecosystems and characteristicness(Ministry of LNV, 1995a). The classifi-cation of wetlands is a part of the 132nature target types. A separate wet-land classification in the Netherlandsdoes not exist. The classification goalis not to identify certain ecosystemsbut to develop a practical "toolbox"for planning, management and policyevaluation (Ministry of LNV, 1995a-b).

The number of nature target types isa result of nine physic-geographicalregions in the country with four mainmanagement strategy groups that differin the degree of human interfer-ence.This results in 36 differentmanagement areas. Areas are furthersubdivided, where possible. This per-mits up to 132 different nature targettypes (Table 2). Because completelynatural units do not exist in theNetherlands as a result of humaninfluences, the first main grouping isdefined as almost-natural units. Theseare areas of at least 1,000 ha, whichhabitat must develop without outsideinterference and by means of large-scale natural processes. The secondmain group is the attended-naturalunits. These areas are also of consid-erable size. The difference is thatthese areas require more initial man-agement inputs, such as the reintro-duction of some target species. Someareas may also need management,such as grazing, on a regular basis.The third main group is called semi-natural units. Small-scale promotionof certain succession stadia and asso-ciated target species are the centralfocus. If possibilities for large-scaleprocesses are absent or there is a dan-ger that small, isolated populations oftarget species will disappear, thisgroup is of critical importance.

34

The fourth group is multifunctionalunits. These area units constitute acompromise with other functionssuch as recreation, agriculture andforestry, mostly detrimental for thedevelopment of natural values. Forsome target species, however, humaninfluences are needed and important.

For biodiversity in general, ecologi-cal and socioeconomic criteria havebeen developed to select and priori-tize ecosystems (Ministry of LNV,1996).

The ecological criteria are:• The ecosystem should contribute to

biodiversity, which is measured on the basis of species richness, vulner-ability, extent of being threatened and/or uniqueness.

• The ecosystem should be a global common -- i.e., an ecosystem or species of major common international responsibility.

• There should be a measure of inter-dependence between the ecosystem abroad and the national ecosystem (Ministry of LNV, 1996).

Main Groups(management strategies)

Physic-geographic 1 2 3 4 Totalregion*

Hilly land 1 2 12 2 17

Higher sandy grounds 2 3 19 2 26

River area - 2 12 2 16

Peatland 1 3 10 2 16

Sea clay area - 3 13 2 18

Dunes 1 1 16 2 20

Closedsea-arms - 3 8 1 12

Tidal area 2 2 2 - 6

North Sea 1 - - - 11

Total 8 19 92 13 132

Table 2. Number of target types by physic-geographic region and main group.

* These are not official translations

The socioeconomic criteria are:• The Netherlands is involved in the

damage done to the ecosystem.

• There should be a possibility for the export or propagation of the specific Dutch knowledge and expertise in the field.

• There should be a possibility to link up with local socioeconomic measures, as well as with planning and environmental measures.

• The measures taken should have an effect locally and have the best possible concrete results for nature (Ministry of LNV, 1996).

Among others, wetlands (inconnection with migratory birds) areecosystems that are given priority forthe 1996-2000 period. Besides thecommon values associated with wet-lands, they represent internationalresponsibilities because of their trans-boundary significance. Manywetlands are an important link in theWestern Palearctic flyway, whichextends from Siberia to South Africa(see Figure 6).

United Kingdom

HistoryLarge areas of the eastern United

Kingdom are close to or below sealevel and are comparable to thepolder areas of the Netherlands.Since the Middle Ages, large areas ofcoastal wetlands were enpolderedand half of the original area has dis-appeared (E.U., 1995). Majordrainage systems in the past 200years have lowered the water tableso that bog, mire and marsh soilshave been converted into “morevaluable” agricultural land(Penning-Rowsell, 1986). Betweenthe middle of the 19th century and1978, about 84 percent of lowlandraised bog in Britain was lostthrough afforestation, agriculturalreclamation and commercial peatcutting (Gosselink, 1990). The restwas severely damaged by burningand draining so that of thepeatlands, only 6 percent (6,200 ha)remains. Swamps were destroyed ata rate of 4,000 to 8,000 ha per year inthe 1970s (E.U., 1995). Wetlands didnot receive attention in Britain untilthe 1980s when the increasing rarityof wetlands became evident. As aresult, the U.K. has brought underthe protection of the RamsarConvention 91 sites with a total areaof 387,000 hectares.

Trends in wetland areasOf the 91 sites, 11 are suffering

from adverse effects or are likely tochange ecologically. These concernsare eutrophication, acidification andgroundwater pollution, none ofwhich is considered serious(Department of Environment, 1996).

Wetland protection in theUnited KingdomLegal system

The responsibility to declare andmanage the network of nationalnature reserves is exercised by theNature Conservancy Council (NCC).

35

This is an independent council fund-ed through the Department of theEnvironment that designates andprotects Sites of Special ScientificInterest (SSSI). SSSIs are all sites ofnational or international importanceunder national legislation(Department of the Environment,1994). Development proposals in orlikely to affect an SSSI must besubject to special scrutiny. If develop-ment is planned in an SSSI (andaround the SSSI up to 2000 m for wet-lands), the planning authorities mustconsult the NCC as soon as possiblefor advice. Sites can also be designat-ed as SPAs and SACs according toimplemented E.U. legislation such asthe habitat and bird directives (seeTable 3). These designations are notmutually exclusive—a site can havemore than one designation andreceive added protection.

LawsWildlife and Countryside Act, 1981

This act strengthened the protec-tion of SSSIs, a concept that wasintroduced in its predecessor of 1949.The notification of a site as an SSSI isthe mainstay of habitat protection inthe U.K. (Fairhead, 1996). The act alsopermits the designation of a site as aNational Nature Reserve (NNR).Both designations are meant for sitesof national importance based on floraand fauna, geological or physio-graphical features.

Minerals Planning Act, 1981In this act, the long-term develop-

ment planning for a local authority'sarea for mires is determined by theinclusion of peat as a mineral. Localplans must specify where mineralextraction—in this case, peat—maytake place. The government policy isthat peat extraction may take placeonly as long as the environmentaldamage is minimized. For NNRs andSSSIs, more specific and more restric-tive control is used. Nature conserva-tion is not an explicit criterion takeninto consideration when assessingwhether planning permission formineral extraction should be given.Only because environmental impactassessment is obligatory since 1988,and as a result of an E.U. directive,review safeguards are now includedby the introduction of the mireconservation perspective(Heathwaite, 1993).

A national strategy for mire conservation is lacking, however,because each peat extraction applica-tion is dealt with at the local level(Heathwaite, 1993).

Land Drainage Act, 1994This act mandates local authorities,

when acting as drainage bodies, tofurther the conservation of wildlifewhen making decisions relating toland drainage and flood defense. Itbrings the environmental duties oflocal authorities into line with theNational Rivers Authority (NRA)

and the Internal Drainage Boards(IDBs), which operate in the UnitedKingdom and Wales. The act alsoempowers ministers to intervene toprevent drainage activities that arelikely to damage nature conservationinterests of national and internationalimportance.

Conservation (Natural Habitats,etc.) Regulations, 1994

This act formally transposes therequirements of the EC HabitatsDirective into national law. The termsused are identical to those in theEuropean habitat and bird directives.

The Planning and CompensationAct, 1991

This act improves the ability oflocal planning authorities tosafeguard conservation and areaamenities by strengthening planningenforcement and development con-trols. It also requires structure, localand unitary development plans toinclude policies on the conservationof the natural beauty and amenity ofthe land.

Wetland restoration criteria in the UnitedKingdom

As early as 1901, the ecological roleand scientific importance of mireswere acknowledged in Europe.According to Heathwaite (1993), ethi-cal, aesthetic and economic aspects

Importance Site Designation UK Statutory Designation

Sites of international importance Ramsar Sites SSSI

Special Protection Areas SSSI, SPA

Special Areas of Conservation SSSI, SAC

Sites of national importance National Nature Reserves SSSI

Sites of Special Scientific Interest SSSI

Sites of regional/local importance Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) LNR

Non-statutory Nature Reserves -

Sites of Important for Nature Conservation

Table 3. Classification of nature reserves in the United Kingdom.

Source: Department of the Environment, 1994.

36

should be also taken into accountwith a distinction between conserva-tion need and conservation worth(Table 4). Permanent conservabilityshould be assessed according to thefollowing criteria, which apply notonly apply to Britain but also to otherwestern European countries(Heathwaite, 1993):

Conservation need is based on:• scientific interest• ecological equilibrium• ethical motives• aesthetic aspects• economic effects

Conservation potential andsuccess are controlled by:• hydrology• chemistry• biology

Conservation worth dependson:• naturalness• threatened status• irreplaceability• diversity• variety• completeness• representativeness

Table 4. Mire conservation criteria(from Heathwaite, 1993).

GermanyHistory

As in many countries, wetlandswere considered wastelands. As earlyas 1765, when the King of Prussiaissued a reclamation edict, all “waste-lands” in Prussia were declared to bethe property of the state (propertyrights were not effective yet.) Theobjective was to force their cultiva-tion and encourage creation of newsettlements. Also, large areas of peat-land were used as fuel sources anddrained for agricultural purposes.Because of these activities, 95 percentof all fens and 58 percent of raisedbogs have disappeared in Germany(Terkamp, 1992).

Trends in wetland areasBecause of a lack of systematic

monitoring by the German federalauthorities, only current trends canbe described. It is unknown how wet-lands with adverse effects relate tothe stable wetlands with unchangedecological features*.

The main threats correlate with thehigh density of people and intensiveagriculture. Disruptions caused byrecreational activities, road traffic anddisturbances by military flight opera-tions are examples. The federal gov-ernment considers property rights,traditional uses and a high variety ofdifferent interests as the most impor-tant causes of the ecological degrada-tion observed in many wetlands(Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, 1995).

Wetland protection Legal system

Germany is a federal nation inwhich the constitution determines therights of the various legislative bod-ies in Germany’s federal structure. Inmost cases, federal environmentallaw supersedes Länder (states’) laws.Framework legislation related tonature conservation, landscape pro-

tection and water management canbe enacted at the federal level.However, more specific regulation ofnature areas remains the domain ofthe Länder (OECD, 1993).

LawsNature Conservation Act

In Germany, the federal NatureConservation Act provides for sixkinds of protected areas, defines theirpurposes and very broadly definesprohibitions. None of theseprovisions is directly applicable bythe German federal governmentbecause the act represents the frame-work for adoption of complementarylegal provisions by the variousLänder. The Länder have an obligationto consult the federal ministry onlywhen national parks are designated.These Länder have, thus, a largedegree of autonomy in the legislativeimplementation of this frameworkand full freedom with regard to themodalities of its implementation(OECD, 1993).

Policy programIn 1991, the nature conservation

authorities of the federation and ofthe federal Länder represented in theLänder Panel on Nature Conservation(LANA) adopted a basis policy withcommon approaches to solutions anddevelopment perspectives for natureconservation measures in Germany.They state that natural and near-natural wetlands, in addition to otherhabitat types, should be given toppriority for conservation and protec-tion against any detrimental changes.They are considered to be core areas ofGerman nature conservation. Theprogram also states, in principle, thatwetlands should be restored, theirquality improved and areas extend-ed, and that adequately sizedbiotopes should be developed by net-working existing biotopes. The lasthas the highest priority. It is the intention to develop these principlesfurther to shape a national wetlandpolicy (Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, 1995).

* The German national report for the sixth meeting of the Ramsar Convention excluded the internationally impor-tant wetlands without adverse effects. This makes a comparative judgment about the German situation impossible.

37

PlanningSection 2 of the Nature

Conservation Act deals withlandscape planning. Nature conser-vation planning is included as part ofthe landscape planning process. Ittakes place at three levels:

1. The program, mandated by the federal Nature Conservation Act(Article 5), developed for the territory of a Land as a whole.

2. The master plans for parts of a Land.

3. The landscape plan, a tool of local planning.

Article 7 of the NCA is directlyapplicable only when the natural sit-uation requires transboundary plan-ning and where cooperation is neces-sary to avoid hampering the aims ofnational conservation.

Level one is a framework thatevery Land can use accordingly to itsinterpretation. Only some Länderhave integrated the program in theirgeneral planning process. The federalgovernment does not guide the con-tent of the second level, the masterplans. The result is that the contentand character of general conservationplanning have been left to thedecision of the Länder. Level three is anature conservation plan at the locallevel. The plan consists of an inven-tory of the situation of the naturalenvironment and an outline of thegoals and measures needed toachieve future goals.

ZoningFederal and Länder conservation

legislation offers the possibility todesignate core areas as naturereserves and buffer zones aslandscape reserves. Such reserveshave been designated in severalnational parks as a result of nationalpark management rather thanwetland management objectives.

SwedenHistory

During the 1900s, many ofSweden’s rivers and lakes have beenused to generate power. Today, 72percent of all economically viablehydroelectric reservoirs fed by lakesand rivers are used for this purpose,representing 16 percent of the totalpower generated (Löfroth, 1991).

From about 1850, extensivedrainage was performed to acquirenew land for agriculture (Mitsch,1994). In total, about 600,000 hectaresof peatland were converted toagricultural use. Such drainage is nolonger practiced. Forestry ditching,however, is still going on to someextent. Swedish forestry practicesaccounted for draining more than 1.5 million hectares.

Sweden still has large areas of wet-lands. The main type is wet forest (30percent), which accounts for about 5million hectares. The total area ofopen mires is about 3.6 millionhectares. Together with the wetforest, they constitute more than 90percent of the total wetland area inSweden (SEPA, 1996).

Trends in wetland areasRamsar sites in Sweden have not

been changed adversely. According toSEPA (1995), the sites are in stablecondition.

Wetland protection in SwedenLaws

No overall national wetland policyexists in Sweden, except for a nation-al plan to conserve mires. Within thisplan, 345 sites totaling 210,000hectares are set aside as naturereserves (SEPA, 1995).

The drainage of areas alwaysrequired permits in Sweden (Mitsch,1994)—first, according to theDitching Act, which was succeededby the Water Act of 1918. The newWater Act of 1983 is based on thesame principle that land improve-

ment benefits or advantages of adrainage project must exceed thecosts or disadvantages of opposingprivate and public interests. NatureConservation became a public inter-est in the early 1980s. This led to anew paragraph in The Nature Con-servation Act in 1986 requiring a per-mit for draining. Another paragraphin the Nature Conservation Act statesthat the government can defineregions in which land drainage isprohibited. These two paragraphsgive the public authorities the meansto prevent valuable wetlands frombeing drained. In 1995, all drainageactivities were prohibited withinRamsar sites (SEPA, 1995).

Acts of great importance tolandowners are the AgriculturalManagement Act and the ForestConservation Act. Both identify rulesindicating that agriculture andforestry should be managed withgreat concern for nature preservation.

Indirectly, the SwedishEnvironmental Protection Act (EPA)can also play an important role. Ifthere is a risk of pollution, a drainagepermit can be denied. This act appliesto point source pollution in particularbut not to diffuse pollution sourcessuch as nutrients or heavy metalsresulting from normal agricultural orforestry management practices. In1985, a new paragraph was added tothe EPA giving the government theability to declare certain areas of landor water an environmental protectionzone if it is deemed especially sensi-tive to pollution.

Sweden provides an incentive tocreate new wetlands. Subsidies maybe given for the restoration orcreation of wetlands on the conditionthat grain acreage is reduced.

38

Denmark

HistorySince the beginning of the 18th cen-

tury, the area of Danish wetlands hasbeen drastically reduced because ofland reclamation and drainage. Themain purpose was to increase agricul-tural production. Many small riversand watercourses have also beenchannelized or culverted. Since then,50 to 70 percent of all wet inlandbiotopes have disappeared (SEPA,1991), a total 162,000 ha. In the 1970s,swamps were destroyed at a rate of2,400 ha per year (E.U., 1995). Theremaining wetlands have deterioratedbecause of eutrophication, causedprincipally by nitrogen and phospho-rus. As a consequence, the amount ofsubmerged vegetation has diminishedbecause of the dimin-ished light pene-tration. During the past decade, how-ever, the reduction in wetland area hasbeen stopped. About 885,000 hectaresof wetlands remain, of which 732,000hectares are covered by the RamsarConvention. Most of the area is theWaddensea and coastal shallowmarine waters (Ministry of Environ-ment, 1996). Inland wetlands do notinclude large areas.

Trends in wetland areasThe main wetland problems in

Denmark are eutrophication becauseof discharge of nutrients from adjacentagricultural areas (Ministry ofEnvironment, 1996) and excessivehunting pressure (Danish Society forthe Conservation of Nature as quotedby Flinstid, 1996). Overall, the Danishsociety is satisfied with the wetlandpolicy, especially the Nature Conser-vation Act, protecting all small waterbodies.

Wetland protection in DenmarkLegal system

In Denmark, legislative authorityfor nature conservation is centralized,but the National Forest and NatureProtection Agency of the Ministry of

the Environment has no authorityover individual conservation orders,such as easements (IUCN, 1991).

Denmark is divided into 25 conser-vation districts, each of which has anindependent special conservationboard chaired by a local judge. Thisboard is authorized to implementindividual conservation orders. Thelocal communities, the national con-servation authorities and the DanishNature Conservation Society (NGO)can make proposals for these ordersto the board. The individual conser-vation orders are sometimes regardedas a taking and can be appealed tothe main conservation board inCopenhagen.

LawsIn Denmark, the national wetland

policy is covered by an integratedand comprehensive set of nature pro-tection and environmental laws,which also complies with article 6 ofthe Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Restoration of wetlands is apart of wetland policy (E.U., 1995).

Nature Protection Act of 1978(amended in 1992)

General protection for larger wet-lands (public watercourses, privatewatercourses broader than 1.5meters, bogs and moors larger than5,000 square meters [0.5 ha], saltmarshes and salt meadows largerthan 3 ha, heath more than 5 ha) isgiven by the Nature Protection Act of1978. Under the provisions of this act,all changes in the wetlands aresubject to the permission of the coun-ty councils. Without permission, it isillegal for private or public land-owners to change their wetlands bydrainage, such as channeling water-courses. Any license application incontradiction with nature protectionobjectives may be rejected withoutany compensation to the landowner.Decisions made by these councils canbe appealed to the National Forestand Nature Protection Agency bynature conservation associations oranyone directly affected by the deci-sions. Thus far, the authorities havebeen very restrictive. There has hard-ly been an occasion when permission

has been given for projects that coulddestroy protected wetlands of signifi-cance. State financial support fromthe Ministry of Agriculture for drain-ing was terminated in 1982.

A number of important wetlandsare covered by specific conservationschemes or wildlife management pro-visions, which give detailed rules forland use, public access, hunting, etc.,within the protected areas. In thesecases, the landowner has normallyreceived financial compensation forthe restrictions on land use.

The government also presented a“Strategy on Marginal Lands,” animportant objective of which is torestore part of the former degradedwetlands. The preliminary aim wasto rehabilitate 20,000 ha over a periodof 10 to 20 years. By 1995, 1,300hectares had been reestablished aswetlands. The Ministry of Environ-ment and Energy has launched anational policy plan to restore 30,000ha of former wetlands during thenext 30 years.

The Act on the Structure ofAgriculture

This act implements the E.U.’s “setaside” policy by providing financialsupport to encourage a more ecologi-cally adapted agricultural land use.Designation as a Ramsar site is aqualifying criterion for obtaining thisfinancial support.

The Raw Materials ActIn 1990, a new ministerial order

came into force under this act. Thisorder banned all exploitation of sub-merged rocks, stones and boulderswithin the borders of Ramsar andE.U.- designated bird protection sites.Also, another order of 1995 prohibitsthe prospecting and extracting of rawmaterials from these sites. Permissionfor existing activities will be phasedout over 10 years.

In 1989, the Danish parliamentadopted the Nature ManagementAct. The goal of this act (among oth-ers) is to improve or preserve condi-tions for wild flora and fauna. Theact also implements the strategy onmarginal lands and provides thelegal background for the use of

39

public funds for nature management.These funds are used largely torestore wetlands.

The Hunting and WildlifeManagement Act

The revised Hunting and WildlifeManagement Act of 1994 establisheswildlife reserves to safeguardwildlife. These reserves withinRamsar and E.U. bird protectionareas are an important legalinstrument in site-related wildlifeconservation measures. Several pro-visions are based on zoning to regu-late hunting and other recreationalactivities over time and space.

Action Plan for the AquaticEnvironment

In 1987, this action plan was adopt-ed by the Danish parliament toreduce the amount of nitrogen andphosphorus discharge into the envi-ronment by 50 percent and 80percent, respectively, by 1993. Thesedischarges from farmland, industryand urban areas during the pastdecades have caused extensiveeutrophication. By 1994, a significantreduction from urban and industrialareas had been achieved. Nitrogenfrom farmland still causes problems,however. Restoration of wetlands inDenmark is seen as a way to reducethe amount of nutrients in aneconomical way.

Action Plan to extend the Wildlifeand Nature Reserve Network inDenmark

Denmark’s environmental NGOsproposed an extension of thenetwork of protected areas for water-birds by the establishment of morethan 50 new wildlife and naturereserves in Ramsar sites and E.U.bird protection areas. The NationalForest and Nature Agency laterdeveloped the implementation plan.It encompasses the creation of hunt-ing—and disturbance-free core zonessurrounded by buffer zones or man-agement areas. The core zonesshould, where possible, includewater areas and adjacent transitionzones of bird habitats.

In contrast to the KushiroRecommendations (a Ramsar confer-ence), Denmark did not find it neces-sary to develop specific managementplans for all listed sites as a generalprocedure because most humanactivities in wetlands are regulatedby Danish nature and environmentprotection legislation as well as phys-ical planning legislation.

PlanningThe national planning system and

its implementation are responsibil-ities of the national government withthe assistance of regional and localauthorities. The systematic planningfor nature conservation is integratedinto the physical planning system.

The National Forest and NatureProtection Agency performs twofunctions related to local physicalplanning. First, the agency sets outguidelines that county councilsshould consider in preparing theirplans (IUCN, 1991). These guidelinesmay also address small sites not cov-ered by general protection measures.

Second, plans adopted by thecouncils have to be approved by theMinistry of Environment, and theagency advises the minister on theacceptability of the plan from a con-servation point of view. Onceapproved, the plan is binding. If thereare elements that are against generalwetland protection as defined in theNature Conservation Act, little can bedone. The authorization to proceed toaction has to be obtained from thecounty council and may be appealed;but the plan is binding for the admin-istration. In that case, all that can bedone is to negotiate alternative imple-mentation actions (IUCN, 1991).

NorwayTrends in wetland areas

The wetlands in Norway have notbeen a subject of significant adversechanges. Some sites are affected bydevelopment that took place beforethe areas were designated as legallyprotected areas and Ramsar sites, andeutrophication resulting from agricul-tural runoff may cause changes.Long-range transboundary air pollu-tion in the form of acid precipitationis also a cause of adverse effects onNorwegian wetlands (Ministry ofEnvironment, 1996a).

Wetland protectionLegal system

Management of protected areas inNorway, including Ramsar sites, hasbeen delegated to the regional (county) environment departments.General provisions for protection arelaid down in the Nature ProtectionAct. Use and management of theindividual site are handled by royaldecree (Ministry of Environment,1996a). Individual managementplans are to be developed for all pro-tected areas. Guidelines are devel-oped and management plans are setup accordingly.

LawsNorway’s Ministry of Environment

includes a department responsible forthe conservation of natural and cultur-al heritage. Two laws govern natureconservation: the Nature Conserva-tion Act and the Wildlife Act.

Nature Conservation ActThe Nature Conservation Act of

1970, amended in 1990, aims toensure that natural resource manage-ment acknowledges the interdepen-dence of humans and nature. This actprotects all Ramsar sites. The govern-ment has the primary responsibilityfor establishing protected areas, butthe Ministry of Environment makesdecisions in matters of temporaryprotection.

40

Wildlife ActThe goal of the Wildlife Act of 1981,

amended in 1993, is to ensure that allwildlife and wildlife habitat are man-aged in ways that maintain overallproductivity and biodiversity. It laysdown the protection principle that allanimals are protected unless huntingis explicitly permitted.

Within this framework, areas couldbe designated as (OECD, 1993):

• National parks.This includes intact or virtuallyintact areas and regions of natur-al beauty or particular interest. Inprinciple, designation is only forpublic land, but private land maybe incorporated into a nationalpark if it is contiguous to thepublic land. Unless the economicloss is significant, this classifica-tion does not involve any finan-cial compensation.

• Nature reserves.This includes intact or virtuallyintact areas of special habitats ofsignificant scientific or education-al interest. These areas mayreceive general protection or maybe protected with a specific usedesignation in mind (wetlandreserve, bird sanctuary, etc.). Inthat case, the state compensateslandowners. Ramsar sites are pri-marily protected in the form ofnature reserves.

• Protected landscape areas.This includes natural landscapespreserved for their beauty orother characteristics. Authoriza-tion is granted by the countygovernor.

• Special areas:Special areas are designated bythe county executive board.These areas can be protected bymeasures that limit certain prop-erty rights, such as buildingrights, in return for compensa-tion.

PlanningPlanning and Building Act of 1985

The Planning and Building Act canenable the integration of nature con-servation concerns with physicalplanning at the municipal andregional levels. This act facilitates thecoordination of state, county andmunicipal activities and provides abasis for decisions on the use andprotection of the environment andeconomic development. The act pro-vides for four levels of planning:development planning, municipalplanning, county planning andnational planning. Municipalplanning is concerned with specificphysical planning issues and is gen-erally the most important. Municipal-ities make binding planning deci-sions, but in the event of objectionsfrom the county, neighboring munici-palities or state institutions relating tothe proposed plans, the Ministry ofthe Environment assumes authority.

The act also provides for publicparticipation in the decision-makingprocess and for environmentalimpact assessments for major projectsto ensure that the effects on the envi-ronment and natural resources areanalyzed and considered before theprojects are approved.

Wetland conservation planNorway developed wetland

conservation plans as early as 1970,even before the Ramsar Convention.Regional thematic conservation plansfor wetlands and important seabirdcolonies are most relevant forwetland conservation. Such plans arealso developed for forests. Each coun-ty had completed its plan by 1995.

FinlandHistory

Finland has been called the land ofthousands of lakes. It has 33,522 km2

of inland waters representing 9.9 per-cent of the total area of the country.There are 56,010 lakes larger than 1hectare and 187,888 lakes and pondslarger than 500 square meters(Finnish Environment Institute,1996a). The amount of various peat-lands was originally exceptionallyhigh, about 110,000 km2. Raised bogsare dominant in the south and miresin the north (Finnish EnvironmentInstitute, 1996b). In the European andglobal context, the existence of miresand many shallow water bodies andthe extensive shoreline stress theimportance of these Finnish wetlandbiotopes.

Currently, about 5.5 millionhectares have been drained forforestry and agriculture. Finland had11 Ramsar sites but recently added 50others (Finnish Forest and ParkService, 1996).

Trends in wetland areasFinland’s coastal wetlands are vul-

nerable to oil pollution from coastalnavigation. Also the spread of theAmerican mink (Mustela vison) isseen as a threat to the wetlands in thefuture (FFPS, 1996). Climaticchanges, pollution and other chemi-cal damages are still consideredminor threats. eutrophication of bothfreshwater and marine areas ischanging the aquatic and coastalhabitats. Also, a decline in habitatscaused by construction activities,especially in the more densely popu-lated south, is a threat. The totallength of all lakeshores in Finland is140,000 km. Most of these shores areprivately owned, and ownershipincludes the right to build on theland, including shores. That is alsothe main use that is threatening theshores. For the whole country, 32percent of the shoreline was used forresidential development, especiallysecond homes. At present there aresome 400,000 “holiday” houses in

41

Finland, of which most lie along ashore. This number is still rising,with an average of about 6,400 sum-mer cottages added annually. Only 5percent of all lakeshores are legallyprotected (Finnish EnvironmentInstitute, 1996b).

Wetland protection inFinlandLawsNature Conservation Act of 1923

This act was enacted to protectendangered species, mainly birds.Habitats were not protected, how-ever. The proposed new NatureProtection Act of 1996 contains ninenature types to be protected, includ-ing marshes and sandy shores. Thenine habitats are not to be changed insuch a way that their specific charac-teristics would be lost (FinnishEnvironment Institute, 1996b).

Finland became a member of theE.U. in 1995 and is busy implement-ing E.U. legislation (Habitat andBirds Directive) on preserves andwildlife protection in the NatureConservation Act.

The Water Act of 1961 This is the most extensive act of

Finnish legislation. Its core consists ofprovisions on altering, polluting anddamming prohibitions. The act canalso be used for conservation (FFPS,1996).

The Act on the Protection of Rapidsof 1987

This act preserves 53 water systemsor parts of water systems. Up to 60percent of the Kiiminkijoki watershedconsists of wetlands.

River protection actsFinland has two special acts for

river protection. Both are river-specific. They are the 1983 Act on theSpecial Protection of the OunasjokiRiver and the 1991 Act on the SpecialProtection of the Kyrönjoki River.

Discussion andconclusionsDiscussion

The discrepancy of the legal defini-tion of “wetlands” has raised scien-tific and political concerns. In theU.S., it is the temporary saturationrequirement and the depth and dura-tion of flooding, which varies by wet-land type and year (Mitsch andGosselink, 1993). A wetland may notalways be wet. A functional wetland isone in which some parts are wet allyear long, some are wet only part ofthe year and some patches may bedry some years. These dry patchesare needed to support ecosystemfunctions (Alper, 1992). Second, wet-lands are often at the marginsbetween deep water and terrestrialuplands and may be considered to bemere extensions of ecosystems,whereas others see properties in wet-lands not contained in either uplandor deepwater systems (Mitsch andGosselink, 1993). Third, wetlandspecies range from facultative (wetand dry) or obligate (wet or dry)adaptations, which makes it difficultto use them as wetland indicators(Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). In U.S.wetlands south of San Diego, forexample, several endangered speciesare present only in certain years.Fourth, wetland size, ranging fromsmall (a few hectares) to hundreds ofsquare kilometers, is an importantcriterion in conservation policy.

Conservation efforts in Europe andthe U.S. have focused on sites ofinternational importance. These sites,though small in number and large insize, have mostly been protected suc-cessfully. However, this resulted inneglect of equally important sites,and the insidious loss of smaller, dis-persed sites (IUCN, 1991). Althoughthese sites may be of little importanceindividually, together they constitutea wetland resource of major local,national and often international sig-nificance.

Research undertaken by YaleUniversity, simulating loss of smallwetlands in Maine, showed that if 62

percent of the total wetlands weredestroyed – representing only 19 per-cent of the total state’s wetland area –the average inter-wetland distancewould increase by 67 percent. Thiswould mean that, instead of 90percent, only 54 percent of the land-scape would be within the maximummigration distance (estimated at 1,000meters) of terrestrial and aquatic-breeding amphibians. A spatiallystructured demographic modelrevealed that local populations of tur-tles, small birds and small mammals,stable under conditions of nowetland loss, faced a significant riskof extinction after the destruction ofsmall wetlands (Gibbs, 1993). TheNational Science Foundation (1995)concluded that the same could hap-pen with birds because many water-fowl are sensitive not only to areareductions but also to patch size, wet-land density and proximity to otherwetlands.

The same notion of ecosystem con-nectivity and migratory pathways is thebasis of the development of theNational Ecological Network in theNetherlands (Appendix 2). InMichigan, the protection of a patch-work of larger and smaller wetlandsconnecting core ecosystems—areas ofnational, state and local significance—could be the major objective of anintegrated wetland policy. This policyinitiative would comprise a set ofcoordinated actions at the state andlocal levels by means of conductingtargeted wetland inventories and theimplementation of wetland preserva-tions ordinances enacted to ensureprotection of wetland of less than 5acres. The ultimate goal of thiswetland conservation policy wouldbe to ensure sustained, coordinatedwetland management statewide,thereby preserving the integrity andviability of one of Michigan’s mostimportant natural resources. Thiswould not only assist in maintaininga sustained revenue flow fromtourism and recreation activity butalso add to the economic vitality ofthe agricultural and forestry sectorsand preserve and enhance the qualityof life of Michigan’s citizens.

42

The Ramsar definition is verybroad and includes areas within wet-lands that do not meet the criteriathemselves. But it excludes wet orperiodically flooded lowlandpastures and areas of reclaimedmarsh where the water table ispermanently high—within 20 cm ofthe surface (Baldock, 1984). TheRamsar definition also does notinclude vegetation or soil characteris-tics and extends wetland to a waterdepth of 6 meters or more, beyondthe depth requirements of wetlandsin the U.S. and Canada. However,this definition makes it possible toinclude a wider variety of habitats,such as river ecosystems and coralreefs. The intent of the Ramsar defini-tion was to include all wetland habi-tat of migratory water birds, inclusiveof manmade wetlands such as reser-voirs and seasonally flooded agricul-tural land, and marine water areasless than 6 meters deep at low tide.Because the Ramsar definition isincreasingly providing the basis fornational and international invento-ries, this definition is the most impor-tant definition (Scott and Jones, 1995).

In contrast with the Ramsar classification, the European Corineclassification system relies more onvegetation characteristics (E.U., 1995).

The USACE definition includesinundation and saturation require-ments as a prime determinant of wet-lands, while including soil and vege-tation characteristics. An area has toexhibit all three attributes to be classi-fied a wetland (Conservation Found-tion, 1990). This reference definitionimplies that wetlands cannot be sup-ported on non-soil or non-hydric sub-strates. The specific reference to vege-tation provides another difficulty.Some wetland vegetation includesonly algae and mosses (NationalScience Foundation, 1995).

The definition used by Michigan issimilar to the USACE definitionbecause EPA regulations require thatstate wetlands permits comply withthe requirements of the CWA. TheMichigan definition has a practicalextension, however. The MichiganDepartment of Environmental

Quality (DEQ) does not regulate iso-lated wetlands of less than 5 acresand wetlands of any size in countieswith population below 100,000(Goodenough, 1995). This 5-acre cri-terion in counties with fewer than100,000 inhabitants is solely political-ly motivated. Bennett (1996) indicatesthat the 5-acre limit was chosen arbi-trarily, reflecting the expectation ofthe state legislature that wetlands incounties with larger populations areunder greater development pressure.It may be concluded that the intentwas not to regulate every small wet-land in the state (Sadewasser, 1996;Bennett, 1996).

Without a statewide inventory,non-contiguous wetlands of any sizein counties of less than 100,000 popu-lation are not covered by the state’swetland protection provisions. Sincethe implementation of the water pro-tection act in 1980, no such statewideinventory has yet been completed.

The new amendments in theNREPA prove to be very crucial inlocal, voluntary wetland protection ofwetlands of less than 5 acres becausean expensive inventory is requiredfor the adoption of a wetlandordinance. According to the nationalbusiness institute (NBI, 1995), thisamendment was to reduce the num-ber of municipalities that have validwetland ordinances from approxi-mately 40 to approximately five.According to the DEQ, the legislaturewanted all existing local ordinancesto expire unless they came into com-pliance with the amendments(Sadewasser, 1996). The MichiganUnited Conservation Clubs statedthat development interests resulted inthe local government’s obligation toconduct these expensive wetlandinventories (Moore, 1996). Of the 83counties in Michigan, only four havewetland inventories. The implicationfor 22 existing local ordinances isuncertain.

The Food Security Act wetland def-inition emphasizes the importance ofhydric soil as a critical indicator. Thisimplies that wetlands cannot existwhere hydric soils are not present,which is not the case. Its definition

emphasizes primarily agriculturalland use. Regarding the presence ofvascular plants, the same problemarises as in the USACE definition.The arbitrary exclusion of Alaskanwetlands is not based on scientificdistinctions (National ScienceFoundation, 1995).

The FWS definition reflects a morescientific perspective and is broaderthan the USACE definition. The pres-ence of one of the three attributes—water, vegetation or soil—is adequatefor wetland classification (Conserva-tion Foundation, 1990). Referring toterrestrial and aquatic systems, theFWS definition introduces a compli-cation. Wetlands are not always tran-sitional, either geographically orfunctionally. Furthermore, transitionis not the characteristic of wetlandsalone. The coupling to non-soil envi-ronments, however, is a specialstrength of this definition (NationalScience Foundation, 1995). Also,according to this definition, an areamight be appropriately classified as awetland even though it may lackappropriate soils or vegetation at thetime a particular survey is conducted(Mattingly, 1994). It includes non-vegetated areas such as mudflats,gravel beach, rocky shore and sand-bar (Leidy, 1992).

Critics in the U.S. argue that regu-lators have overreached theirmandate by exerting jurisdiction overdrier areas that either should not bedefined as wetlands or at least shouldnot be afforded the same degree ofregulatory protection as wetter wet-lands. Some politicians, landownersand agency officials advocate the“duck test” to assess whether a par-ticular area is a wetland: if a ducklands in it and splashes, the areamust be a wetland (Leidy, 1992). This,however, would declassify as muchas 75 percent of wetlands currentlyprotected by the Clean Water Act insome regions (Alper, 1992). Besidesthat, 35 percent of waterfowl speciesobserved in wetlands with a seasonalhydrology were also recorded usingtwo or more different seasonalwetland habitat types. It is, therefore,a misperception that wildlife requires

43

wetlands with standing water formost life cycle stages (Leidy, 1992).

Of all societal values of wetlandprotection, the function of biodi-versity habitat preservation seemsparamount. Drained wetlands, suchas reclaimed land, may representhigh special agricultural productionvalues and sources of biomass forfuel and fiber. However, these bene-fits are not sustainable and thereforenot necessarily desirable (Williams,1990).

If a low priority wetland is filled,an equal amount of similar wetlandhas to be created elsewhere, accord-ing to the federal “no net loss” policy.This policy has not succeeded on alarge scale yet, and it may be impossi-ble to recreate a functional wetland atall (Alper, 1992). A study for theSouth Florida Water District foundthat for every 14,058 acres (5,691 ha)lost, only half as many acres of wet-lands were restored, and most werepoorly designed and maintained(Darnay, 1994). In addition, it is verydifficult to establish a relative replace-ment value. Must the same ecosystemreplace a bottomland hardwood for-est or can a substitute suffice?(Mattingly, 1994). Consideringeastern Europe and Russia, theNational Research Council (NRC)stated, however, that restoration pro-jects, even when completely success-ful, are far more cost effective in theshort term than postponed for severaldecades (Hamilton, 1992).

Food and Security ActBetween 1985 and 1990, only 26

producers had federal agriculturalbenefits withheld because of theSwampbuster program. And the wet-land reserve program applied only to5 percent of 2,000 foreclosed farms,encompassing just 260,000 acres(105,260 ha) (Steinhart, 1990). Darnay(1994), however, credited the Swamp-buster program for reducing farm-land conversions from 335 acres aday to 79 acres a day (135.6 ha and 32ha, respectively) between 1987 and1991.

The Clean Water ActThe permit system under section

404 of the CWA does not includesmall wetlands. Dredging and fillingof small wetlands is allowed through-out the country. Planting, harvesting,draining and plowing of wetlands arenot covered by section 404. The pro-gram has limited power to reducewetland losses. Cumulative effectsare implicated in such impacts asincreased flooding along adjacentwaterways (Mattingly, 1994).

The reason for delegating adminis-tration of section 404 of the CWA tothe states was to streamline the per-mitting process and provide greaterpublic accessibility. In Michigan, pub-lic participation in permit review hasincreased. However, section 404 pro-vides more access to third parties andspecial interest groups by wider dis-tribution of public notices.

Local judicial intervention canundermine the effectiveness of stateprograms. In 1995, the MDNR lost avital issue in the Hugett v. MDNRcase. Here, the plaintiff purchased a325- acre (131 ha) peat bog parcel andapplied for a permit to fill it withsand. The EPA and FWS brought outadverse comments. An additionalpermit was requested to establish acranberry farm. The MDNR grantedremoval of 30,000 cubic yards of peatfrom an 86-acre (35 ha) area. Theestablishment of a cranberry farmwas denied, however because of EPAobjections. In court, Mr. Hugettclaimed that the cranberry proposalwas exempt under the (former) WPA.An employee of the MichiganDepartment of Agriculture (MDA)testified on his behalf that the depart-ment’s policy included the resolutionthat no permit was required underthe WPA for the establishment ofcranberry facilities in wetlands. TheMDNR stated the opposite, empha-sizing that the state’s mandateincluded compliance with therequirements of the (federal) CWA.Under this act, more stringentrequirements are allowed but thestate may not impose any less strin-gent requirements. Section 404 (f)(1)of the CWA specifically exempts per-

mitting requirements for dischargesfrom normal on-going farming. Thisexemption, however, does not applyto non-wetland conversion.

Michigan has no counterpart to thefederal regulations that serve to clari-fy the regulatory exemptions and nobody of state to interpret the exemp-tions. Of the five administrative rulesin the WPA (Definitions, PermitApplications, Permits, WetlandDeterminations and Mitigation), nonespecifically explains to an applicantwhat activities are exempt from regu-lation. As a result, the court gavegreater weight to the MDA’s than tothe MDNR’s testimony because itincluded the only exemption policy.The EPA was powerless in this casebecause it can not override the stateCWA. The EPA action remaining wasto withdraw the entire program fromMichigan, a punishment that did notfit the crime (Goodenough, 1995).

Endangered Species ActThe ESA is widely respected by the

court rulings. If a wetland sitesupports endangered species, devel-opment is jeopardized—at the veryleast, project plans may be modifica-tions. Section 7 of the ESA providessafeguards in environmental law, inaddition to the 404 program (Houckand Rolland, 1995).

The combined regulatory provi-sions make U.S. wetland policyrather complex. Instead of develop-ing one comprehensive wetland pro-tection law, Congress added provi-sions to various laws primarily con-cerned with related environmentalprotection issues such as water pollu-tion, agricultural production, fish andwildlife habitat, and federal agricul-tural programs. This has resulted in aconfusing array of definitions, prohi-bitions and policies applicable toactivities in or concerning wetlands(Environmental Law Institute, 1993).

Long-term, state—let alone federal– land use planning is not popular inthe U.S. According to Diamonds andNoonan (1996), it is viewed as foreignand even totalitarian. Unplannedland use development patterns withuncontrolled environmental

44

consequences result from the lack ofcomprehensive land use planningand development strategies at thestate and local levels.

EuropeIn Europe, awareness about

wetlands loss and measures for theirprotection largely have not had thesame legislative support as in theUnited States. As suggested byWilliams (1990), this may be theresult of the lack of a politically pow-erful hunting lobby. In general, envi-ronmental matters were slower intaking hold across the continent, letalone matters of importance to ruralareas such as mire, bogs, etc. Foodproduction and self-sufficiency werethe goals of rural policy since WWII.The long period of human habitationdid not instill a public "wildernessethic" because little natural habitatremains. The most significant publicpolicy initiative in European wetlandprotection is the bird and habitatdirectives. According to the IEEP(1991), certain member nations aretoo slow to implement policymeasures, including the designationof nature areas.

The Netherlands The direct destruction of wetland

habitat has been halted in theNetherlands. However, the quality ofthe remaining wetlands is exposed toincreased pressure by human activi-ties such as recreation and fisheries(shellfish). Also the dehydration ofwetland soils due to draining of adja-cent lowland is still a big problem.Additional land use pressures areemerging, including commercialdevelopment of offshore locationsand inland lakes not yet reclaimed.This includes development of a sec-ond national airport (Osieck, 1996).

Wetland policy in the Netherlandsis far from comprehensive. Althoughseveral limited policy initiatives exist,full-scale implementation has not yetoccurred. Furthermore:

• Policies do not represent the fact that wetlands are one ecosystem. An integration of all relevant policy contexts—nature

conservation, physical planning, agricultural development, environment management, etc.—is lacking.

• Policies have yet to be developed for specific user groups.

• Ecological borders of wetland ecosystems do not coincide with political/administrative jurisdic-tions, such as provinces, munici-palities and regional water boards, complicating coherent wetland policy formulation.

• Formulated policies reflect different scales (E.U., national, province and municipality) and lack consistency and coordinated implementation.

• Current policy does not include all wetlands (Romijn, 1995).

Policy directives of the Ministry ofEnvironment and the Ministry ofAgriculture are, though similar, notcomplementary. For instance, thegreen directive only partially over-laps with the National EcologicalNetwork (Bouwer and Leroy, 1995).

The Ministry of Agriculture expectsthat, without policy changes, mostgoals of the Nature Policy Plan willnot be met. Environmental andnature preservation policies have tobe complementary. A report was pub-lished last year in an attempt to har-monize the two policies and identifycommon goals (Ministry of LNV,1995c). Research findings predict thatover the next 50 years, the NationalEcological Network will improvenational biodiversity by 15 to 20 per-cent, at a cost of 0.003 percent of theGNP (Sijtsma, 1995).

The conservation easements usedfor the NEN have a positive effect onnatural values. Several plant and ani-mal species are returning. On theother hand, because of the principleof voluntary participation, fragmen-tation is still occurring. Areas wherenormal agricultural managementpractices take place (Bouwer andLeroy, 1995) surround areas with con-servation easements.

ConclusionsWetlands provide extremely

important biophysical and socioeco-nomic functions that contribute sig-nificantly to the various quality-of-life dimensions of urban and ruralinhabitants. These functions include,among others, improvement ofgroundwater availability and quality,nutrient recycling, retention of sedi-ment and toxic substances, flood con-trol, biodiversity preservation—including essential habitat for manyendangered species—and the provi-sion of many recreational opportuni-ties, including fishing and hunting.However, for many countries, habitatand biodiversity preservationappears to be the main reasons forwetland conservation. Globally andon the North American andEuropean continents, wetland losscontinues, albeit in the latter two atreduced rates.

The fact that globally the estimatedrate of species extinction ranges fromone to six species per day and isexpected to increase to one speciesper hour by the year 2000 (Darnay,1994) may convince even skepticsthat global wetland protectionremains critically important.

Many countries included in thisreport have national wetland defini-tions and classification systems thatare difficult to equate. Because manynations ratified the Ramsar Conven-tion, this definition may be perceivedas the most significant, globally. Aswith many international treaties, theRamsar Convention has no legalimplementation consequences for thecontracting parties Therefore, itseffectiveness and impact are limited.This is especially evident in the slowrate in designating Ramsar sites.

Wetland protection in all countriesdiscussed above is mainly based onhabitat and biodiversity protection.The U.S., although representing amore comprehensive legislativeapproach towards wetland identifi-cation, classification and protection,relies on a patchwork of policies andlaws. Six federal agencies anddepartments have administrativeauthority related to wetland policy,

45

in some cases supplemented by dele-gated state and local authority. Thismay be viewed as a disadvantage incomprehensive wetland protection.On the other hand, wetlands are sur-rounded by a potentially multilay-ered protection mechanism, althoughnot equally effective. In relativeterms, U.S. wetland protection poli-cies are more comprehensive thanthose of any other country. Policieshave considerably slowed wetlanddestruction, but the national "no netloss" goal has not yet been achieved.With an annual wetland conversionrate between 300,000 and 450,000acres (121,457 and 121,450 ha), newaction should be considered to pro-tect this fragile ecosystem resource.

State wetland protection is very

important because the federal 404program may exclude smallerwetlands. The efficacy of Michigan'swetland protection is uncertain,however. The state protection (ofwetlands greater than 5 acres) doesnot depend on the existence of aninventory, while a poorly draftedlocal zoning ordinance may, in effect,hamper local protection. In the 16years after implementation of theMichigan Wetland Protection Act,local wetland inventories are rarelymade. The cost of wetland invento-ries is simply too high for most localunits of government and is, there-fore, an impediment to establishinglocal wetland ordinances.

European wetland policy is basedmainly on biodiversity. If used

correctly, the habitat and bird direc-tives could be effective. But here,also, the protective designation ishappening too slowly. With almostno natural wetlands left, theEuropean countries should acceleratedesignation of nature areas.

In the Netherlands, protection pol-icy is mainly reserved to the Ministryof Agriculture, which is faced withthe apparently contradictory man-dates of wetland protection and agri-cultural development. However, theimplementation of the NEN contin-ues according to plan.

The Scandinavian countries appearto be the only ones where wetlandsare not under imminent threat. Thisis due, in part, to low populationpressures.

Appendix 1Local units of government in the State of Michigan with local wetland ordinances. Last inventory by the Department ofEnvironmental Quality of Michigan was conducted in March 1995.

County Name Received (m-d-y)

Allegan Clyde Township 7-6-94Antrim Forest Zhome Township 8-23-94Grand Traverse Whitewater Township 6-24-94Ingham Meridian, Charter Township of 7-27-94Oakland Waterford Charter Township 9-14-94Oakland Addison Township 9-15-94Oakland White Lake Township 1-20-94Oakland Orchard Lake Village 8-16-94Oakland Auburn Hills, City of 8-18-94Oakland Oakland, Charter Township of 8-16-94Oakland Independence, Charter Township of 8-18-94Oakland Brandon, Charter Township of 8-23-94Oakland Bloomfield Township 8-11-94Oakland Milford, Charter Township of 5-9-94Oakland Orion, Charter Township of 8-8-94Oakland Oxford, Charter Township of 8-5-94Oakland West Bloomfield Charter Township 8-10-94Oakland Wixom, City of 3-14-94Oakland Novi, City of 8-31-94Oakland Rochester Hills, City of 6-8-94Washtenaw Ann Arbor, City of 11-7-95Wayne Gross Ile, Township of 11-9-95

46

Appendix 2*

National ecological network of the Netherlands

Ecological Main Structure of the NetherlandsAn interrelated network of (inter) nationally significant ecosystems to be preserved.

CORE AREASAreas with (inter) Nationallysignificant ecosystems to bepreserved.

- Dune areas- Low-land peat

and clay areas- Higher sandy soils and

hilly areas South-Limburg

Open Waters- Coastal reclamation

and higher tidal flats

To be developedor strengthenedSame -using internationalnature areas

River areas (flood plain)

LEGEND

NATURE DEVELOPMENTAREASAreas with high naturedevelopment potential.

CONNECTION ZONE

*Translated from the original Dutch version.

47

BibliographyAarden, M. 1996. De Strijd om de

Everglades: Wetlands en Droogte.Volkskrant , May, 11, 1996.

Alper, J. 1992. War over the wetlands:Ecologists v. the White House:Science, August 21, 1992, vol. 257,pp. 1043-1044.

Baldock, D. 1984. Wetland drainage inEurope. London, United Kingdom:Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy,International Institute forEnvironment and Development.

Barlowe, R. 1972. Land ResourceEconomics: The Economics of RealProperty. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall, pp. 374-412.

Bean, M.J. 1977. The Evolution ofNational Wildlife Law: Report to theCouncil on Environmental Quality.Washington D.C.: EnvironmentalLaw Institute.

Benett, L. 1996. Personal communica-tion with Michigan State SenatorL. Bennett.

Benhart, John E., and Margin, Alex.1994. Wetlands: Science, Politics, andGeographical Relationships. NationalCouncil for Geographic Education,Indiana University.

Beusekom, C.F. van. 1990. Peatlands,Economy and Conservation, editedby M.G.C. Schouten and M.J.Nooren (eds.). SPB AcademicPublishing, The Hague, TheNetherlands:

Bonn Convention. 1979. Convention onthe conservation of migratory speciesof wild animals. Bonn.

Bouwer, K., and P. Leroy. 1995. Milieuen ruimte: analyse en beleidAmsterdam, Boom.

Brookes, W. 1991. The strange case ofthe glancing geese. Forbes(September 1991), vol. 148, no. 5,pp. 107-112.

Buchell, Robert. 1997. Fiscal Impactsof Sprawl. Presentation at the MSULand Use Forum, February 17-18,1997, East Lansing, Michigan.

Buisson, R.S.K. 1994. Humanpressures on natural wetlands:sustainable use or sustainedabuse? Wetland management.R.A. Falconer and P. Goodwin(eds.). London, United Kingdom.Institution of civil engineers,Thomas Telford.

Bush manual is flawed, tests show.Engineering News Record. vol. 227,no. 22, (December 1991), p. 11.

Cammen, v.d. H. 1984. Netherlands.In: Planning in Europe: Urban andRegional Planning in the EEC, R.H.Williams (ed.). London, UnitedKingdom, George Allen & Unwin.

Conservation Foundation. 1990.Issues in Wetland Protection:Background Papers Prepared for theNational Wetlands Policy Forum,Washington, D.C.: ConservationFoundation.

Corine. 1989. Technical Handbook, vol.1, pp. 73-109.Corine/Biotope/89/2.2, 19 May1988, partially updated 14February 1989.

Council of Europe. 1979. Conventionon the Conservation of EuropeanWildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern,Switzerland.

Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C.and Laroe, E.T., 1979. Classificationof Wetlands and Deepwater Habitatsof the Unitd States. (FWS/OBS-79/31: Washington D.C.:U.S.Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cwikiel, W. 1992. Michigan Wetlands:Yours to Protect. Conway, Mich.:Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in theUnited States 1780’s to 1980’s.Washington D.C.: U.S.Departmentof the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService.

Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. 1991.Status and Trends of Wetlands in theconterminous United States, Mid -1970’s to Mid-1980’s. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Department of theInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Danielson, Leon E. 1996. Wetlands pol-icy, WWW page at URL:<http://ianrwww.unl.edu/farmbill/wetlands.htm> (version current at 26November 1996).

Darnay, A. J. 1994. Statistical record ofthe environment (second edition).Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, Inc.

Davis, P. A. 1991. Bills would easeregulation of America’s wetlands.Congressional Quarterly WeeklyReport, vol. 49, no. 11, March 1991,p. 672.

Department of the Environment.1996. UK National Report to theSixth Meeting of the Conference of theContracting Parties, Brisbane,Australia.

Department of the Environment,1994. Planning Policy Guidance:Nature Conservation, HSMO,London, United Kingdom.

Diamond, H.L., and P.F. Noonan.1996. Land Use in America.Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Environmental Law Institute. 1993.Wetlands Deskbook, Washington,DC.

EPA, 1996. WWW page, at URL:<http://epawww.ciesin.org/arc/map-home.html> (version current at 25November 1996).

European Economic Community.1979. Directive on the conservation ofwild birds. 79/409/EEC. Brussels.

48

European Economic Community.1991. Directive on Urban WasteWater Treatment. 91/271/EEC.Brussels.

European Economic Community.1992. Directive on the conservation ofnatural and semi-natural habitats andof wild fauna and flora. 92/43/EEC.Brussels.

Europese Unie. 1995. Mededeling vande commissie aan de raad en hetEuropese Parlement: Verstandiggebruik en behoud van wetlands.COM (95) 189 def. Brussels.

European Union. 1996. Coordination ofInformation on the Environment.Internet WWW page, at URL:<http://www.gse.de/unep/corine.html> (version current at 11 November1996).

Fairhead, T. 1996. Personal correspon-dence, UK Department of theEnvironment.

Farm Foundation. 1985. Transfer ofland rights. Proceedings of aWorkshop on the Transfer of RuralLands, Madison, Wiscn.

Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, NatureConservation, and Nuclear Safety.1995. National Report of the FederalRepublic of Germany for the 6thMeeting of the Conference of theContracting Parties to the Conventionon Wetlands of InternationalImportance, especially as WaterfowlHabitat (Ramsar Convention),Brisbane, Australia, March 1996,Bonn, Germany.

Finnish Environment Institute. 1996a.Wetland Conservation in Finland:Situation and Policy. Memorandum.

Finnish Environment Institute. 1996b.OECD Environmental PerformanceReview of Finland: BackgroundMemorandum for Chapter 5, “NatureConservation,” of the review report.Helsinki, Finland.

Finnish Forest and Park Service. 1996.National Wetland Report. Helsinki,Finland.

Gibbs, James P. 1993. Importance ofsmall wetlands for the persistence oflocal populations of wetland-associat-ed animals. Wetlands, Vol. 13, No. 1,March 1993, The Society ofWetlands Scientists, pp. 25-31.

Gosselink, J.G., and E. Malthby. 1990.Wetland Losses and Gains. In:Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape.Oxford: The Institute of BritishGeographers.

Goodenough, M. 1995. PublicParticipation in a State-AssumedWetlands Permit Program: TheMichigan Example. Journal ofEnvironmental Law and Litigation.Nelds vol. #, pp.

Hamilton, David P. 1992. Panelswims against the tide in wetlandpolicy. Science. January 10, 1992,vol. 255, p. 150.

Heathwaite, A.L. 1993. Mires: Process,Exploitation and Conservation.United Kingdom: John Wiley &Sons.

Heimlich, Ralph E. 1989. Wetlands:concerns and successes. Symposiumproceedings, American WaterResources Association, Maryland.

Held, R. Burnell, and ? Visser. 1984.Rural land uses and planning: a com-parative study of the Netherlands andthe United States, Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Houck, O.A., and M. Rolland. 1995.Federalism in wetlands regulation: aconsideration of delegation of CleanWater Act section 404 and relatedprograms to the states. MarylandLaw Review, vol. ?, pp. ?.

Hughes, J.M.R. 1995. The CurrentStatus of European WetlandInventories and Classifications. In:Classification and Inventory of theWorld’s wetlands. C.M. Finlaysonand A.G. van der Valk (eds.).Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Michigan. 1972. Inland Lake andStream Act of 1972, Public Act 246 ofthe State of Michigan.

Institute for European EnvironmentalPolicy. 1991. Towards an EuropeanEcological Network. Arnhem, theNetherlands.

International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources.1991. Legal Aspects of theConservation of Wetlands. Gland,Switzerland.

IUCN. 1992. Conservation andDevelopment: The Sustainable Useof Wetland Resources. Proceedingsof the Third International WetlandsConference, Rennes, France, Sept.19-23, 1988.

IUCN, 1993. Wetlands in Danger,London, pp. 12-19

Kusler, Jon A. 1980. Regulating sensi-tive lands, Environmental LawInstitute, Washington D.C.

Kusler, Jon A.1983. Our national wet-land heritage: a protection guidebook.Washington, D.C.: EnvironmentalLaw Institute.

Lambers, C. 1996. Personal communi-cation. University of Groningenfaculty of law.

Lipton, ?. 1995. Economic Valuation ofNatural Resources. Where: ?National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration(NOAA).

The Legislative Council. 1995.Michigan Manual: 1995 – 1996,Lansing, Mich.

49

Leidy, Robert A., Fiedler, Peggy L.and Micheli, Elisabeth R. 1992. Iswetter better? Bioscience, vol. 42,no. 1, pp. 58- 61, 65.

Leitch, Jay A., and Baltezore, James F.1992. The status of North Dakotawetlands. Journal of Soil and WaterConservation, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 216– 219.

Lïfroth, M. 1991. Wetlands and theirimportance. SwedishEnvironmental Protection AgencyReport 3824.

Mattingly, Rosanna L. 1994.Mitigating Losses of WetlandEcosystems: A Context forEvaluation. The American BiologyTeacher, vol. 56, no. 4 (April), pp.206-214.

Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 1995.Unpublished record of the numberof counties with wetlandordinances on April 3, 1995.

MDNR, 1988. Wetland ProtectionGuidebook. Lansing: MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources,Land and Water ManagementDivision, Michigan.

Ministry of the Environment andEnergy. 1996. Danish report 1996 onconvention on wetlands ofinternational importance especially aswaterfowl habitat in Denmark andGreenland. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ministry of Environment. 1996.Implementation of the RamsarConvention: National Report fromNorway to the Sixth Meeting of theConference of the Parties.Trondheim, Norway.

Ministry of LNV. 1985. Brief van deminister van landbouw en visserij.Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 1985-1986, 17990, nr. 24.

Ministry of LNV. 1990. Nature PolicyPlan of the Netherlands. The Hague.

Ministry of LNV. 1991. Wetlands of theNetherlands: a description of wetlandsdesignated under the RamsarConvention, National wetland report1990-1992. The Hague, theNetherlands: Department forNature, Forests, Landscape andWildlife.

Ministry of LNV. 1995a. Handboeknatuurdoeltypen in Nederland,Rapport IKC Natuurbeheer nr. 11,Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Ministry of LNV. 1995b. Ecosystemenin Nederland. The Hague, theNetherlands.

Ministry of LNV. 1995c. Natuurgerichtmilieubeleid. The Hague, theNetherlands.

Ministry of LNV. 1996a. Wise use ofwetlands in the Netherlands withan example of wise use in theRamsar site of the Weerribben.National Wetlands Report of theKingdom of The Netherlands: 1993-1995. Wageningen: NationalReference Centre for NatureManagement. a

Ministry of LNV. 1996b. ProgrammeInternational Nature Management:1996-2000. the Hague, theNetherlands.

Ministry of VROM. 1989. NationaalMilieubeleidsplan (NMP). SDUUitgeverij Gravenhage, theNetherlands.

Ministry of V&W. 1991. Water in theNetherlands: a time for action.Summary of the National PolicyDocument on Water Management.The Hague.

Mitsch, W.J., Gosselink, J.G. 1993.Wetlands, New York: van NostrandReinhold.

Mitsch, W.J. 1994. Global Wetlands: OldWorld and New. Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Michigan Society of PlanningOfficials. 1995. Patterns on theland: Our Choices—Our Future,Trend Future Project-Final Report.Lansing: Planning & ZoningCenter, Inc.

MOA. 1984. Memorandum ofAgreement between the State ofMichigan and the Department of theArmy.

Moore, R. 1996. Personal communica-tion. Employee of the MichiganUnited Conservation Clubs.

MOU. 1977. Memorandum ofUnderstanding: Between the State ofMichigan, Department of NaturalResources and the United StatesArmy Corps of Engineers, DetroitDistrict.

National Academy of Sciences,National Research Council, 1995.Wetlands: Characteristics andBoundaries. Washington D.C.:National Academy Press.

Natural Resources ConservationService. 1996. Wetlands ReserveProgram.

Michigan, 1994. Natural Resourcesand Environmental Protection Actof 1994, Public Act 451 of the Stateof Michigan.

National Wetland Science TrainingCooperative. 1993. A collection offederal laws, regulations, and policydocuments pertaining to wetlandsprotection, Seattle, Wash.: L.C. Lee& Associates, Inc.

NBI. 1995. Key Issues in WetlandsRegulation in Michigan. Eau Claire,Wis.: National Business Institute.

National BusinessInstitute.Organization forEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. 1993. OECD:Environmental performance reviews:Norway. Paris.

50

Organization for Economic Co-opera-tion and Development. 1993.OECD: Environmental performancereviews: Germany. Paris.

Organization for Economic Co-opera-tion and Development. 1995.OECD: Environmental performancereviews: Netherlands. Paris.

Osieck, E.R. 1996. Personal communi-cation. Species conservation andresearch employee, birdlife in theNetherlands.

Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Parker, D.J.,Harding, D.M. 1986. Floods andDrainage: British policies for hazardreduction, agricultural improvementand wetland conservation. London:Allen & Unwin.

Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1997.Internet Site. http:/ /iucn.org:80/themes/ramsar

Reilly, William K. 1996. Across thebarricades. In: Land use in America,Henry L. Diamond/Patrick F.Noonan (eds.). Washington, D.C:Island Press.

Richmond, Henry. 1997. Michigan ina National Context. Presentation atMSU Land Use Forum, Febr. 17-18,East Lansing, Mich.

Romijn, B., Slootweg, R., van Wetten,J. 1995. Èèn Wetlandbeleid:IedersBelang: belang van wetlands ennoodzaak van een Nederlandsbeleid voor bescherming enverstandig gebruik. Haarlem: TheWetland Group.

Roo, G. de. 1996. Personal communi-cation. University of Groningenfaculty of physical planning.

Rosenbaum, Nelson. 1978. Enforcingwetlands regulation, wetlandfunctions and values: the state of ourunderstanding. American ResourcesAssociation.

Rusk, David. 1996 Acting as One : APresentation to the MichiganLegislature. Notes, LegislativeWorkshop on Land Use Issues.Lansing, Mich.

Sadewasser, Steve. 1996. Personalcommunication, Land and watermanagement specialist of theMDNR, Land and WaterManagement Division.

Saeijs, H.L.F. 1989. The people’s rolein wetland management.Proceedings of the international conference on wetlands, Leiden, theNetherlands.

Schilstra, 1996. Personal communica-tion. Department ofEnvironmental Studies, Universityof Groningen

Scott, D.A., and Jones, T.A. 1995.Classification and inventory ofwetlands: a global overview. In:Classification and Inventory of theWorld’s wetlands, ed. by C.M.Finlayson, A.G. van der Valk.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency. 1991. WetlandManagement and Restoration,Proceedings of a workshop, Sweden,Sept. 12-15, 1990.

Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency. 1995. Ramsar Convention:National Report 1993-95 – Sweden.Stockholm, Sweden.

Sijtsma, F.J., Strijker, D. 1995. Effect-analyse Ecologische Hoofdstructuur:Deel 1 Hoofdrapport, StichtingRuimtelijke Economie Groningen,Sectie Ruimtelijke Economie vande Economische Faculteit van deRijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Silverberg, S.M., Denisson, M. S.1993. Wetlands and coastal zone regu-lation and compliance. New York:Wiley Law Publications,

Steinhart, P. 1990. No Net Loss: Aswetlands vanish, we begin to rec-ognize their value. Audubon, vol.92, no. 4 (July), pp. 18-22.

Tempel, R.v.d., and Osieck, E.R. 1994.Areas Important for Birds in theNetherlands: Wetlands and otherareas of international or Europeanimportance for birds TechnischeRapport Vogelbescherming Nederland13E) Zeist, VogelbeschermingNederland.

Terkamp, H. 1992. Public discussionon protection and utilisation ofpeatland in Germany. Proceedingsof the 9th International PeatCongress, vol. 1, D. Fredriksson(ed.). Uppsala: Swedish NationalCommittee of the InternationalPeat Society.

Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1984. Wetlands of theUnited States: Current Status andRecent Trends. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.

TNO. 1989. Water in the Netherlands.The Hague: The NetherlandsOrganization for Applied ScientificResearch TNO.

Tonnaer. 1994. Handboek van hetNederlandse milieurecht: boek 2.Utrecht: Lemma BV.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987.Corps of Engineers WetlandsDelineation Manual: Final Report.Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1989. National Wetlands PriorityConservation Plan. Washington,D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service, 1990.Wetlands: meeting the Presidentschallenge. Washington, D.C.

51

VerBurg, K. 1990. Managing theModern Michigan Township (2nd edi-tion). East Lansing, Mich.,Department of ResourceDevelopment, Michigan StateUniversity.

VROM, Ministry of, 1989. NationaalMilieubeleidsplan. Tweede Kamer,vergaderjaar 1988-1989, 21 137,nrs. 1-2.

Wageningen Agricultural University.1996. Development of Rural Areas inEurope: The Claim for Nature.Internet WWW page, at URL:<http://lx3.iend.wau.nl/cgi/nb/htms/biotope2.html> (Version current at 11November 1996).

Wetlands International. 1996. Anoverview of the World’s Ramsar Sites.Slimbridge, United Kingdom.

Williams, M. 1990. Wetlands: AThreatened Landscape. Oxford: TheInstitute of British Geographers.

Wood, Gordon S. 1996. The FirstNational Constitution of theUnited States. In: GovernmentStructures in the USA and theSovereign States of the FormerUSSR.: Power Allocation AmongCentral, Regional, and LocalGovernments, James E. Hickey andAlexej Ugrinsky (eds.). Westport,Conn: Greenwood Press.

Zimmerman, J.F. 1978. State and LocalGovernment. New York: Barnes &Noble.

Zimmerman, M.D. 1992. Michiganland use law in the 90s. Eau Claire,Wis.: National Business Institute,Inc.

Zinn, J. 1994. Wetlands andAgriculture: Policy Issues in the 1995Farm Bill Washington D.C.:Congressional Research Service.

The Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station is an equal opportunity employer and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. New 10:97 - TCM - 1M

MSU Extension Publication Archivearchive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/extension_publications/RR554/RR554.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of MSU Extension Publication Archivearchive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/extension_publications/RR554/RR554.pdf ·...