Boisjolie Brett A, Santelmann Mary V, Flitcroft Rebecca L, Duncan Sally L
Oregon State University, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, 104 CEOAS Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
J Environ Manage. 2017 Jul 15;197:206-220. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.075. Epub 2017 Apr 4.
Waterways of the USA are protected under the public trust doctrine, placing responsibility on the state to safeguard public resources for the benefit of current and future generations. This responsibility has led to the development of management standards for lands adjacent to streams. In the state of Oregon, policy protection for riparian areas varies by ownership (e.g., federal, state, or private), land use (e.g., forest, agriculture, rural residential, or urban) and stream attributes, creating varying standards for riparian land-management practices along the stream corridor. Here, we compare state and federal riparian land-management standards in four major policies that apply to private and public lands in the Oregon Coast Range. We use a standard template to categorize elements of policy protection: (1) the regulatory approach, (2) policy goals, (3) stream attributes, and (4) management standards. All four policies have similar goals for achieving water-quality standards, but differ in their regulatory approach. Plans for agricultural lands rely on outcome-based standards to treat pollution, in contrast with the prescriptive policy approaches for federal, state, and private forest lands, which set specific standards with the intent of preventing pollution. Policies also differ regarding the stream attributes considered when specifying management standards. Across all policies, 25 categories of unique standards are identified. Buffer widths vary from 0 to ∼152 m, with no buffer requirements for streams in agricultural areas or small, non-fish-bearing, seasonal streams on private forest land; narrow buffer requirements for small, non-fish-bearing perennial streams on private forest land (3 m); and the widest buffer requirements for fish-bearing streams on federal land (two site-potential tree-heights, up to an estimated 152 m). Results provide insight into how ecosystem concerns are addressed by variable policy approaches in multi-ownership landscapes, an important consideration to recovery-planning efforts for threatened species.
美国的水道受公共信托原则保护，这使得各州有责任为当代和后代的利益保护公共资源。这一责任促使了溪流附近土地管理标准的制定。在俄勒冈州，对河岸地区的政策保护因所有权（如联邦、州或私人）、土地用途（如森林、农业、农村住宅或城市）和溪流属性而异，从而在溪流走廊沿线产生了不同的河岸土地管理实践标准。在此，我们比较了适用于俄勒冈海岸山脉私人和公共土地的四项主要政策中，州和联邦的河岸土地管理标准。我们使用一个标准模板对政策保护要素进行分类：（1）监管方法，（2）政策目标，（3）溪流属性，以及（4）管理标准。所有四项政策在实现水质标准方面都有相似的目标，但在监管方法上有所不同。农业用地计划依靠基于结果的标准来处理污染，这与联邦、州和私人林地的规范性政策方法形成对比，后者设定具体标准以防止污染。在规定管理标准时所考虑的溪流属性方面，各项政策也存在差异。在所有政策中，共确定了25类独特的标准。缓冲区宽度从0到约152米不等，农业地区的溪流或私人林地上小型、无鱼的季节性溪流无需设置缓冲区；私人林地上小型、无鱼的常年溪流的缓冲区要求较窄（3米）；而联邦土地上有鱼溪流的缓冲区要求最宽（两个立地潜在树高，估计可达152米）。研究结果为多所有权景观中不同政策方法如何解决生态系统问题提供了见解，这是受威胁物种恢复规划工作的一个重要考量因素。
