Legal ecotones: A comparative analysis of riparian policy protection in the Oregon Coast Range, USA

Abstract

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.

Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity in the Context of Multiple‐Use Management on National Forest System Lands

“…In many areas, the protection provided to aquatic systems within USFS planning documents far exceed those of other entities (Boisjolie et al 2017). The extent of NFS lands makes them vital for protecting many of the wide-ranging aquatic species across the nation.…”

“…The last several decades have seen significant gains through changes in management strategies that focus on protecting and improving the aquatic habitats necessary to maintain or increase biodiversity. In many areas, the protection provided to aquatic systems within USFS planning documents far exceed those of other entities (Boisjolie et al 2017). The designation of some watersheds for additional protections in combination with Wilderness and roadless areas, provides locations where natural processes are the primary influence on aquatic biodiversity.…”

Lignes directrices pour la conservation de la connectivité par le biais de réseaux et de corridors écologiques

“…Dans la région côtière de l'Oregon, les mesures de protection des zones riveraines comprennent une variété d'approches, allant des meilleures pratiques de gestion volontaires aux exigences légales (Boisjolie et al, 2017). Les mesures les plus rigoureuses portent généralement sur l'exploitation des ressources naturelles, comme l'exploitation forestière ou minière, alors que les moins rigoureuses sont liées aux activités agricoles.…”

The Role of Social-Ecological Resilience in Coastal Zone Management: A Comparative Law Approach to Three Coastal Nations

“…In common-law systems derived from England and British colonialism (including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, plus extensive influence on various African and South American nations), concepts of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict liability, and in some, public trust, provide mechanisms for evolving natural resources law and policy (Rechtschaffen and Antolini, 2007). As one example, the States of Oregon, California, and Hawai'i in the United States have used the public trust doctrine to require holistic protection of aquatic ecosystems (Craig, 2010;Boisjolie et al, 2017). How do these different capacities affect the CZM approaches that nations take, or the evolution of those approaches in the face of environmental change?…”