Urban Stream Corridor Management in the United States: The Interaction of Ecology and Policy

自1950年以来，美国大都市地区的人口几乎增加了两倍，从8400万（占美国总人口的55%）增加到2000年的2.26亿（占美国总人口的80%）。在同一时期，指定的大都市区的数量从169个增加到347个，其总土地面积翻了一番，从占48个州的9%增加到约19%。随着大都市地区的扩大，土地开发已经退化并破坏了自然排水系统、流域、湿地、蓄水层和沿海河口。在这个过程中，自然的雨水滞留，水质过滤，生物栖息地，水上娱乐和风景优美的设施都受到了损害。通过技术取代这些“自然服务”的努力，如防洪工程和水处理厂，已被证明成本高昂，对环境有害，有时无效。这一令人沮丧的过程在20世纪60年代受到科学家、环保主义者和其他作家的挑战（例如，放大图片作者：尤金欧达姆，加勒特哈丁，威廉H.怀特、巴里康芒纳、吉尔伯特白色、伊恩·麦克哈格、卢娜·利奥波德、威廉·奈林、约翰和米尔德里德·蒂尔）。 作为回应，某些城市和大都市地区试图用McHarg的话说“与自然一起设计”，而不是试图通过技术来克服生物物理限制。这种转变是暂时的，地理分布不均衡，记录不足。但其结果是明显的形式广泛建立流走廊“绿道”，“采光”的渠化溪流，洪泛区和湿地管理，建筑法规的陡坡，和城市林业计划。这些和相关的倡议可以归入“城市流域管理”的广泛的标题为purposes.Since流域通常包括多个政治和所有权单位，流域管理需要创造性地利用伙伴关系，特别区，和其他区域战略。城市流域管理也受到联邦法律的影响，如《清洁水法》、《国家洪水保险法》、《海岸带管理法》和《安全饮用水法》。 本研究将根据科学和体制挑战，分析和比较城市流域和河口管理方面的区域经验。指导研究的研究问题包括：1。 有哪些可供选择的体制模式可用于克服城市流域和河口的法律的分散问题？2. 哪些“有效性”指标可适用于问题1中确定的模式？3. 联邦计划如何以及在何种程度上鼓励或抑制城市流域和河口管理？4. “产权运动”与“征收问题”对政府保留都市集水区自然功能的限制有何影响？这项研究将通过四项广泛的任务评估城市流域管理方面的比较性区域经验：任务1 -实践状况调查：将对按地理区域和学科分层的州和区域资源管理人员进行抽样调查，以了解与其各自地理位置有关的上述问题;任务2 -将在3-5个有代表性的大都市地区举办区域讲习班，以确定在城市流域多目标管理方面更详细的地方和区域经验，任务3 -详细的案例研究将更仔细地分析在早期任务中确定的代表广泛意义的地理背景和机构战略的选定方案;任务4 -通过一本书、学术文章和会议论文出版和传播结果。

Since 1950, metropolitan regions of the United States have nearly tripled in population from 84 million (55% of U.S. total) to 226 million in 2000 (80%). During the same period, the number of designated metropolitan regions grew from 169 to 347 and their aggregate land area doubled from 9% to about 19% of the lower 48 states. As metropolitan regions have expanded, land development has degraded and disrupted natural drainage systems, watersheds, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal estuaries. In the process, natural stormwater detention, water quality filtering, biotic habitat, water-based recreation, and scenic amenity have been impaired. Efforts to replace these "Nature's services" through technology, as with flood control projects and water treatment plants, have proven costly, environmentally damaging, and sometimes ineffective. This dismal process was challenged in the 1960s by scientists, environmentalists, and other writers (e.g., Eugene Odum, Garrett Hardin, William H. Whyte, Barry Commoner, Gilbert White, Ian McHarg, Luna Leopold, William Neiring, and John and Mildred Teal). In response, certain cities and metropolitan regions have attempted in McHarg's phrase to "design with Nature" rather than trying to overwhelm biophysical constraints through technology. This shift is tentative, geographically uneven, and poorly documented. But its results are evident in the form of widely established stream corridor "greenways," "daylighting" of channelized streams, floodplain and wetlands management, building regulations for steep slopes, and urban forestry programs. These and related initiatives may be subsumed in the broad rubric of "urban watershed management" for purposes of this study.Since watersheds typically embrace multiple political and ownership units, watershed management requires creative use of partnerships, special districts, and other regional strategies. Urban watershed management is also influenced, for better or worse, by federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, the National Flood Insurance Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. This study will analyze and compare regional experience in urban watershed and estuary management in light of scientific and institutional challenges. Research questions that will guide the study include:1. What alternative institutional models are available to overcome legal fragmentation in urban watersheds and estuaries?2. What indicators of "effectiveness" may be applied to the models identified in Question 1?3. How and to what extent do federal programs encourage or inhibit urban watershed and estuary management?4. What is the influence of the "property rights movement" and the "takings issue" as constraints upon governmental efforts to retain natural functions of urban watersheds? The study will assess comparative regional experience in urban watershed management through four broad tasks:Task 1 -- Survey of State of Practice: A sample of state and regional resource managers stratified by geographic area and discipline will be surveyed regarding the above questions in relation to their respective geographic localities;Task 2 -- Regional Workshops will be conducted in 3-5 representative metropolitan areas to ascertain more detailed local and regional experience in multi-objective management of urban watersheds, stream corridors, and estuaries;Task 3 -- Detailed Case Studies will more closely analyze selected programs identified in the earlier tasks that representative a spectrum of geographical context and institutional strategies of broader significance;Task 4 - Publication and Dissemination of Results through a book, scholarly articles, and conference papers.