Geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs), those surrounded by uplands, exchange materials, energy, and organisms with other elements in hydrological and habitat networks, contributing to landscape functions, such as flow generation, nutrient and sediment retention, and biodiversity support. GIWs constitute most of the wetlands in many North American landscapes, provide a disproportionately large fraction of wetland edges where many functions are enhanced, and form complexes with other water bodies to create spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the timing, flow paths, and magnitude of network connectivity. These attributes signal a critical role for GIWs in sustaining a portfolio of landscape functions, but legal protections remain weak despite preferential loss from many landscapes. GIWs lack persistent surface water connections, but this condition does not imply the absence of hydrological, biogeochemical, and biological exchanges with nearby and downstream waters. Although hydrological and biogeochemical connectivity is often episodic or slow (e.g., via groundwater), hydrologic continuity and limited evaporative solute enrichment suggest both flow generation and solute and sediment retention. Similarly, whereas biological connectivity usually requires overland dispersal, numerous organisms, including many rare or threatened species, use both GIWs and downstream waters at different times or life stages, suggesting that GIWs are critical elements of landscape habitat mosaics. Indeed, weaker hydrologic connectivity with downstream waters and constrained biological connectivity with other landscape elements are precisely what enhances some GIW functions and enables others. Based on analysis of wetland geography and synthesis of wetland functions, we argue that sustaining landscape functions requires conserving the entire continuum of wetland connectivity, including GIWs.connectivity | navigable waters | significant nexus Understanding connectivity-patterns of matter, energy, and organism exchanges among landscape elements and across scales-is a challenge that unites the fields of ecology and hydrology (1). Connectivity enables dispersal of organisms and flows of water between landscape elements at multiple spatial and temporal scales

Abstract:Geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs), defined as wetlands surrounded by uplands, We then executed a series of novel modifications on the Pipestem Creek SWAT model. We

Governments worldwide do not adequately protect their limited freshwater systems and therefore place freshwater functions and attendant ecosystem services at risk. The best available scientific evidence compels enhanced protections for freshwater systems, especially for impermanent streams and wetlands outside of floodplains that are particularly vulnerable to alteration or destruction. New approaches to freshwater sustainability - implemented through scientifically informed adaptive management - are required to protect freshwater systems through periods of changing societal needs. One such approach introduced in the US in 2015 is the Clean Water Rule, which clarified the jurisdictional scope for federally protected waters. However, within hours of its implementation litigants convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to stay the rule, and the subsequently elected administration has now placed it under review for potential revision or rescission. Regardless of its outcome at the federal level, policy and management discussions initiated by the propagation of this rare rulemaking event have potential far-reaching implications at all levels of government across the US and worldwide. At this timely juncture, we provide a scientific rationale and three policy options for all levels of government to meaningfully enhance protection of these vulnerable waters. A fourth option, a 'do-nothing' approach, is wholly inconsistent with the well-established scientific evidence of the importance of these vulnerable waters.

Depressional wetlands of the extensive U.S. and Canadian Prairie Pothole Region afford numerous ecosystem processes that maintain healthy watershed functioning. However, these wetlands have been lost at a prodigious rate over past decades due to drainage for development, climate effects, and other causes. Options for management entities to protect the existing wetlands, and their functions, may focus on conserving wetlands based on spatial location vis-à-vis a floodplain or on size limitations (e.g., permitting smaller wetlands to be destroyed but not larger wetlands). Yet the effects of such management practices and the concomitant loss of depressional wetlands on watershed-scale hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological functions are largely unknown. Using a hydrological model, we analyzed how different loss scenarios by wetland size and proximal location to the stream network affected watershed storage (i.e., inundation patterns and residence times), connectivity (i.e., streamflow contributing areas), and export (i.e., streamflow) in a large watershed in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota, USA. Depressional wetlands store consequential amounts of precipitation and snowmelt. The loss of smaller depressional wetlands (<3.0 ha) substantially decreased landscape-scale inundation heterogeneity, total inundated area, and hydrological residence times. Larger wetlands act as hydrologic "gatekeepers," preventing surface runoff from reaching the stream network, and their modeled loss had a greater effect on streamflow due to changes in watershed connectivity and storage characteristics of larger wetlands. The wetland management scenario based on stream proximity (i.e., protecting wetlands 30 m and ~450 m from the stream) alone resulted in considerable landscape heterogeneity loss and decreased inundated area and residence times. With more snowmelt and precipitation available for runoff with wetland losses, contributing area increased across all loss scenarios. We additionally found that depressional wetlands attenuated peak flows; the probability of increased downstream flooding from wetland loss was also consistent across all loss scenarios. It is evident from this study that optimizing wetland management for one end goal (e.g., protection of large depressional wetlands for flood attenuation) over another (e.g., protecting of small depressional wetlands for biodiversity) may come at a cost for overall watershed hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological resilience, functioning, and integrity.

Supreme Court cases have questioned if jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to water bodies such as streams without year-round flow. Headwater streams are central to this issue because many periodically dry, and because little is known about their influence on navigable waters. An accurate account of the extent and flow permanence of headwater streams is critical to estimating downstream contributions. We compared the extent and permanence of headwater streams from two field surveys with values from databases and maps. The first used data from 29 headwater streams in nine U.S. forests, whereas the second had data from 178 headwater streams in Oregon. Synthetic networks developed from the nine-forest survey indicated that 33 to 93% of the channel lacked year-round flow. Seven of the nine forests were predicted to have >200% more channel length than portrayed in the high-resolution National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The NHD and topographic map classifications of permanence agreed with~50% of the field determinations across~300 headwater sites. Classification agreement with the field determinations generally increased with increasing resolution. However, the flow classification on soil maps only agreed with~30% of the field determination despite depicting greater channel extent than other maps. Maps that include streams regardless of permanence and size will aid regulatory decisions and are fundamental to improving water quality monitoring and models.