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

In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exceeded its statutory authority by asserting Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over non‐navigable, isolated, intrastate waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion addressed broader issues of CWA jurisdiction by implying that the CWA intended some “connection” to navigability and that isolated waters need a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to be jurisdictional. Subsequent to this decision (SWANCC), there have been many lawsuits challenging CWA jurisdiction, many of which are focused on headwater, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. To inform the legal and policy debate surrounding this issue, we present information on the geographic distribution of headwater streams and intermittent and ephemeral streams throughout the U.S., summarize major findings from the scientific literature in considering hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters, and relate the scientific information presented to policy issues surrounding the scope of waters protected under the CWA. Headwater streams comprise approximately 53% (2,900,000 km) of the total stream length in the U.S., excluding Alaska, and intermittent and ephemeral streams comprise approximately 59% (3,200,000 km) of the total stream length and approximately 50% (1,460,000 km) of the headwater stream length in the U.S., excluding Alaska. Hillslopes, headwater streams, and downstream waters are best described as individual elements of integrated hydrological systems. Hydrological connectivity allows for the exchange of mass, momentum, energy, and organisms longitudinally, laterally, vertically, and temporally between headwater streams and downstream waters. Via hydrological connectivity, headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams cumulatively contribute to the functional integrity of downstream waters; hydrologically and ecologically, they are a part of the tributary system. As this debate continues, scientific input from multiple fields will be important for policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels and to inform water resource management regardless of the level at which those decisions are being made. Strengthening the interface between science, policy, and public participation is critical if we are going to achieve effective water resource management.

No abstract

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.

Stream restoration efforts, particularly within meadow systems, increasingly rely on 'pond and plug' type methods in which (a) alluvial materials are excavated from the floodplain, forming ponds; (b) excavated alluvial materials are used to plug incised channels and (c) smaller dimension channels are restored to the floodplain surface. A commonly stated objective of these efforts is to restore ecologically significant hydrological processes to degraded riparian systems. However, little research has been conducted to evaluate and quantify the restoration of these hydrological processes. Direct comparisons of pre-and post-restoration hydrological observations are often misleading due to an inter-annual climatic variability. To overcome this issue and accurately quantify the hydrological effects of restoration, we developed, calibrated and validated a hydrological model of a 230 ha mountain meadow along a 3.6 km restored reach of Bear Creek in the northeastern California. We then applied the model to simulate the pre-and post-restoration scenarios by altering the floodplain topography and stream channel networks. Our results document three general hydrological responses to the meadow restoration effort: (1) increased groundwater levels and volume of subsurface storage; (2) increased frequency/duration of floodplain inundation and decreased magnitude of flood peaks and (3) decreased annual runoff and duration of baseflow. This study supports and quantifies the hypothesis that 'pond and plug' type stream restoration projects have the capacity to re-establish hydrological processes necessary to sustain riparian systems. In addition, the results of this study can be used to improve quantitative objectives for 'pond and plug' type stream restoration activities in similar settings.