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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , & Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. J. Am. Wat. Resour. Assoc. 43, 5–14 (2007).

  2. 2.

    et al. Ecological research and management of intermittent rivers: an historical review and future directions. Freshwater Biol. 61, 1181–1199 (2016).

  3. 3.

    et al. Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1978–1986 (2016).

  4. 4.

    & Memory effects of depressional storage in Northern Prairie hydrology. Hydrol. Process. 25, 3890–3898 (2011).

  5. 5.

    , & Model-based analyses of the influence of catchment properties on hydrologic partitioning across five mountain headwater subcatchments. Wat. Resour. Res. 51, 4109–4136 (2015).

  6. 6.

    et al. A preliminary assessment of water partitioning and ecohydrological coupling in northern headwaters using stable isotopes and conceptual runoff models Hydrol. Process. 29, 5153–5173 (2015).

  7. 7.

    et al. The role of headwater streams in downstream water quality. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43, 41–59 (2007).

  8. 8.

    et al. Geographically isolated wetlands are important biogeochemical reactors on the landscape. Bioscience 65, 408–418 (2015).

  9. 9.

    et al. Geographically isolated wetlands are part of the hydrological landscape. Hydrol. Process. 30, 153–160 (2016).

  10. 10.

    K, , & Ecotone characterization between upland longleaf pine/wiregrass stands and seasonally-ponded isolated wetlands. Wetlands 18, 346–364 (1998).

  11. 11.

    & Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv. Biol. 12, 1129–1133 (1998).

  12. 12.

    , , & Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conserv. Biol. 14, 414–419 (2000).

  13. 13.

    , , & Small but mighty: headwaters are vital to stream network biodiversity at two levels of organization. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 30, 963–980 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence Technical Report, EPA/600/R-14/475F (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

  15. 15.

    & Survey design and extent estimates for the Wadeable Streams Assessment. J. North Am. Benthological Soc. 27, 822–836 (2008).

  16. 16.

    & Identification of putative geographically isolated wetlands of the conterminous United States. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 52, 705–722 (2016).

  17. 17.

    , , , & Cryptic wetlands: integrating hidden wetlands in regression models of the export of dissolved organic carbon from forested landscapes. Hydrol. Process. 17, 3629–3648 (2003).

  18. 18.

    et al. Aqua Incognita: the unknown headwaters. Hydrol. Process. 22, 1239–1242 (2008).

  19. 19.

    , , & A synoptic survey of ecosystem services from headwater catchments in the United States. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 106–115 (2014).

  20. 20.

    & Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: how science can inform policy. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43, 118–133 (2007).

  21. 21.

    Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation in the US. Land 4, 182–196 (2015).

  22. 22.

    , , , & Values of natural and human-made wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water Resour. Res. 46, W12516 (2010).

  23. 23.

    et al. Urban stream burial increases watershed-scale nitrate export. PLoS One 10, e0132256 (2015).

  24. 24.

    et al. Comparing the extent and permanence of headwater streams from two field surveys to values from hydrographic databases and maps. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 867–882 (2013).

  25. 25.

    et al. Temporary wetlands: challenges and solutions to conserving a 'disappearing' ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 211, 3–11 (2017).

  26. 26.

    , , Climate trends of the North American prairie pothole region 1906–2000. Clim. Change 93, 243–267 (2009).

  27. 27.

    et al. Tracking global change in ecosystem area: the Wetland Extent Trends index. Biol. Conserv. 193, 27–35 (2016).

  28. 28.

    et al. Why should we care about temporary waterways? Science 343, 1080–1081 (2014).

  29. 29.

    , & Intermittent rivers: a challenge for freshwater ecology. BioScience 64, 229–235 (2014).

  30. 30.

    , & Managing temporary streams and rivers as unique rather than second-class ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 211, 12–19 (2017).

  31. 31.

    Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19, 775–788 (1999).

  32. 32.

    et al. Early warnings of regime shifts: a whole-ecosystem experiment. Science 332, 1079–1082 (2011).

  33. 33.

    et al. Regime shifts, thresholds and multiple stable states in freshwater ecosystems; a critical appraisal of the evidence. Sci. Total Environ. 534, 122–130 (2015).

  34. 34.

    & Signatures of human impact: size distributions and spatial organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecol. Appl. 25, 451–465 (2015).

  35. 35.

    et al. Integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land management decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. (2017).

  36. 36.

    , , & The role of reserves and anthropogenic habitats for functional connectivity and resilience of ephemeral wetlands. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1569–1582 (2014).

  37. 37.

    , , Temporal and spatial patterns of wetland extent influence variability of surface water connectivity in the Prairie Pothole Region, United States. Landscape Ecol. 31, 805–824 (2016).

  38. 38.

    , , & An improved representation of geographically isolated wetlands in a watershed-scale hydrologic model. Hydrol. Process. 30, 4168–4184 (2016).

  39. 39.

    & Quantifying hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to surface water systems. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 1791–1808 (2017).

  40. 40.

    & Debates—the future of hydrological sciences: a (common) path forward? A call to action aimed at understanding velocities, celerities and residence time distributions of the headwater hydrograph. Wat. Resour. Res. 50, 5342–5350 (2014).

  41. 41.

    , , & An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1995).

  42. 42.

    Alberta Wetland Policy (Edmonton, Alberta) (Government of Alberta, 2013).

  43. 43.

    , , & in Wetland and Stream Rapid Assessments: Development, Validation, and Application (eds Dorney, J., Savage, R., Tiner, R. & Adamus, P.) (Elsevier, in the press).

  44. 44.

    , , & Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol. (2012).

  45. 45.

    Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecol. 8, 2–9 (2000).

  46. 46.

    et al. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1286–1293 (2013).

  47. 47.

    et al. Simulated wetland conservation-restoration effects on water quantity and quality at watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1511–1525 (2010).

  48. 48.

    et al. Effects of wetland restoration on nitrate removal in an irrigated agricultural area: the role of in-stream and off-stream wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 103, 426–435 (2017).

  49. 49.

    et al. Current state of knowledge regarding the world's wetlands and their future under global climate change: a synthesis. Aquat. Sci. 75, 151–167 (2013).

  50. 50.

    How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshwater Res. 65, 934–941 (2014).

  51. 51.

    Wetland losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).

  52. 52.

    Environmental Dataset Gateway (US Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 28 June 2017); ftp://newftp.epa.gov/epadatacommons/ORD/EnviroAtlas/PRWAg.zip

  53. 53.

    et al. Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States — representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 81, 345–354 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This Perspective arose from a 'Geographically Isolated Wetlands Research Workshop' co-hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Research and Development, and the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center in Newton, Georgia, 18–21 November, 2013. This Perspective also benefited from discussions held at the 'Connectivity of Geographically Isolated Wetlands to Downstream Waters' Working Group supported by the John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis, funded by the US Geological Survey and the US EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory. We acknowledge Rose Kwok of the US EPA Office of Water, for her contributions to the history of the US CWA (Supplementary Section 1) and Brian Hill of the US EPA Office of Research and Development, for his contributions to the data used in the calculation of ecosystem services (Supplementary Section 2). The findings, conclusions and views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US EPA or the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Author information

Author notes

    • Irena F. Creed

    Present address: School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK S7N 5C8, Canada

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

    • Irena F. Creed
  2. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA

    • Charles R. Lane
  3. Department of Biology, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

    • Jacqueline N. Serran
  4. US EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460, USA

    • Laurie C. Alexander
  5. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

    • Nandita B. Basu
  6. Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA

    • Aram J. K. Calhoun
  7. US EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119, USA

    • Jay R. Christensen
  8. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA

    • Matthew J. Cohen
  9. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA

    • Christopher Craft
  10. CSS-Dynamac, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA

    • Ellen D'Amico
  11. School of Natural Resource Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58102, USA

    • Edward DeKeyser
  12. Odum School of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA

    • Laurie Fowler
  13. US EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA

    • Heather E. Golden
  14. Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA

    • James W. Jawitz
  15. US EPA Region 4 Laboratory, Athens, Georgia 30605, USA

    • Peter Kalla
  16. Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia 39870, USA

    • L. Katherine Kirkman
  17. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, USA

    • Megan Lang
  18. US EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon 97333, USA

    • Scott G. Leibowitz
  19. Department of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA

    • David B. Lewis
  20. CDM Smith, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, USA

    • John Marton
  21. Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA

    • Daniel L. McLaughlin
  22. ORISE Fellow, US EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC 20460, USA

    • Hadas Raanan-Kiperwas
  23. School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA

    • Mark C. Rains
  24. School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA

    • Kai C. Rains
  25. Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia 39870, USA

    • Lora Smith

Authors

  1. Search for Irena F. Creed in:

  2. Search for Charles R. Lane in:

  3. Search for Jacqueline N. Serran in:

  4. Search for Laurie C. Alexander in:

  5. Search for Nandita B. Basu in:

  6. Search for Aram J. K. Calhoun in:

  7. Search for Jay R. Christensen in:

  8. Search for Matthew J. Cohen in:

  9. Search for Christopher Craft in:

  10. Search for Ellen D'Amico in:

  11. Search for Edward DeKeyser in:

  12. Search for Laurie Fowler in:

  13. Search for Heather E. Golden in:

  14. Search for James W. Jawitz in:

  15. Search for Peter Kalla in:

  16. Search for L. Katherine Kirkman in:

  17. Search for Megan Lang in:

  18. Search for Scott G. Leibowitz in:

  19. Search for David B. Lewis in:

  20. Search for John Marton in:

  21. Search for Daniel L. McLaughlin in:

  22. Search for Hadas Raanan-Kiperwas in:

  23. Search for Mark C. Rains in:

  24. Search for Kai C. Rains in:

  25. Search for Lora Smith in:

Contributions

I.F.C. and C.R.L. co-led and co-wrote the Perspective with contributions from all co-authors. I.F.C., J.R.C., K.C.R. and J.N.S. contributed to the figures.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regards to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irena F. Creed.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Texts and Tables

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3041