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

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.

Traditional construction practices provide little opportunity for environmental remediation to occur in urban areas. As concerns for environmental improvement in urban areas become more prevalent, innovative practices which create ecosystem services and ecologically functional land cover in cities will be in higher demand. Green roofs are a prime example of one of these practices. The past decade has seen the North American green roof industry rapidly expand through international green roof conferences, demonstration sites, case studies, and scientific research. This study evaluates existing international and North American green roof policies at the federal, municipal, and community levels. Green roof policies fall into a number of general categories, including direct and indirect regulation, direct and indirect financial incentives, and funding of demonstration or research projects. Advantages and disadvantages of each category are discussed. Salient features and a list of prompting standards common to successfully implemented green roof strategies are then distilled from these existing policies. By combining these features with data collected from an experimental green roof site in Athens, Georgia, the planning and regulatory framework for widespread green roof infrastructure can be developed. The authors propose policy instruments be multi-faceted and spatially focused, and also propose the following recommendations: (1) Identification of green roof overlay zones with specifications for green roofs built in these zones. This spatial analysis is important for prioritizing areas of the jurisdiction where green roofs will most efficiently function; (2) Offer financial incentives in the form of density credits and stormwater utility fee credits to help overcome the barriers to entry of the new technology; (3) Construct demonstration projects and institutionalize a commitment greening roofs on publicly-owned buildings as an effective way of establishing an educated roofing industry and experienced installers for future green roof construction.

No abstract

We explore the category Bgeographically isolated wetlands^(GIWs; i.e., wetlands completely surrounded by uplands at the local scale) as used in the wetland sciences. As currently used, the GIW category (1) hampers scientific efforts by obscuring important hydrological and ecological differences among multiple wetland functional types, (2) aggregates wetlands in a manner not reflective of regulatory and management information needs, (3) implies wetlands so described are in some way Bisolated,^an often incorrect implication, (4) is inconsistent with more broadly used and accepted concepts of Bgeographic isolation,^and (5) has injected unnecessary confusion into scientific investigations and discussions. Instead, we suggest other wetland classification systems offer more informative alternatives. For example, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classes based on wellestablished scientific definitions account for wetland functional diversity thereby facilitating explorations into questions of connectivity without an a priori designation of Bisolation.^Additionally, an HGM-type approach could be used in combination with terms reflective of current regulatory or policymaking needs. For those rare cases in which the condition of being surrounded by uplands is the relevant distinguishing characteristic, use of terminology that does not unnecessarily imply isolation (e.g., Bupland embedded wetlands^) would help alleviate much confusion caused by the Bgeographically isolated wetlands^misnomer.