You are here:
Geographically Isolated Wetlands: Why We Should Keep the Term
Citation:
Leibowitz, S. Geographically Isolated Wetlands: Why We Should Keep the Term. WETLANDS. The Society of Wetland Scientists, McLean, VA, 35:997-1003, (2015).
Impact/Purpose:
Use of the term "isolated wetlands"” in the U.S. Supreme Court’s SWANCC decision created confusion, since it could imply functional isolation. In response, the term “geographically isolated wetlands” (GIWs) – wetlands surrounded by uplands – was introduced in 2003. A recent paper revisits the term, concluding that its use has added to, rather than reduced, the confusion. The paper calls the term a misnomer, and suggests as alternatives hydrogeomorphic type and whether or not the wetland is adjacent to jurisdictional waters. Here I defend the use of the term “geographically isolated wetlands” based on two considerations: First, there is a legal/regulatory need to identify these wetlands as a group that requires their connectivity to be determined, and a need for tools that can determine their connectivity. Second, identifying this group of wetlands has allowed us to address a number of interesting scientific questions concerning how the usual isolation of these wetlands with respect to surface water affects their function. I argue that the correct use of the GIW term will go a long way towards avoiding confusion, while still highlighting that these wetlands normally lack surface water connectivity. This should promote an improved understanding of how the lack of regular surface water connections affects the functional connectivity of these wetlands and the ecosystem services they provide.
Description:
Use of the term "isolated wetlands" in the U.S. Supreme Court’s SWANCC decision created confusion, since it could imply functional isolation. In response, the term "geographically isolated wetlands" (GIWs) - wetlands surrounded by uplands - was introduced in 2003. A recent article revisits the term, concluding that its use has added to, rather than reduced, the confusion. The paper calls the term a misnomer, and suggests as alternatives hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type and whether or not the wetland is adjacent to jurisdictional waters. In addressing this issue, I pose two questions: is there a need to identify wetlands surrounded by uplands and, if so, what to call them? Regarding the former, there is a legal/regulatory need resulting from the Court's Rapanos decision: to help determine whether such wetlands have a significant nexus with navigable waters. There is also a scientific need to identify these wetlands to understand how the normal lack of surface water connectivity affects their function. Regarding the second question, neither HGM type nor non-adjacency adequately identifies wetlands completely surrounded by uplands. Rather, I contend that the correct use of the GIW term, as originally intended, remains the most informative option, highlighting that these wetlands usually lack surface water connectivity.
