Freshwater Biology (1998) 40, 517±530

The hydrogeomorphic approach to functional

assessment of riparian wetlands: evaluating impacts
and mitigation on river ¯oodplains in the U.S.A.
F. RICHARD HAUER
Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson, MT 59860-9659 U.S.A.

R. DANIEL SMITH
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 U.S.A.

SUMMARY
1. The `hydrogeomorphic' approach to functional assessment of wetlands (HGM) was
developed as a synthetic mechanism for compensatory mitigation of wetlands lost or
damaged by human activities. The HGM approach is based on: (a) classi®cation of
wetlands by geomorphic origin and hydrographic regime (b) assessment models that
associate variables as indicators of function, and (c) comparison to reference wetlands
that represent the range of conditions that may be expected in a particular region. In
this paper, we apply HGM to riparian wetlands of alluvial rivers.
2. In the HGM classi®cation, riverine wetlands are characterized by formative ¯uvial
processes that occur mainly on ¯ood plains. The dominant water sources are overbank
¯ooding from the channel or subsurface hyporheic ¯ows. Examples of riverine wetlands
in the U.S.A. are: bottomland hardwood forests that typify the low gradient, ®ne texture
substratum of the south-eastern coastal plain and the alluvial ¯ood plains that typify the
high gradient, coarse texture substratum of western montane rivers.
3. Assessment (logic) models for each of fourteen alluvial wetland functions are
described. Each model is a composite of two to seven wetland variables that are
independently scored in relation to a reference data set developed for alluvial rivers in
the western U.S.A. Scores are summarized by a `functional capacity index' (FCI), which is
multiplied by the area of the project site to produce a dimensionless `functional capacity
unit' (FCU). When HGM is properly used, compensatory mitigation is based on the FCUs
lost that must be returned to the riverine landscape under statutory authority.
4. The HGM approach also provides a framework for long-term monitoring of mitigation
success or failure and, if failing, a focus on topical remediation.
5. We conclude that HGM is a robust and easy method for protecting riparian wetlands,
which are critically important components of alluvial river landscapes.

Keywords: riparian wetlands, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classi®cation, functional

assessment, compensatory mitigation, reference wetlands

Introduction
Compensatory mitigation is an integral part of wet- recently, methods of evaluating wetland loss or
land conservation in the U.S.A. and elsewhere. Until degradation were either so generalized that detection
of change was not quanti®able or they required
E-mail: rhauer@selway.umt.edu detailed and exhaustive research beyond the human
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd 517
518 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
or ®nancial resources of a regulatory programme that
annually handles thousands of requests for permits to
alter wetlands. We present here the Hydrogeo-
morphic (HGM) approach to the functional assess-
ment of wetlands, which has been the focus of efforts
by federal and state agencies throughout the U.S.A. to
develop a comprehensive framework to evaluate
rapidly the function of wetland ecosystems.
With the recent increased emphasis on ecosystem
sustainability (Lubchenko et al., 1991; Stanford &
Hauer, 1992; Naiman et al., 1995; National Research
Council, 1995; Stanford et al., 1996) there has been
increased recognition that to be successful adaptive
management and restoration require mechanisms to
evaluate performance and effectiveness quanti®ably.
The HGM approach uses (i) a classi®cation that
permits the aggregation of similarly functioning wet-
lands; (ii) a reference data set that captures the range
of variation in the speci®c attributes that characterize
wetland function; (iii) a multivariate approach to
evaluate and scale the attributes by reference wetland
and and (iv) a multimetric approach to compare
performance across wetlands.
Statutory authority for wetland conservation in the
U.S.A.
Prior to the Washington Administration in the late
1700s and continuing until recently, policies of the
United States government have encouraged the
drainage and conversion of wetlands for `useful
purposes' such as agriculture, industry and urban
development. Indeed, much of Washington DC is
built upon the `reclaimed' riparian wetlands of the
Potomac River ¯oodplain. In the late 1700s, the area
that became the conterminous forty-eight states had
approximately 90 million hectares of wetlands, a
signi®cant portion being associated with the nation's
river systems (Dahl, 1990). Two hundred years later,
over half of this area has been lost or signi®cantly
modi®ed by some form of conversion or by alteration
of the hydrographic regime (e.g. dams, diversions,
dikes, levees, drainage tiles).
During the Colonial and early Settlement Periods in
the U.S.A. (1600±1800s), rivers were used extensively
for transporting raw materials from the interior to the
coast for export and to return manufactured goods to
settlements inland. Thus, as elsewhere, many major
cities began as trading centres along rivers. Although
today much domestic commercial traf®c uses railways
and highways, stream and river valleys remain
the primary transport corridors, particularly in
mountainous regions. For example, transport-related
projects are a major impact on ¯oodplain wetlands
throughout the Rocky Mountains. Equally, ¯oodplain
conversion has played an important role in increasing
the agricultural capacity of the United States. Mod-
i®cation of ¯oodplains, whether for commercial,
municipal or agricultural purposes, has led to the
loss of many valuable functions performed by ¯ood-
plain wetlands, such as ¯ood control, maintenance of
water quality, habitat for spawning and rearing of
®shes, and habitat for wildlife.
Alarmed by the loss of wetlands and the bene®ts
they provide, the U.S. federal government included
speci®c restrictions on the development of wetlands
in the landmark legislation of 1972; the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Through this
act, which later became the Clean Water Act (CWA),
wetlands became the only land-type to be compre-
hensively regulated across both public and private
lands within the United States (National Research
Council, 1995). The purpose of the CWA was to
`¼restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the United States.'
Wetlands and other special aquatic sites are, by
de®nition, waters of the U.S.A. and therefore subject
to jurisdiction under the CWA.
The National Research Council (1995) provided this
de®nition of a wetland.
The minimum essential characteristics of a wetland
are recurrent, sustained inundation or saturation at
or near the surface and the presence of physical,
chemical, and biological features re¯ective of
recurrent, sustained inundation or saturation.
Common diagnostic features will be present except
where speci®c physicochemical, biotic, or anthro-
pogenic factors have removed them or prevented
their development.
Wetlands share many common attributes (e.g.
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation), yet often exhibit
signi®cant differences in landscape position, origin,
size, geomorphic setting, hydrological sources, bio-
geochemical cycling and a wide variety of other
characteristics and processes (Mitsch & Gosselink,
1993). Bogs, fens, tidal marshes, bottomland hard-
woods and prairie potholes are examples of the wide
array of wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA directed
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
 Functional assessment of riparian wetlands 519
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in Mitigation: the primary tool of a `no net-loss' policy
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Mitigation is de®ned as the avoidance, minimization,
Agency (USEPA), to administer a programme regulat-
recti®cation or elimination of negative impacts or
ing the placement of dredge and ®ll materials in
compensation by replacement or substitution (OTA,
`Waters of the United States'. Other federal agencies,
1984). Fundamental to implementing mitigation and
such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
achieving a no net-loss policy is the development of the
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
laws, regulations, and policy support. In the United
(NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service) were
States these three elements have been clearly estab-
assigned administrative responsibilities to protect
lished under Section 404 of the CWA, the 1996 Farm
the ecological integrity of wetlands speci®cally asso-
Bill (Federal Agriculture Improvement & Reform Act
ciated with ®sh and wildlife habitat or with agricul-
of 1996) various Executive Orders, judicial and
ture, respectively.
administrative rulings, and several interagency mem-
During the early years of the CWA, `wetland
oranda of agreement. In practice, under Section 404 of
protection' was limited, extending only to about 15%
the CWA, this means that prior to the issue of a permit
of all wetlands. Following numerous judicial decisions
for activities that will impact a jurisdictional wetland,
in the 1970s and early 1980s coverage by the Act was
an applicant is required to show that the project is
extended to a much broader range of wetlands. Re-
`water dependent' and therefore must be completed in
authorization of the CWA in 1977 con®rmed the
or near wetlands. The applicant must also show that
national commitment to the regulation of wetlands
alternative sites with potentially less impact have been
and the Food Security Act of 1985 established separate
considered, and that efforts have been taken to
criteria for wetland regulation on agricultural lands,
minimize any impact to wetlands at the project site.
commonly referred to as the `swamp-buster' provi-
Finally, if there are unavoidable impacts, permit
sions. These legislative actions and judicial interpreta-
issuance may be contingent upon some form of
tions led to expanded protection and necessitated the
compensation, such as the restoration or enhancement
development of consistent regulatory protocols for
of existing wetlands, or creation of new wetlands.
wetland delineation and assessment (Smith et al., 1995).
However, hectare-for-hectare mitigation for loss is not
In response to its regulatory responsibilities, the U.S.
scienti®cally defensible since not all wetlands conduct
Army Corps of Engineers issued a nationally uniform
the same ecological functions nor do they perform
manual in 1987 for the identi®cation and delineation of
equally well.
`jurisdictional' wetlands. Interestingly, and nearly
With a legal and administrative infrastructure in
simultaneously, a National Wetlands Policy Forum
place to support a no net-loss of wetlands policy the
(Conservation Foundation, 1988) concluded that
questions become: `how can complex ecosystems such
America's remaining wetlands were `¼immensely
as wetlands be assessed to determine what functional
important to both the environmental and economic
losses occur as a result of a project? What kind of
health of the nation' and recommended that federal
compensation should be required to mitigate for
government policy assure `no overall net-loss of the
nation's remaining wetlands' in the short term and `a losses? Finally, `has the required compensation been
signi®cant restoration of wetlands' in the long term. successfully completed?' Prior to 1991, a variety of
In 1990, Congress instructed the U.S. Army Corps of methods for assessing wetland functions had been
Engineers to pursue the goal of `no overall net-loss' of developed for regulatory and management purposes
the nation's remaining wetlands through its water (Lonard et al., 1981; U.S. Environmental Protection
resources development programme (Section 307 of the Agency, 1984). The most commonly applied methods
Water Resources Development Act). This policy was included the Wetland Evaluation Technique (Adamus
adopted by the Bush Administration and became et al., 1987, 1991), designed to assess a generic suite of
of®cial federal policy in a memorandum of under- functions common to all wetland types (Dougherty,
standing between the U.S. Army Corps of Eengineers 1989), and the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (USFWS
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6 1980), designed to assess habitat quality for a single
February 1990). The Clinton Administration has also species (McCrain, 1992). Smith (1993) outlined a
endorsed a `no net-loss' policy. variety of reasons why none of these methods
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
520 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
received widespread use, including extensive time
and cost, subjectivity in implementation, the limited
number of wetland functions considered, question-
able applicability of results to the regulatory context,
concerns over technical validity, and limited geo-
graphic scope.
These problems were exacerbated by the broad
adoption of the Cowardin et al. (1979) wetland
classi®cation which de®ned classes of wetlands based
primarily on vegetative characteristics rather than the
hydrological or geomorphic characteristics that are
the primary drivers of wetland ecosystem structure
and function. While this classi®cation system has been
well suited to tracking the status and trends of
wetlands (Dahl et al., 1991), it has been particularly
dif®cult to classify wetlands on river ¯oodplains
and to quantify their functions (Brown et al., 1979;
Semeniuk, 1987; Gregory et al., 1991).
Recognizing the limitations of existing methods of
assessment wetland functions, the Wetlands Branch of
the Environmental Laboratory at the U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station initiated, in
1992, development of a new functional assessment
method, now known as the `Hydrogeomorphic Approach
to the Functional Assessment of Wetlands' (Smith et al.,
1995). On 24 August 1993, the Clinton Administration
released its wetland policy document `Protecting
America's Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible and Effective
Approach'. Under this wetland action plan, federal
agencies were charged with expediting the develop-
ment of the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach to
functional assessment. In 1996 the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, along with ®ve other federal agencies,
published in the federal register a National Action
Plan for developing the HGM Approach. The primary
objective was to provide regulatory agencies, as well
as other public and private interests, with an effective
tool for assessing wetland function comprehensively
in the context of development projects and their
mitigation within an overall policy of `no net-loss' of
wetland function.
The hydrogeomorphic approach to functional
assessment
The HGM Approach to wetland functional assess-
ment employs three core elements that distinguish it
from other methods. These include: (i) a hydrogeo-
morphic classi®cation system that de®nes regional
subclasses of functionally similar wetlands whose
characteristics can be compared quantitatively (Brin-
son, 1993; Brinson et al., 1995); (ii) wetland functions
described by `logic' models consisting of a suite of
variables and discrete metrics to assess the capacity of
the wetland to perform each function (Smith &
Theberge, 1987); and (iii) data from a reference set
that represent the variability in a regional subclass of
wetlands for the purpose of making direct comparison
between reference and project wetlands (Brinson et al.,
1995; Smith et al., 1995; Brinson & Rheinhardt, 1996;
Rheinhardt et al., 1997).
HGM classi®cation of wetlands
The hydrogeomorphic classi®cation of wetlands is
based on three proximal factors that establish the
basic characteristics of wetland function; hydrological
source, hydrological regime and geomorphic setting
(Brinson, 1993). Hydrological source refers to the
origin and source of entry of water into the wetland.
For example, in a normal river ¯oodplain the primary
source of water to the wetland is generally from the
river channel, regardless of whether that water comes
from overbank ¯ow or from subsurface, hyporheic
¯ow (sensu Stanford & Ward, 1993), or both. Hydro-
logical regime refers to the periodicity of inundation
of the wetland. This is not only signi®cant with regard
to the annual timing of ¯ooding, but also to the
duration and interannual variation of inundation.
Geomorphic setting refers to the geological conditions
and physiographic processes leading to wetland
formation and the landform and topographic position
of the wetland.
The HGM classi®cation of wetlands (Brinson,
1993) is hierarchical and de®nes seven classes at
its highest level (Table 1). Within distinct geo-
graphic regions wetland classes are divided into a
variable number of regional subclasses that possess
similar structural components (e.g. types of vegeta-
tion) and perform similar functions (e.g. long-term
surface water storage, retention of elements and
compounds). For example, stream gradient, stream
power and size of the dominant bed material
describe subclass differentiation of riparian wet-
lands in the western United States. To date, four
HGM Regional Guidebooks have been developed in
the United States; two for different regional sub-
classes of riverine wetlands: the low-gradient,
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
 Functional assessment of riparian wetlands 521
Table 1 Hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands showing dominant water source, hydrodynamics and examples of subclasses

Examples of regional subclass

Hydrogeomorphic class Dominant Dominant
(geomorphic setting) water source hydrodynamics Eastern U.S.A. Western U.S.A.

Riverine Flow from channel and/or Unidirectional, Bottomland Alluvial, riparian

subsurface hyporheic vertical, and hardwood forest ¯oodplains
groundwater horizontal
Depressional Return ¯ow from Vertical Prairie pothole California vernal
groundwater and inter¯ow marshes pools
Slope Through ¯ow from Unidirectional, Fens Alpine snowmelt
groundwater horizontal fens
Mineral Soil Flats Precipitation Vertical Wet pine ¯atwoods Large playas
Organic Soil Flats Precipitation Vertical Peat bogs Peat bogs
Lacustrine Fringe Inundation from lake Bidirectional Littoral zone Flathead Lake
horizontal marshes, marshes
Douglas Lake
Estuarine Fringe Inundation from estuary Bidirectional, Chesapeake Bay San Francisco
horizontal marshes Bay marshes

forested ¯oodplains of the Interior Low Plateau
physiographic region of western Kentucky (Ainslie
et al., 1998) and the intermontane alluvial ¯ood-
plains of the Northern Rocky Mountain physio-
graphic region of western Montana, Wyoming and
Idaho (Hauer et al., 1998).
Selecting a suite of wetland functions to assess
Ecosystem structure and function are commonly
referred to throughout the ecological literature (e.g.
Evans, 1956; Borman & Likens, 1969; Cummins, 1974;
Golley, 1993). Angermeier & Karr (1994) de®ne
biological integrity of an ecosystem as ¢¼a system's
wholeness, including presence of all appropriate
elements (i.e. structure) and occurrence of all pro-
cesses at appropriate rates (i.e. function).¢ Smith et al.
(1995) de®nes wetland function as `¼the normal or
characteristic activities that take place in wetland
ecosystems or simply the things wetlands do¢. Recall
that the CWA speci®cally refers to the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the nation's waters. Thus, the CWA
directly underscores a fundamental commitment not
merely to maintain ecosystem structure, but also to
maintain ecosystem function at appropriate rates that
characterize water resources.
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
Wetlands perform a wide array of functions within
a hierarchical context. Within the functional hierarchy
of maintaining ecological integrity, one example is
biogeochemical cycling. Within biogeochemical cy-
cling is nitrogen cycling, and within nitrogen cycling
is the reduction of nitrate to gaseous nitrogen by
denitrifying bacteria (Smith et al., 1995). Although
wetland research has examined many of the areas of
wetland function in great detail, assessment of those
functions at all levels of complexity and/or for every
wetland to be impacted by a project is not feasible
since there are thousands of permit requests nation-
ally each year.
Brinson et al. (1994) identi®ed four general categories
of function for wetlands; hydrological, biogeochem-
ical, plant community maintenance and animal com-
munity maintenance. Within a modi®cation of these
higher level categories, Hauer et al. (1998) identi®ed 14
functions of riverine wetlands of Northern Rocky
Mountain alluvial ¯oodplains (Table 2). Although the
selected functions are not exhaustive, they are com-
prehensive in covering a breadth of ecosystem pro-
cesses from the primarily physical (e.g. energy
dissipation) to the primarily biological (e.g. provide
habitat for characteristic wildlife). A different array of
functions may be selected for different regional wet-
land subclasses and a different suite of variables
among those subclasses may describe functions.
522 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
Table 2 Functions of Northern Rocky Mountain alluvial
¯oodplain wetlands listed within four major categories (from
Hauer et al., 1998).
Hydrological
1. Dynamic Surface Water Storage
2. Long Term Surface Water Storage
3. Energy Dissipation
4. Subsurface Water Storage
5. Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge
Biogeochemical
6. Nutrient Cycling
7. Removal of Imported Elements and Compounds
8. Retention of Particulates
9. Organic Carbon Export
Vegetation Maintenance
10. Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
11. Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass
Faunal Maintenance and Provision
12. Provide Habitat for Characteristic Wildlife
13. Maintain Faunal Food Webs
14. Maintain Regional and Landscape Biodiversity (¯ora
and fauna)
Logic models and functional indices
In HGM, a functional capacity of a wetland is de®ned
as the ability of the wetland to perform a single,
speci®c function. Thus, each wetland has a different
capacity to perform each function based on the
characteristics of the wetland and its surrounding
landscape. The HGM Approach uses simple logic
models to represent the relationship between wetland
characteristics and processes and the functional
capacity of a wetland. The functional capacity is
described by a series of variables that are incorporated
into the logic model to produce a Functional Capacity
Index (FCI) score for each function. For example, the
capacity of a riparian wetland to perform the function
of retention of particulates depends on the frequency
of ¯oodplain inundation from the river (VFREQ), the
surface connectivity between the river channel and
the ¯oodplain wetlands (VSURFIN), the microtopo-
graphic complexity of the wetland (VMICRO), and the
roughness of the wetland/¯oodplain surface from
vegetation (VHERB, VSHRUB, VTREE, VCWD) (see Tables 3
and 4).
Logic models are not designed to provide a
quantitative estimate of the function, but rather to
place the different variables that describe the function
into an appropriate context. For example in the above
equation, the FCI becomes 0 if subindex scores for
either VFREQ or VSURFIN equal 0. This makes logical
sense because there can be no particulate retention
from ¯ood waters in ¯oodplain wetlands without
inundation from the river.
Reference wetlands and scaling of variables
Floodplains and associated riparian wetlands often
exhibit a broad range of conditions as a result of
natural processes and anthropogenic alteration (e.g.
Gregory et al., 1991; Stanford et al., 1996; Ward, 1997).
The HGM approach uses reference wetlands to
establish the range of variability that is exhibited
within a particular regional wetland subclass. Refer-
ence wetlands therefore include a range of sites from
the most natural (i.e. least altered) wetlands perform-
ing at the highest sustainable functional capacity to
the most altered wetlands performing very poorly.
The number of reference wetlands must be suf®cient
to permit statistical analyses and scaling of the
variables that are used to develop the assessment
model. This has generally proved to be between 20
and 30 wetland sites (Rheinhardt et al., 1997; Ainslie
et al., 1998), but may require more depending on the
variability of the subclass.
The site locations that comprise the Reference
Wetland-standards Data-set for each HGM class
and Reference Domain form a group of National
Reference Wetlands whose meta-data and variable
data are maintained by the Wetland Division,
Waterways Experiment Station (WES), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg MS. These data, as
well as guidebooks to perform HGM functional
assessments, may be accessed through the WES
web server.
The reference wetland data may be analyzed by a
variety of approaches. Rheinhardt et al. (1997) ordi-
nated reference sites using Detrended Correspon-
dence Analysis (DCA) and environmental biplots to
assess vegetation (e.g. tree stem density) and abiotic
variables (e.g. microtopographic complexity). Hauer
et al. (1998) employed a similar technique, but ordi-
nated both environmental and vegetation data to
derive an alteration gradient of disturbance among
reference wetland sites. The ordination of the data
permitted the ranking of least altered wetlands,
possessing the highest sustainable functional capacity,
to the most altered sites having the lowest functional
capacity.
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
 Functional assessment of riparian wetlands 523
Table 3 Assessment models and variables for functions: `Retention of Particulates' and `Provide Habitat for Characteristic Wildlife,'
on alluvial ¯oodplain wetlands of the northern Rocky Mountains

VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY INDEX

Function 8, Retention of Particulates

VARIABLES
VFREQ: Frequency of ¯oodplain inundation
VSURFIN: Surface in¯ow to the wetland
VMICRO: Microtopographic complexity
VHERB: Herbaceous plant density, biomass, or cover
VSHRUB: Shrub and sapling density, biomass, or cover
VTREE: Tree density, biomass, or cover
VCWD: Coarse Woody Debris
INDEX OF FUNCTION

s
q  
…VMICRO ‡ VHERB ‡ VSHRUB ‡ VTREE ‡ VCWD †
F CI ˆ …VFREQ  VSURFIN 
5

Function 12, Provide Habitat for Characteristic Wildlife

VARIABLES
VCOMP: Species composition of tree, sapling, shrub and ground cover strata.
VSTRATA: Number and attributes of vertical strata of vegetation.
VPATCH: Vegetation patchiness.
VFREQ: Frequency of ¯oodplain inundation
VDURAT: Duration of surface water in wetland.
VMOSAIC: Proximity and density of other wetlands on the ¯oodplain
VUPUSE: Dominant land use and condition in the watershed.
INDEX OF FUNCTION
r
h i p  

VCOM  …VSTRATA2‡VPATCH ‡ VFREQ  VDURAT ‡ VMOSAIC2‡VUPUSE
F CI ˆ
3

Ordination of the reference wetlands along an reference standard wetland possessing an FCI of 1.0
alteration gradient permits model variables to be for each of the functions.
assigned a subindex between 0 and 1 based on metric
values at each reference wetland. For example, the
Conducting a functional assessment
variable for frequency of overbank inundation (VFREQ)
is assigned a subindex score based on the annual ¯ood After assessment models have been developed and
frequency of the reference standard wetlands (i.e. each variable has been calibrated using reference
least altered wetlands) and given the score of 1.0. wetland data, the HGM Approach may be used to: (i)
River ¯oodplain systems that perform this function to determine functional capacity of a wetland before an
a lesser degree receive an increasingly lower subindex impact from the project; (ii) provide forecasts of likely
score as ¯ooding frequency de¯ects from the functional performance after impact (iii) aid in mitiga-
characteristic reference standard condition. Flood- tion or planning restoration and (iv) monitor ef®cacy of
plain wetlands that never receive river ¯oodwaters mitigation and restoration years after implementation.
are given a subindex score of 0 for that variable Here we provide an example functional assessment
(Fig. 1). Because each variable within the Functional and calculation of wetland functional loss on an
Capacity Index algorithm is scored between 0 and 1.0 alluvial ¯oodplain for one of the fourteen functions
the ®nal FCI also ranges from 0 to 1.0, with the addressed in the northern Rocky Mountain riverine
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
524 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
Table 4 An example of variables, data and subindices of function for `Retention of Particulates' on an alluvial ¯oodplain-wetland
complex of the northern Rocky Mountains of western Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The Functional Capacity Index is calculated
for a hypothetical wetland assessment area before impact and projected for after impact

Project Wetland

Reference Standard Wetland Before Impact After Impact

Variables Data SubIndex Data SubIndex Data SubIndex

VFREQ <1.7 1.0 1.3 1.0 7 0.25

VSURFIN >10 1.0 >10 1.0 2 0.25
VMICRO 45 1.0 33 0.7 33 0.7
VHERB 70 1.0 42 0.6 22 0.3
VSHRUB 15 1.0 20 1.0 5 0.2
VTREE 25 1.0 23 1.0 0 0
VCWD 4.3 1.0 2.1 0.5 0 0
Functional
Capacity Index 1.0 0.87 0.24

De®nition: deposition and retention of inorganic and organic particulates (>0.45<mu>m), primarily through physical processes.
Effects on-site: sediment accumulation contributes to the nutrient capital of the ecosystem. Deposition increases surface elevation
and changes topographic complexity. Organic matter may also be retained for decomposition, nutrient recycling, and detrital food
web support.

s
q  
…VMICRO ‡ VHERB ‡ VSHRUB ‡ VTREE ‡ VCWD †
F CI ˆ …VFREQ  VSURFIN 
5

VFREQ = Frequency of ¯oodplain inundation in average number of years between ¯ooding events. VSURFIN = Surface in¯ow to the
wetland as a ratio of in¯ow volume to wetland volume. VMICRO = Microtopographic complexity measured in cm as the difference
in elevation between the height of the low point of wetland basin and the maximum depth of the wetland. VHERB = Herbaceous
plant density measured as percent cover within the wetland assessment area. VSHRUB = Shrub and sapling density measured as
percent cover within the wetland assessment area. VTREE = Tree density measured as the frequency (number ha±1) of trees within
the wetland assessment area. VCWD = Volume of coarse woody debris (m3 ha±1) measured as downed wood >10 cm dia. and >1 m
length within the wetland assessment area.

wetlands procedure. We illustrate how impact assess- water can be observed in several sets of abandoned
ment is applied using reference wetland data to channels and meander scrolls. Water surface elevation
establish levels of functional performance of a riverine of the abandoned channel network follows the surface
wetland. elevation of the main channel throughout the hydro-
The wetland complex that is assessed in this graphic regime, initially by subsurface connectivity
example occurs on an alluvial ¯oodplain of the and later by over bank ¯ooding. The functional
Tobacco River in north-western Montana, U.S.A. assessment is for a hypothetical road development
(Fig. 2). High quality water, a low population density, project that calls for building a bridge over the river.
headwaters that are primarily forested with multiple The engineering speci®cations call for ®ll of glacial till
use forest management, and limited agriculture along material for a road bed to a height of 6 m, a width of
the valley ¯oor characterize the catchment. The river 30 m, and extending from the terraces on both sides of
maintains an active alluvial cobble substratum with the river to the annually scoured river channel. The
extensive subsurface, hyporheic ¯ow networks road bed will cover approximately 30% of the wetland
(Stanford & Gau®n, 1974). The white outline box A assessment area.
in Fig. 2 delineates the project area. Over 70% of the We illustrate in Table 4 the comparison of the
assessment area is composed of jurisdictional wet- variables, reference and site data, subindex scores,
lands. In addition to the main river channel, surface and ®nal FCI for the function `Retention of Particu-
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530

Fig. 1 Relationship between ¯oodplain ¯ood frequency (VFREQ)
and the subindex score. Flood frequencies of < 2 years receive
a score of 1.0, while frequencies of > 15 years receive a score
of 0.
lates' for this hypothetical project. We present only the
calculations for this one function for illustrative
purposes; however, the same procedure given here
for this function would be conducted for all functions
in a complete wetland functional assessment.
The reference standard condition and the variable
metric to subindex correlation (see Fig. 1) for each
of the seven variables were determined from an
evaluation of the array of alluvial ¯oodplain wet-
lands that comprise the reference wetland data set
within the reference domain (i.e. geographical area).
For this alluvial ¯oodplain and wetland assessment
site on the Tobacco River, the FCI for the function
`Retention of Particulates' was 0.87 before impact.
An examination of the proposed highway project
includes projections for each of the variables in the
FCI algorithm which permit a future casting
scenario that would reduce the performance of this
function to a FCI of 0.24.
Application of HGM functional assessment in
mitigation
The role of mitigation in achieving the goals of a no
net-loss of wetlands policy in the U.S.A. has been
clearly established and supported in the U.S.A.
through policy decisions by the Bush and Clinton
Administrations over the past several years. Evidence
of the widespread acceptance of these policies can be
found in the development of a thriving mitigation
industry in the U.S.A. (Opheim, 1998). There are a
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
Functional assessment of riparian wetlands 525
number of unresolved issues, however, that make it
dif®cult to determine whether a no net-loss of
wetlands has actually been achieved (Heimlich et al.,
1997; Smith, 1997; Tolman, 1997). These include
continuing differences in the way wetlands are
de®ned and delineated, differences and redundancy
in the way the loss or gain of wetlands is reported by
agencies and private groups, and differences in what
is considered to be a `loss' or `gain' of wetlands
(Smith, 1997). We will deal only with the last of these
issues here.
There are two criteria that must be considered in
determining wetland losses and gains. The ®rst is
the areal extent of wetlands that exists using a
standardized de®nition for what constitutes a wet-
land. This is the approach of the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI), the federal mechanism for mon-
itoring the status and trends of wetland area in the
United States (Frayer et al., 1983; Dahl et al., 1991).
However, as Wilen (1995) points out, it is im-
possible to determine at a national scale if the goal
of no net-loss of wetlands has been achieved only
by measuring loss and gain in the area extent of
wetlands. Similarly, it is impossible to evaluate at
the national scale if unavoidable losses in wetlands
have been fully compensated for simply by
measuring the amount of wetland area that was
lost as a result of a project or gained as a result of
mitigation. This is because the objective of the no
net-loss of wetland policy, as articulated by the
National Wetland Policy Forum (1988) and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, is not to compensate for the loss
of wetland area, but rather to compensate for the
loss of wetland function. Compensation on an area
for area basis does not insure functional compensa-
tion. For example, compensating for the loss of
10 ha of natural, high-functioning wetland with
10 ha of created, low-functioning wetlands meets
the criteria for a no net-loss of wetland area, but
not the criteria for a no-net-loss of wetland
function. Some might argue that the `science' of
wetland creation and restoration has progressed to
a point that an area for area accounting is adequate
because the quality of wetlands through creation
and restoration is high. While this may be the case
in some isolated instances, it does not appear to be
true in general (Kentula et al., 1992). Based on the
analysis of over a decade of surveys of the results
526 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
of wetland mitigation, Race & Fonseca (1996)
concluded that, `¼the cumulative record of past
mitigation projects remains undeniably poor overall,
with disappointingly few examples of success.'
The second criterion that must be considered in
conjunction with area in determining wetland
losses and gains is the capacity of a wetland to
perform functions in relation to some standard of
comparison. This is exactly what the HGM
Approach provides with its functional capacity
index. Consider the project scenario described in
Table 4. Prior to project implementation, the FCI for
the Retention of Particulates at the site (Fig. 2, site
A) was determined to be 0.87 over a wetland
assessment area of 5.8 ha. Following completion of
the project the index of function was determined to
be 0.24. This represents a 63% decrease in
functional capacity for Retention of Particulates.
With this information, it is relatively easy to
determine the loss in functional capacity as a result
of project impacts. It is similarly easy to determine
gain in functional capacity at a mitigation site. For
example, Table 4 indicates that as a result of
unavoidable impacts at the project site
0.63 3 5.8 = 3.654 Functional Capacity Units (FCUs)
were lost and must be compensated for. The
proposed project also calls for wetland creation at
either Mitigation Site 1 or Mitigation Site 2.
Following a functional assessment of these two
areas the sites were compared for probable out-
comes of mitigation (Table 5). If mitigation is
successfully completed at the 10 ha Mitigation Site
1 there would be a projected increase of
0.18 3 10 = 1.8 FCUs, not enough to compensate for
the project losses. However, if mitigation is success-
fully completed at the 10-ha proposed Mitigation
Site 2 there will be an increase of 0.39 3 10 = 3.9
FCUs, enough to compensate for project losses.
What is important here is not the speci®c
manipulation of the numbers, but the fact the
functional capacity indices generated by the HGM
approach makes it possible to integrate the area of
a wetland with its functional capacity to determine
the gain or loss of overall wetland function.
Comparison with other indices of ecosystem integrity
There is a broad and varied literature addressing the
evaluation of ecosystem integrity. River ecologists
have been developing various approaches to biomo-
nitoring as an integral part of water quality monitor-
ing (Davis & Simon, 1995), including the use of ®sh
communities (Karr, 1981; Karr & Chu, 1997) and
benthic insects (Hilsenhoff, 1988; Plafkin et al., 1989;
Rosenberg & Resh, 1993). Numerous studies in this
decade have evaluated variability in rapid-assessment
surveys and habitat assessments (Hannaford & Resh,
1995), as well as approaches to data acquisition and
analysis (Resh & McElravy, 1993; Gerritsen, 1995;
Norris, 1995). Reynoldson et al. (1997) compare the
multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess
water quality impairment using benthic macroinver-
tebrates. They point out that the reference-condition
approach to bioassessment offers a powerful alter-
native to the traditional multisample per site ap-
proach using traditional designs and inferential
statistics.
The HGM approach to the functional assessment
of wetlands has both some differences and simila-
rities to recent and highly developed approaches to
river biomonitoring for water quality. Reynoldson
et al. (1997) provide a review of the river biomoni-
toring methods, and Danielson (1998) provides a
comparison of Indices of Biological Integrity (IBI)
and the HGM Approach. The most signi®cant
differences are dictated to a large degree by the
unique regulatory requirements of Section 404 of
the CWA. For example, the HGM Approach was
designed to assess project impacts by measuring
changes in speci®c characteristics and processes of
wetlands and their surrounding landscape. Bio-
monitoring methods, on the other hand, are
designed to assess biological or ecological integrity
at a point in time by measuring biological metrics
that integrate landscape and ecosystem processes.
The HGM Approach was designed to be effective
within the time and resource constraints of the
Section 404 (CWA) permit process. Yet, it was also
designed to address a wide range of potential
impacts that may be project speci®c. These may be
minor changes in habitat or situations where a site
is ®lled and ceases to be a wetland. Thus, HGM
was speci®cally designed to be a rapid, yet robust
technique that could measure potential change in
wetland function directly.
Despite primary objectives being different, the
similarities of implementation between IBI bioas-
sessment and the HGM Approach are great. Both
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
Fig. 2 Aerial photograph (1 : 6000) of a segment of the Tobacco River in north-west Montana, U.S.A. The white box marked A
delineates the boundary of a hypothetical project that is to provide ®ll into the ¯oodplain wetlands, and thus requiring a 404
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The white boxes marked 1 and 2 are potential mitigation sites for the planned
activity. See text for explanation.
 Functional assessment of riparian wetlands 527
Table 5 An example of variables, data and subindices of function for `Retention of Particulates' at two potential mitigation sites on
an alluvial ¯oodplain-wetland complex of the northern Rocky Mountains of western Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The
Functional Capacity Index is calculated for each mitigation site before and after restoration mitigation for the project

Mitigation site 1 Mitigation site 2

Before mitigation After mitigation Before mitigation After mitigation

Variables Data SubIndex Data SubIndex Data SubIndex Data SubIndex

VFREQ 4 0.8 1.3 1.0 8 0.2 3 0.8

VSURFIN 6 0.5 >10 1.0 8 0.8 >10 1.0
VMICRO 22 0.5 45 1.0 18 0.45 45 1.0
VHERB 56 0.8 60 1.0 80 0.9 70 1.0
VSHRUB 6 0.2 10 0.8 15 1.0 15 1.0
VTREE 30 1.0 20 0.9 9 0.3 9 0.3
VCWD 2.2 0.5 3.5 0.9 1.5 0.2 4 0.9
Functional
Capacity
Index 0.78 0.96 0.48 0.87

s
q  
…VMICRO ‡ VHERB ‡ VSHRUB ‡ VTREE ‡ VCWD †
F CI ˆ …VFREQ  VSURFIN 
5

approaches combine biological and/or physical regulations of the CWA and a variety of other
variable measurements in an index to indicate the federal, state, tribal and local laws, ordinances,
integrity of a system directly, or through function and policies. The HGM Approach provides a
surrogates. Both use data from reference sites for ¯exible tool for assessing the capacity of
calibrating metrics, thus providing the standard of wetlands to perform functions within a reference
comparison on which to scale the indices. The framework. The results of the assessment can then
HGM Approach expands the use of reference be used to meet several of the various regulatory
data by including not only the least altered sites requirements including the consideration of alter-
(e.g. reference standard wetlands), but also an natives, assessment of project impacts, determina-
array of sites that have been moderately to tion of mitigation requirements, or success of
highly altered. Having the data set capture the mitigation projects.
range of variation, from unaltered sites to
highly altered sites, permits the collection of data
for a series of variables followed by the direct References
comparison of those metrics to data from the
reference sites. Thus, the calculation of an index Adamus P.R., ClairainE.J., Jr Smith R.D. & Young R.E.
of functional capacity for the target wetland is done (1987) Wetland Evaluate Technique (WET), Vol. II,
within the context of variation among wetlands in Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
the region. Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Wetland mitigation is a fundamental feature of Adamus P.R., Clairain E.J., Stockwell L.T., Morrow M.E.
environmental policy in the United States and & Rozas L.P. (1991) Wetland Evaluation Technique
elsewhere. With few exceptions governmental (WET), Vol. I. Literature Review and Evaluation
agencies, private industry, developers and in- Rationale. Wetlands Research Program Technical Re-
dividual citizens that impact or manage wetland port WRP-DE-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
resources in the U.S.A. must comply with the Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
528 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
Ainslie W.B., Pruitt B.A., Smith R.D., Roberts T.H.,
Sparks E.J. & Miller M.V. (1998) A regional guidebook
for assessing the functions of low gradient riverine
wetlands in western Kentucky. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Angermeier P.L. & Karr J.R. (1994). Biological integrity
versus biological diversity as policy directives.
Bioscience, 44, 690±697.
Borman F.H. & Likens G.E. (1969) The watershed-
ecosystem concept and studies of nutrient cycling.
The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resources Management
(ed. G. M. Van Dyne), pp. 87±142. Academic Press,
New York, NY.
Brinson M.M. (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classi®cation
for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Brinson M.M., Hauer F.R., Lee L.C., Nutter W.L.,
Rheinhardt R.D., Smith R.D. & Whigham D.F. (1995)
A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic
assessments to riverine wetlands. Technical Report
WRP-DE-11, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Brinson M.M., Kruczynski W., Lee L.C., Nutter W.L.,
Smith R.D. & Whigham D.F. (1994) Developing an
approach for assessing the functions of wetlands.
Global Wetlands: Old World and New (ed. W. J. Mitsch),
pp. 615±624. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Nether-
lands.
Brinson M.M. & Rheinhardt R.D. (1996) The role of
reference wetlands in functional assessment and
mitigation. Ecological Applications, 6, 69±76.
Brown S., Brinson M.M. & Lugo A.E. (1979) Structure
and function of riparian wetlands. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Strategies for Protection and Management of
Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems (eds
Johnson R.R. & McCormick J.F.), pp. 17±31. U.S. Forest
Service General Technical Report GTR-WO-12.
Washington, DC.
Conservation Foundation (1988) Protecting America's
wetlands: An action agenda. Final Report of the
National Wetlands Policy Forum. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Cowardin L.M., Carter V., Golet F.C. & LaRoe E.T. (1979)
Classi®cation of wetlands and deep water habitats of
the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Cummins K.W. (1974) Stream ecosystem structure and
function. Bioscience, 24, 631±641.
Dahl T.E. (1990) Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780s
to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Dahl T.E., Johnson C.E. & Frayer W.E. (1991) Wetland
Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States, Mid-
1970s to Mid-1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wetland Inventory, Washington, DC.
Danielson T.J. (1998) Indicators for Monitoring and Asses-
sing Biological Integrity of Inland, Freshwater Wetlands: a
Review of the Technical Literature (1989±96). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Of®ce of Water,
Of®ce of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
Washington, DC.
Davis W.S. & Simon T.P., eds. (1995) Biological assess-
ment and criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning and
Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Dougherty S.T. (1989) Evaluation of the applicability of
the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) to high
elevation wetlands in Colorado. Wetlands Concerns and
Successes. Proceedings of the American Water Resources
Association Symposium, September 17±22, (ed. D. W.
Fisk), pp. 415±427. Tampa, FL. U.S.A.
Evans F.C. (1956) Ecosystem as the basic unit in ecology.
Science, 123, 1127±1128.
Frayer W.E., Monahan T.J., Bowdell D.C. & Grabill F.A.
(1983) Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitat in the Conterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Gerritsen J. (1995) Additive biological indices for
resource management. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, 14, 451±457.
Golley F.B. (1993) A History of the Ecosystem Concept in
Ecology. Yale University Press., New Haven, CT.
Gregory S.V., Swanson F.J., McKee W.A. & Cummins
K.W. (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian
zones. Bioscience, 41, 540±551.
Hannaford M.J. & Resh V.H. (1995) Variability in
macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and
habitat assessments in a northern California stream.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 14,
430±439.
Hauer F.R., Cook B.J., Clairain E.J., Gilbert M.J. & Smith
R.D. (1998) The Hydrogeomorphic Approach to
Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Alluvial Floodplain
Wetlands of the Northern Rocky Mountain Region.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report. Vicksburg, MS.
Heimlich R.E., Wiebe K.D. & Classen R.L. (1997)
Sustaining our wetland gains. National Wetlands News-
letter, 19, 5±10.
Hilsenhoff W.L. (1988) Rapid ®eld assessment of organic
pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society, 7, 65±68.
Karr J.R. (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using ®sh
communities. Fisheries, 6, 21±27.
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530

Karr J.R. & Chu E.W. (1997) Biological Monitoring and
assessment: using multimetric indexes effectively.
USEPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seat-
tle, WA.
Kentula M.E., Brooks R.P., Gwin S.E., Holland C.C.,
Sherman A.D. & Sifneos J.C. (1992) An Approach to
Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and
Creation. Island Press, Washington DC.
Lonard R.I., Clairain E.T., Huffman R.T., Hardy J.W.,
Brown C.D., Ballard P.E. & Watts J.W. (1981) Analysis
of Methodologies Used for the Assessment of Wetland
Values. U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington,
DC.
Lubchenko J., Olson A.M., Brubaker L.B., Carpenter S.R.,
Holland M.M., Hubbell S.P., Levin S.A., MacMahon
J.A., Matson P.A., Melillo J.M., Mooney H.A., Peterson
C.H., Pulliam H.R., Real L.A., Regal P.J. & Risser P.G.
(1991) The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: an ecolo-
gical research agenda. Ecology, 72, 371±412.
McCrain G.R. (1992) Habitat evaluation procedures
(HEP) applied to mitigation banking in
North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Management,
35, 153±162.
Mitsch W.J. & Gosselink J.G. (1993) Wetlands, 2nd edn.
Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, NY.
Naiman R.J., Magnuson J.J., McKnight D.M. & Stanford
J.A. (eds) (1995) Freshwater Imperative: a Research
Agenda. Island Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council (1995) Wetlands: Characteristics
and Boundaries. National Academy of Sciences.
National Academy Press., Washington, DC.
National Wetland Policy Forum (1988) Protecting
America's Wetlands: an Action Agenda. Conservation
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Norris R.H. (1995) Biological monitoring: the dilemma of
data analysis. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, 14, 440±450.
Opheim T. (1998) The thriving mitigation banking
industry. National Wetlands Newsletter, 20, 2±3.
OTA [Of®ce of Technology Assessment] (1984) Wetlands:
Their Use and Regulation. OTA-O-206. Of®ce of Tech-
nology Assessment, Washington, DC.
Plafkin J.L., Barbour M.T., Porter K.D., Gross S.K. &
Hughes R.M. (1989) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish. EPA/442/4-89/001. Of®ce of water regulations and
standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Race M.S. & Fonseca M.S. (1996) Fixing compensatory
mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications, 6,
94±101.
Resh V.H. & McElravy E.P. (1993) Contemporary
quantitative approaches to biomonitoring using
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530
Functional assessment of riparian wetlands 529
macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biomonitoring and
Benthic Macroinvertebrates (eds D. M. Rosenberg &
V. H. Resh), pp. 157±191. Chapman & Hall, New
York.
Reynoldson T.B., Norris R.H., Resh V.H., Day K.E. &
Rosenberg D.M. (1997) The reference condition: a
comparison of multimetric and multvariate ap-
proaches to assess water-quality impairment using
benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North Amer-
ican Benthological Society, 16, 833±852.
Rheinhardt R.D., Brinson M.M. & Farley P.M. (1997)
Applying wetland reference data to functional assess-
ment, mitigation, and restoration. Wetlands, 17, 195±
215.
Rosenberg D.M. & Resh V.H., eds. (1993) Freshwater
Biomonitoring and Benthic MacroInvertebrates. Chapman
& Hall., New York, NY.
Semeniuk C.A. (1987) Wetlands of the Darling System: a
geomorphic approach to habitat classi®cation. Journal
of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 69, 95±112.
Smith R.D. (1993) A Conceptual Framework for Assessing the
Functions of Wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report WRP-DE-3. Vicksburg, MS.
Smith R.D. (1997) Comparing apples and oranges.
National Wetlands Newsletter, 19, 11±13.
Smith R.D., Ammann A., Bartoldus C. & Brinson M.M.
(1995) An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions
Using Hydrogeomorphic Classi®cation, Reference Wetlands,
and Functional Indices. Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report WRP-DE-9. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Smith P.G.R. & Theberge J.B. (1987) Evaluating natural
areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice.
Environmental Management, 11, 447±460.
Stanford J.A. & Gau®n A.R. (1974) Hyporheic commu-
nities of two Montana rivers. Science, 185, 700±702.
Stanford J.A. & Hauer F.R. (1992) Mitigating the impacts
of stream and lake regulation in the Flathead River
catchment, Montana, U.S.A.: an ecosystem perspective.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
2, 35±63.
Stanford J.A. & Ward J.V. (1993) An ecosystem perspec-
tive of alluvial rivers: Connectivity and the hyporheic
corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, 12, 48±60.
Stanford J.A., Ward J.V., Liss W.J., Frissell C.A., Williams
R.N., Lichatowich J.A. & Coutant C.C. (1996) A general
protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated
Rivers: Research and Management, 12, 391±413.
Tolman J. (1997) How we achieved no net loss. National
Wetlands Newsletter, 19, 19±21.
530 F.R. Hauer and R.D. Smith
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1984) Literature
Review of Wetland Evaluation Methodologies. U.S Envir-
onmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Water Division.
Chicago, IL.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (1980) Habitat as a Basis for
Environmental Assessment. Ecological Services Manual,
101. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Ecological Services, Washington, DC.
Ward J.V. (1997) An expansive perspective of riverine
landscapes: pattern and process across scales. GAIA, 6,
52±60.
Wilen B.O. (1995) The folly of the numbers game.
National Wetlands Newsletter, 17, 8±10.
(Manuscript accepted 1 August 1998)
# 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 40, 517±530