Advertisement

Hydrogeomorphic Classification and Functional Assessment

  • Craig A. Davis
  • Daniel Dvorett
  • Joseph R. Bidwell
Chapter

Abstract

Wetland assessment methods have been used to estimate the capacity of wetlands to perform certain functions and to determine potential changes in wetland condition as a result of anthropogenic impacts. In this chapter, we describe the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach, a wetland functional assessment method that was developed to alleviate some of the shortcomings of other wetland assessment methods. The HGM approach is a reference-based assessment method that was developed to estimate change in wetland condition by quantitatively comparing ecosystem functions of altered wetlands to unaltered wetlands. The HGM approach involves a developmental phase and an application phase, but the focus of this chapter is on the application phase. Specifically, we describe how to conduct a wetland functional assessment using the HGM approach. The components of the HGM approach that are described include classifying wetlands using HGM classification, collecting data representing individual variables in functional models, calculating the functional capacity of the wetland, and analyzing the functional capacity results to determine potential impacts on wetland functions from proposed projects.

Keywords

National Wetland Inventory Wetland Function Wetland Condition Reference Wetland Riverine Wetland 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adamus PR (1983) A method for wetland functional assessment, vol 2: FHWA assessment method. FWWA-IP-82-24. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamus PR, Stockwell LT, Clairain EJ, Morrow ME, Rozas LP, Smith DR (1987) Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Vol. II: Methodology. NTIS No. 189968. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamus P, Christy J, Jones A, McCune M, Bauer J (2010) A geodatabase and digital characterization of wetlands mapped in the Willamette Valley with particular reference to prediction of their hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class. USEPA Region 10, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  4. Amon JP, Thompson CA, Carpenter QJ, Miner J (2002) Temperate zone fens of the glaciated Midwestern USA. Wetlands 22:301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness MD, Ewanchuck PJ, Silliman BR (2002) Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:1395–1398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinson MM (1993a) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands research program technical report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinson MM (1993b) Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinson MM (2009) The United States HGM (Hydrogeomorphic) approach. In: Maltby E, Barker T (eds) The wetlands handbook. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 486–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinson MM, Christian RR (2010) Assessing functions of wetlands and the need for reference. Biol Ambient 24:1–12Google Scholar
  10. Brinson MM, Malvárez AI (2002) Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status and threats. Environ Conserv 29:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt RD, Hauer FR, Lee LC, Nutter WL, Smith D, Whigham D (1995) A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands. Wetlands research program technical report WRP-DE-11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Chabreck RH (1972) Vegetation, water, and soil characteristics of the Louisiana coastal region. Bulletin 664. Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  14. Clairain EJ (2002) Chapter 1: Introduction and overview of the hydrogeomorphic approach. In: Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions: guidelines for developing regional guidebooks. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole CA, Brooks RP, Wardrop DH (1997) Wetland hydrology as a function of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) subclass. Wetlands 17:456–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole AC, Brooks RP, Shaffer PW, Kentula ME (2002) Comparison of hydrology of wetlands in Pennsylvania and Oregon (USA) as an indicator of transferability of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional models between regions. Environ Manage 30:265–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole CA, Cirmo CP, Wardrop DH, Brooks RP, Peterson-Smith J (2008) Transferability of an HGM wetland classification scheme to a longitudinal gradient of the central Appalachian Mountains: initial hydrological results. Wetlands 28:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowardin LM, Golet FC (1995) US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: a review. Vegetatio 118:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cowardin LM, Myers V (1974) Remote sensing for identification and classification of wetland vegetation. J Wildl Manage 38:308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Dansereau P, Segadas-Vianna F (1952) Ecological study of peat bogs of eastern North America. I. Structure and evolution of vegetation. Can J Bot 30:490–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dvorett D, Bidwell J, Davis C, DuBois C (2012) Developing a hydrogeomorphic wetland inventory: reclassifying national wetlands inventory polygons in geographic information systems. Wetlands 32:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Euliss NH Jr, Smith LM, Wilcox DA, Browne BA (2008) Linking ecosystem processes with wetland management goals: charting a course for a sustainable future. Wetlands 28:553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferren WR Jr, Fiedler PL, Leidy RA, Lafferty KD, Mertes LAK (1996) Part II: classification and description of wetlands of the central and southern California coast and coastal wetlands. Madroῆo 43:125–182Google Scholar
  25. Finlayson CM, van der Valk AG (1995) Wetland classification and inventory. Vegetatio 118:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilbert MC, Whited PM, Clairain EJ, Smith RD (2006) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of prairie potholes. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  27. Golet FC, Larson JS (1974a) Classification of freshwater wetlands in the glaciated Northeast. US Fish and Wildlife Service resource publication 116. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Golet FC, Larson JS (1974b) Classification of red maple swamps in the glaciated northeast: a community profile. Biological report 0895–1926. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Gorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climactic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Groffman PM, Hanson GC, Kiviat E, Stevens G (1996) Variation in microbial biomass and activity in four different wetland types. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall J, Powell J, Carrick S, Rockwell T, Hollands G, Walter T, White J (2003) Wetland functional assessment guidebook: operational draft guidebook for assessing the functions of slope/flat wetland complexes in the Cook Inlet Basin ecoregion, Alaska using the HGM approach. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, JuneauGoogle Scholar
  32. Hauer FR, Smith RD (1998) The hydrogeomorphic approach to functional assessment of riparian wetlands: evaluating impacts and mitigation on river floodplains in the U.S.A. Freshw Biol 40:517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haukos DA, Smith LM (2003) Past and future impacts of wetland regulations on playa ecology in the Southern Great Plains. Wetlands 23:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heffner J, Storrs C (1994) Classification and inventory of wetlands in the southern Appalachian region. Water Air Soil Pollut 77:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henley JE, Harrison MS (2000) The Oklahoma wetlands reference guide. Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma CityGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoeltje SM, Cole CA (2009) Comparison of function of created wetlands of two age classes in central Pennsylvania. Environ Manage 43:597–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hruby T (1999) Assessments of wetland functions: what they are and what they are not. Environ Manage 23:75–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In: Dodge DP (ed) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, pp 110–127Google Scholar
  39. Keddy PA, Resnicek AA (1986) Great lakes vegetation dynamics: the role of fluctuating water levels and buried seeds. J Great Lakes Res 12:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keough JR, Thompson TA, Guntenspergen GR, Wilcox DA (1999) Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19:821–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klimas CV, Murray EO, Pagan J, Langston H, Foti T (2004) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of forested wetlands in the Delta Region of Arkansas, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  42. Klimas CV, Murray EO, Pagan J, Langston H, Foti T (2005) Ecosystem management and restoration research program: a regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of forested wetlands in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Region of Arkansas. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  43. Larson JS, Mazzarese DB (1994) Rapid assessment of wetlands: history and application to management. In: Mitsch WJ (ed) Global wetlands: old world and new. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 625–636Google Scholar
  44. Leibowitz SG, Nadeau TL (2003) Isolated wetlands: state-of-the-science and future directions. Wetlands 23:663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lugo AE, Snedaker SC (1974) The ecology of mangroves. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 5:39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merkey DH (2006) Characterization of wetland hydrodynamics using HGM and subclassification methods in southeastern Michigan. Wetlands 26:358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2007) Wetlands. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  48. Moore PD, Bellamy DJ (1974) Peatlands. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. National Wetland Policy Forum (1988) Protecting America’s wetlands: an action agenda. Conservation Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Newlon KR, Burns MD (2010a) Wetlands of the Gallatin Valley: change and ecological functions. Montana Natural Heritage Program, HelenaGoogle Scholar
  51. Newlon KR, Burns MD (2010b) Wetlands of the Flathead Valley: change and ecological functions. Montana Natural Heritage Program, HelenaGoogle Scholar
  52. Noble CV, Carpenter L (2009) Chapter 8: Developing the assessment protocol. In: Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions: guidelines for developing regional guidebooks. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  53. Noble CV, Wakeley JS, Roberts TH, Henderson C (2007) Regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing the functions of headwater slope wetlands on the Mississippi and Alabama Coastal Plains. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  54. Novitzki RP, Smith RD, Fretwell JD (1995) Wetland functions, values, and assessment. In: National water summary on wetland resources. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply paper 2425. http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2424/index.html
  55. Null W, Skinner G, Leonard W (2000) Wetland functions characterization tool for linear projects. Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office, Wetland Strategic Plan Implementation Project, Olympia, WAGoogle Scholar
  56. Pakarinen P (1995) Classification of boreal mires in Finland and Scandinavia−a review. Vegetatio 118:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pederson RL, Jorde DG, Simpson SG (1989) Northern Great Plains. In: Smith LM, Pederson RL, Kaminski RM (eds) Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, pp 281–310Google Scholar
  58. Penfound WT (1952) Southern swamps and marshes. Bot Rev 18:413–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2004) Ramsar handbook for the wise use of wetlands, 2nd ed. Handbook 10, Wetland inventory: a Ramsar framework for wetland inventory. Ramsar Secretariat, GlandGoogle Scholar
  60. Federal Register (1997) National action plan to implement the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions. Fed Regist 62:33607–33620Google Scholar
  61. Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT (2007) An evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation banking in Florida: ecological success and compliance with permit criteria. Final report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (#WM881), Tallahassee, FL and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (#CD96409404-0), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Rheinhardt RD, Rheinhardt MC, Brinson MM (2002) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of wet pine flats on mineral soils in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  63. Semeniuk V, Semeniuk CA (1997) A geomorphic approach to global classification for natural inland wetlands and rationalization of the system used by the Ramsar convention – a discussion. Wetl Ecol Manage 5:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shafer DJ, Yozzo DJ (1998) National guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessment of tidal fringe wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  65. Shafer DJ, Herczeg B, Moulton D, Sipocz A, Jaynes K, Rozas L, Onuf C, Miller W (2002) Regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of northwest Gulf of Mexico tidal fringe wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  66. Shaffer PW, Kentula ME, Gwinn SE (1999) Characterization of wetland hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:490–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shaw SP, Fredine CG (1956) Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith LM (2003) Playas of the Great Plains. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith LM, Euliss NH Jr, Wilcox DA, Brinson MM (2008) Application of a geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North America. Wetlands 28:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith RD (2001) Chapter 3: Developing a reference wetland system. In: Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions: guidelines for developing regional guidebooks. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith RD, Ammann A, Bartoldus C, Brinson MA (1995) An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  72. Stein ED, Brinson M, Rains MC, Kleindl W, Hauer FR (2009) Wetland assessment alphabet soup: how to choose (or not choose) the right assessment method. Wetl Sci Pract 26:20–24Google Scholar
  73. Stewart RE, Kantrud HA (1971) Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 92, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  74. Stutheit RG, Gilbert MC, Whited PM, Lawrence KL (2004) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach for assessing wetland functions of Rainwater Basin depressional wetlands in Nebraska. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  75. Tiner RW (1999) Wetland indicators: a guide to wetland identification, delineation, classification, and mapping. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tiner RW (2003) Correlating enhanced National Wetlands Inventory data with wetland functions for watershed assessments: a rationale for northeastern U.S. wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, HadleyGoogle Scholar
  77. Tiner RW (2005) Assessing cumulative loss of wetland functions in the Naticoke river watershed using enhanced national wetland inventory data. Wetlands 25:405–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (1988) The wetland evaluation technique (WET): a technique for assessing wetlands functions and values. Technical Notes EEDP-03-4, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  79. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (2008) Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification system: an overview and modification to better meet the needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note No. 190–8–76. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  80. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2010) Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States, version 7.0. In: Vasilas LM, Hurt GW, Noble CV (eds) US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric SoilsGoogle Scholar
  81. Vance L, Kudray GM, Cooper SV (2006) Crosswalking national wetland inventory attributes to hydrogeomorphic functions: and vegetation communities: a pilot study in the Gallatin Valley, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, HelenaGoogle Scholar
  82. Vitt DH, Halsey LA, Bauer IE, Campbell C (2000) Spatial and temporal trends in carbon storage of peatlands of continental western Canada through the Holocene. Can J Earth Sci 37:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wakeley JS, Smith RD (2001) Chapter 7: Verifying, field testing, and validating assessment models. In: Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions: guidelines for developing regional guidebooks. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  84. Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Jensen SF, Stevens DL, Hychka KC (2007) Assessment of wetlands in the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, USA: using the hydrogeomorphic approach. Wetlands 27:432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Webb EB, Smith LM, Vrtiska M, LaGrange TG (2010) Community structure of wetland birds during spring migration through Rainwater Basin Region. J Wildl Manage 74:765–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wharton CH, Kitchens WM, Pendleton EC, Sipe TW (1982) The ecology of bottomland hardwood swamps of the Southeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-8137, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  87. Whigham DF, Jacobs AD, Weller DE, Jordan TE, Kentula ME, Jensen SF, Stevens DL Jr (2007) Combining HGM and EMAP procedures to assess wetlands at the watershed scale – status of flats and non-tidal riverine wetlands in the Nanticoke River Watershed, Delaware and Maryland (USA). Wetlands 27:462–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilcox DA, Nichols SJ (2008) The effect of water-level fluctuations on plant zonation in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron wetland. Wetlands 28:487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilder TC, Roberts TH (2002) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of low-gradient riverine wetlands in western Tennessee. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilen BO, Bates MK (1995) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory project. Vegetatio 118:153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Williams HM, Miller AJ, McNamee RS, Klimas CV (2010) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to the functional assessment of forested wetlands in alluvial valleys of East Texas. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  92. Winter TC (1989) Hydrologic studies of wetlands in the northern prairie. In: van der Valk A (ed) Northern prairie wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 16–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig A. Davis
    • 1
  • Daniel Dvorett
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joseph R. Bidwell
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Oklahoma Conservation CommissionOklahoma CityUSA
  3. 3.Discipline of Environmental Science and Management, School of Environmental and Life SciencesUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations