**Author details**

Mary E. Kentula\*, Amanda M. Nahlik, Steven G. Paulsen and Teresa K. Magee US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: kentula.mary@epa.gov

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**167**

*Wetland Assessment: Beyond the Traditional Water Quality Perspective*

[9] USEPA. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011: Site Evaluation Guidelines. Washington, DC:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2011. Report No.: EPA/843/R-10/004

[10] USEPA. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011: Field Operations Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2011. Report No.: EPA/843/R-10/001

[11] USEPA. National Wetland

EPA/843/R-15/006

Washington, D.C; 2009

2000

Condition Assessment 2011: Laboratory Methods Manual. Washington, DC: U. S Environmental Protection Agency; 2011. Report No.: EPA/843/R-10/002

[12] USEPA. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2016. Report No.: EPA/843/R-15/006 Contract No.:

[13] Dahl TE, Bergeson MT. Technical Procedures for Conducting Status and Trends of the Nation's Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation:

[14] Stevens DL, Olsen AR. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics. 1999;**4**:415-428

[15] Stevens DL, Olsen AR. Spatially restricted random sampling designs for design-based and model-based estimation. In: Accuracy 2000: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences. The Netherlands: Delft University Press;

[16] Stevens DL, Olsen AR. Spatiallybalanced sampling of natural resources.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92583*

[1] Eriksson E. Water chemistry and

[2] Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (L. 92-500). Sect. 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.; 1972

[3] Paulsen SG, Hughes RM, Larsen DP. Critical elements in describing and understanding our nation's aquatic resources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

[4] Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 1979. Report No.:

[5] Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Stevens DL Jr, Jensen SF, Brooks RP. Assessment of wetland condition: An example from the upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands.

[6] Whigham DF, Deller Jacobs A, Weller DE, Jordan TE, Kentula ME, Jensen SF, et al. 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.

[7] Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, editors. Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in Wetlands Science, Management, Policy, and Practice. New York, NY: Springer; 2013

[8] USEPA. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Wetlands. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2016. Report No.: EPA/843/R-15/005 Contract No.:

water quality. Ambio. 1977;**6** (1, Water, A Special Issue):27-30

1998;**34**(5):995-1005

FWS/OBS-79/31

2007;**27**:416-430

2007;**27**(3):462-478

EPA/843/R-15/005

**References**

*Wetland Assessment: Beyond the Traditional Water Quality Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92583*
