First, check for synonyms to be sure the species is not actually listed. Generally, when a plant species is not included on the NWPL, it is assumed to have a rating of UPL. However, if you do not find a particular plant species name on the NWPL you should follow the steps below:

1. Check the synonymy as the scientific name on the NWPL may not be the same as with the authority you are using. It may be listed under a different name. If there is a valid indicator for the synonym, that is your indicator.
   1. One quick and easy way to check synonyms is to do it on the NWPL website (https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/). Use it whenever you look up a species name on the NWPL. From the main web page, click on the quick species search on the top center of the page and then check the check synonyms box. You will get the current name that the NWPL is using and whatever legitimate synonyms exist.
2. There are still many plant species that have not been evaluated for their frequency of occurrence in wetlands, particularly rare and uncommon species and those that may have recently moved into a region. A quick internet search for your species will frequently yield some reputable sources for known species habitat preferences. If they indicate the species mostly occurs in dry areas, then UPL is the appropriate indicator. If they indicate mostly wetter habitat, then there is no valid indicator for the species. If you should run across such species, I encourage you to submit them for review by our national and regional panels so that we can develop appropriate indicator status ratings for these species.

If you do not find it as a synonym, it is most likely UPL. However, there are still plant species that have not been evaluated for inclusion on the NWPL, but may not be UPL species. From the Regional Supplement for the Northcentral and Northeast:

"In general, species that are not listed on the wetland plant list are assumed to be upland (UPL) species. However, recent changes in plant nomenclature have resulted in a number of species that are not listed by Reed (1988) but are not necessarily UPL plants. Procedures described in Chapter 5, in the section on Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation, can be used if it is believed that individual FACU, NI, NO, or unlisted plant species are functioning as hydrophytes on a particular site."

The methods for calculation of hydrophytic vegetation are under the purview of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and applicable regional supplements. If a plant species is correctly assumed to be UPL, the calculations are made using that indicator for that species. If you suspect that the indicator is not truly UPL or you cannot identify the plant to species (and therefore it has no valid indicator status), these species should not be assumed to be UPL or any other indicator status. You should include these species in your calculation of dominants, but not in the Dominance Test or Prevalence Index.

3. If you cannot locate a species on the NWPL, the first thing you should do is check the synonymy as the scientific name on the NWPL may not be the same as with the authority you are using. If there is a valid indicator for the synonym, that is your indicator.
   • One quick and easy way to check synonyms is to do it on the NWPL website (https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ ). Use it whenever you look up a species name on the NWPL. From the main web page, click on the quick species search on the top center of the page and then check the check synonyms box. You will get the current name that the NWPL is using and whatever legitimate synonyms exist.
4. There are still many plant species that have not been evaluated for their frequency of occurrence in wetlands, particularly rare and uncommon species and those that may have recently moved into a region. A quick internet search for your species will frequently yield some reputable sources for known species habitat preferences. If they indicate the species mostly occurs in dry areas, then UPL is the appropriate indicator. If they indicate mostly wetter habitat, then there is no valid indicator for the species. If you should run across such species, we encourage you to submit them for review by our national and regional panels so that we can develop appropriate indicator status ratings for these species.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2022
National Wetland Plant List, version 3.6
https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/

If an earlier version of the NWPL is being cited, the proper information for each version of the NWPL is available on the NWPL website.

The nomenclature for the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) can be cited as follows:

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1–15.

You can access this through the NWPL website or http://www.phytoneuron.net/phytoneuron2016PUBS.htm

PLANTS is the preferred and recommended source. The NWPL was originally updated following BONAP nomenclature, but has since changed to PLANTS (hence both citations).

All the subspecies and varieties of a species in the same region have the same indicator status. The original 1988 National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands included ratings for subspecific taxa. However, when this List was updated to the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL), all subspecies and varieties were given the indicator designation for the overall species.

The subregions and subregion ratings that were in place with the 2016 NWPL are still in place with the 2020 and 2022 NWPL, i.e., Quercus michauxii is FAC in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain’s Western Gulf Coastal Plain subregion and FACW throughout the rest of the region. Indicators can be different for a species between a region and its subregion and a change to one does not indicate a change for both.

The Alaska subregions and the subregion indicators from the 2016 NWPL are the same in the 2018 NWPL. Omission of the subregions was an oversight and the current NWPL contains the replaced subregions. Those subregions are still in place in both the 2020 and 2022 NWPL.

The lists of common plants by USACE District that are included on the NWPL web site are generated based on county-level occurrence data. Where we have a record of occurrence, a county is noted and those plant species occurring in the most counties within the District are considered most common. This method does not account for abundance, but does consider the most wide-spread species to be most common.

A plant species wetland indicator status is primarily based on estimated frequency of occurrence in wetlands vs. nonwetlands. There are over 8000 species on the NWPL and the majority do not have detailed frequency data. The process for development of the NWPL from its origins in the mid-1980s as the "National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands", which was then under the auspices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is documented in "Concepts and Procedures for Updating the National Wetland Plant List" (https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/static/references/NWPL/pubs/2008_Lichvar_Minkin.pdf). The process for how indicator status ratings are developed is documented in "Final Protocol for Assigning Wetland Indicator Status Ratings during National Wetland Plant List Update" (http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/static/references/NWPL/pubs/2011v3_Lichvar_Gillrich.pdf ). Both of these documents, along with many others, including some frequency studies, are available on the NWPL website under NWPL Publications.

These abbreviations are the wetlands ratings and are also explained in the wetlands ratings section of the NWPL website (lower left of the homepage). They are:

Indicator Status	Abrv.	Definitions - Short Version ( ERDC/CRREL TN-12-1 )
Obligate	OBL	Almost always occur in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland	FACW	Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands.
Facultative	FAC	Occur in wetlands and nonwetlands.
Facultative Upland	FACU	Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands.
Upland	UPL	Almost never occur in wetlands.

There is no formal definition for "true aquatic plants," but you can generate a region-specific list of aquatics and "floaters" from the NWPL using the Mapper tool. For wetland delineation purposes, all of the NWPL listed species (8000+) are rated OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or UPL, based on their estimated frequency of occurrence in wetlands. They are not rated on the hydroperiod or hydropattern (or "wetness") of the wetlands that they inhabit. There is no formal definition for "true aquatic plants," but they are described in the regional supplements where they are included as: "species that are normally submerged, have floating leaves or stems, require water for support, or desiccate in the absence of standing water." However, many plants species generally considered aquatics (e.g., waterlilies Nymphaea and Nuphar) may grow in non-inundated areas. If you are interested in aquatic plants from an ecological perspective, the NWPL website has species listings by habitat (including aquatic) in the Biological Attributes section, in the Mapper on the right side of the NWPL homepage.

The NWPL only includes plant species that have been found to occur in wetlands somewhere within their range, and not those species that only occur in nonwetlands. Additionally, the NWPL only includes vascular plant species. Therefore, non-vascular plants, including bryophytes (mosses, such as Sphagnum spp.), are not included on the NWPL and do not have a wetland indicator status (either assigned or assumed). USDA’s PLANTS (https://plants.usda.gov/home), a complete listing of all plant species found within a given region, includes many UPL plants not found on the NWPL. It also includes non-vascular plants, such as bryophytes. This is why you may see bryophytes on some automated delineation data forms that use PLANTS. However, these bryophytes are still lacking a valid indicator status and cannot be assumed to meet any specific indicator status. A general caution with automated data forms: they are usually scored so that species not on the NWPL will be UPL. This works for many nonwetland species, but since no bryophytes are on the NWPL, any automated indicator status would be inaccurate for them. There should also be the usual cautions with assuming UPL for rare species, those with range expansions, nonnatives, etc., where they have not yet been evaluated for indicator status.

While the NWPL does not include mosses, there have been other efforts to look at the wetland affinity of some mosses (see below). Seppelt, R.D., Laursen, G.A., Lichvar, R.W. 2008. A Guide to Alaskan Black Spruce Wetland Bryophytes. Species Specific to Delineation for Interior and South Central Regions. ERDC/CRREL TN-08-2. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/bitstream/11681/2617/1/ERDC-CRREL-TN-08-2.pdf

Data can be downloaded from the website in both PDF and Excel.

The No Indicator (NI), No Occurrence (NO) and No Agreement (NA) indicators, along with the plus and minus modifiers, were removed with the 2012 NWPL update and are no longer used. The most current version (currently 2022) of the NWPL should always be used.

An app version of the NWPL is not currently available due to security restrictions. For use in the field, regional lists can be downloaded from the website or forwarded to a mobile phone.

Unfortunately, the current structure and formatting of the biological attribute data on the NWPL website does not allow for easy transfer of these data. We are in the process of updating the database and when complete, more data, including the biological attribute data, will be easily downloadable. We currently do not have a target date for completion of the update, but it will be noted on the NWPL website.

Requests to add or change a species indicator status on the NWPL can be completed on the NWPL website. The link to the form can be found at the link here. Fill out this form with as much information and documentation that you have for the species you are recommending. Where it asks for current indicator status, you would pick “Not currently listed on the NWPL,” if it is a species addition. Species submitted for changes will be reviewed for the next NWPL Update, which occurs every 2 years.

We do not have many formal requirements for an indicator status change request, but we provide general guidance and recommendations, as in the “Testing Methods for Challenging the National Wetland Plant List” (2017), to assist requesters in developing robust documentation to support their requests. As part of this assistance, the National Technical Committee for Wetland Vegetation (NTCWV) and the National Panel of the NWPL may review and provide recommendations on study designs if asked to do so by the requester. While such reviews may result in more robust documentation, there is no guarantee that the NWPL National Panel will accept the proposed indicator status change or that the public will agree with the change. If you would like the NTCWV to review your study design, we would be happy to submit it for review at your request. Depending on the size and complexity of the study design, the review times will vary.

The publication, "Testing Methods for Challenging the National Wetland Plant List" (2017), gives an example of data collection in support of requested indicator status changes. This is only an example, but may provide useful insights. As noted in this document, the National Panel of the NWPL and/or the NTCWV can provide review and recommendations on your draft study design. In addition, we have a Hydrology Technical Standard that has recommendations for hydrologic monitoring (https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/handle/11681/3552 ). Your study may be as simple or as complex as you choose, just be sure it supports your recommended changes.

he difference in indicator status that you are seeing for Populus tremuloides and Rubus idaeus is due to them having a different indicator status in the Northcentral Great Lakes subregion of the NCNE than in the rest of the NCNE. All of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that occur within the NCNE are also within the Northcentral Great Lakes subregion (the asterisk refers to a subregional indicator, which supersedes the regional indicator). This was delimited at the beginning of the pdf for the 2022 NWPL Update (https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/static/reports/NWPL Cover Page NCNE_v3.pdf). Therefore, each state list for these three states has the same indicators as the Northcentral Great Lakes subregion. There are only two species with subregional indicators for this subregion and they are Populus tremuloides and Rubus idaeus. Both species are FAC throughout the Northcentral Great Lakes subregion, including the NCNE portions of MN, WI, and MI. Those two species are FACU in the more easterly portions of the NCNE.

Plant common names are not standardized, so they can be quite variable, even within the same geographic areas. The sources for common names (Kartesz, PLANTS, others) have yielded different names and we have tried to use those with the broadest usage.

The NWPL regional lists will be released on the same day that the updated NWPL is released via notice in the Federal Register. This notice will highlight the species and indicator status changes that were made with the updated NWPL. The national and regional NWPL lists are all available on the NWPL website (best accessed with Chrome or Firefox) at https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ . If you go to the "Plant Lists" link on the top navigation bar of the home page, this will take you to the downloadable national and regional lists. They are available in PDF and XLSX formats.

All indicator status changes from the NWPL updates are posted in the Federal Register once the update efforts were completed. We typically post updates to the NWPL in the Federal Register twice per update – once with proposed changes and then with the final changes. Future NWPL updates will continue to be published in this manner.

There is a general process for review of proposed indicator status changes, including initial reviews by the regional panels, a public notice requesting comments, review of comments, re-review by the regional panels, incorporating public comments, and final review by the National Panel. The Regional and National Panels make their decisions based on the weight of evidence provided by requesters and commenters, along with literature review, and any available data, including herbarium specimens.

1. USACE receives a request for species addition to NWPL or change of indicator status for presently listed species, including technical support information.
2. Once the update process has started, the submitted indicator status requests and supporting information are shared with the National Panel and relevant Regional Panels. Draft ratings are developed from the submitted documentation, modified by the National and Regional panels technical review.
3. The draft species and indicator status changes are posted as a Federal Register Notice (FRN) and comments are requested from the public.
4. At the end of the FRN comment period, the National Panel, along with input from the Regional Panels, reviews submitted comments, as well as all other information associated with the proposed change.
5. The National Panel makes final decisions on species and indicator status changes and recommends those changes to USACE leadership.
6. The final NWPL update is published in the Federal Register at which time it becomes the official NWPL.

Species whose authorship is listed as "undefined" in a region have not had an indicator status recommended, reviewed, or assigned to them. In most cases, they do not occur in those regions.

For your species of concern, you may first want to examine the species wetland affinity across your region of interest to determine if changing the indicator status for the entire region would appear most accurate. However, if your documentation only supports an indicator status change for the subregion, then your preferred proposal would be to establish a subregion and a subregional indicator for your species. Most subregions across the country have only a few species with indicator statuses that vary from the main region, so only having one species different in your subregion would not be unusual. At present, regions and subregions follow USDA’s Land Resource Regions (LRRs) and Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs), so you would want to identify a subregion along those boundaries.

We have been on a two-year update cycle for the NWPL since 2014. In general, the deadlines for submission of requests, comments, and other information varies from cycle to cycle, depending upon the timing of notices.

The referenced NH lab is the U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, or simply CRREL, located in Hanover, NH. Unfortunately, there are no plant training opportunities through the CRREL lab; however, there has been discussion among the National Technical Committee for Wetland Vegetation to create more videos to be hosted on the NWPL website.

The plant keys included on the website are primarily short, simple keys that help break down the more common members of a group (e.g., genus). They are not all-inclusive and many species are missing from the keys. These simple keys are located in the ATWP Field Guides section, just above the ATWP Video Series on the right side of the NWPL homepage. The field guides and keys are for specific parts of the country and most do not cover VT.