# Sec. 32-222. Criteria for Review of Nontidal Wetland Permit Applications

Codified through Bill No. CB-018-2026, adopted May 12, 2026, effective July 24, 2026. Source: Municode, Supplement 2026 Update 2. Editorial notes and legislative history omitted.

## Sec. 32-222. Criteria for Review of Nontidal Wetland Permit Applications

Prince George's County, Md., Code § 32-222 (2026)

(a) The Department may not issue a permit for a regulated activity unless the Department finds the applicant has demonstrated that the:

  (1) Proposed project is water-dependent and requires access to a nontidal wetland as a central element of its basic function under the criteria in subsection (b) and (c) below, or is not water-dependent and has no practicable alternative under the criteria in subsection (d);

  (2) Regulated activity will first avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the nontidal wetland based on consideration of existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources and hydrological conditions under the criteria in Section 32-223(b);

  (3) Regulated activity does not cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater or surface water under the criteria in Section 32-224(a); and

  (4) Proposed project is consistent with an applicable comprehensive watershed management plan.

(b) Water Dependency.

  (1) A proposed project shall be considered water-dependent if the use of surface water or a nontidal wetland is essential to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed project.

  (2) The Department shall apply the following criteria in determining if a proposed project is water-dependent:

    (A) Whether an alternative water source is available for use, including surface runoff or groundwater, that may have fewer adverse impacts on nontidal wetlands; and

    (B) Whether the use of a nontidal wetland would only enhance a project rather than being essential to it.

  (3) In determining whether a proposed project is water-dependent, the Department shall consider the applicant's definition of the project purpose but may independently determine whether the proposed project is water-dependent.

  (4) For a multiple use project which has both water-dependent and nonwater dependent features, the Department shall determine which features are water-dependent.

(c) Access Test.

  (1) In determining whether the proposed project requires access to a nontidal wetland as a central element of its basic function, the Department shall consider whether access could be accomplished at another location that would first avoid and then minimize nontidal wetland impacts.

  (2) A water-dependent project, which the Department determines requires access to a nontidal wetland, shall be exempted from the requirements of Subsection (d), but shall comply with all other requirements referenced in Subsection (a).

(d) Practicable Alternative Analysis.

  (1) The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that practicable alternatives, including both alternative site analysis and on-site minimization, have been analyzed and that the proposed regulated activity has no practicable alternative.

  (2) In determining whether the proposed regulated activity has a practicable alternative, the Department shall consider whether:

    (A) The project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or more alternative sites in the same general area as the proposed site that would avoid or result in

less adverse impact to the nontidal wetland(s) under the criteria in Section 32-223. The Department shall consider the applicant's definition of "general area" but may take its

own independent determination of what the "general area" is;

(B) The reduction in the size, scope, configuration or density of the proposed project and all alternative designs would avoid or minimize impact to the nontidal wetland but would not accomplish the basic purpose of the project under the criteria of Section 32-223(b);

(C) The applicant has made a reasonable effort to accommodate site restraints such as zoning regulations, infrastructure or parcel size which caused an alternative site to be rejected. To determine if an applicant has made a reasonable effort to accommodate constraints, the Department shall consider any pertinent information, including:

  (i) Correspondence or other written documentation between an applicant and the County, including a request for a special exception or other Zoning variance;

  (ii) Evidence of efforts to modify the local infrastructure, including future planned expansions or redesign of the project because of a nontidal wetland impact; and

  (iii) Written documentation of the effort undertaken to acquire another site or to reconfigure the proposed project to accommodate the constraint.

(D) The regulated activity is necessary to meet a demonstrated public need. The following apply:

  (i) To determine if the regulated activity is necessary for the proposed project to meet a demonstrated public need, the Department shall consider any pertinent information, including the economic value contributed by the proposed project to an identified State or local economic priority and if the proposed project promotes public health, safety or welfare.

  (ii) In weighing the economic value of the proposed project with respect to meeting a demonstrated public need in the general area, and the ecological and economic value associated with the nontidal wetland, the Department shall consider the functions of, benefits and the economic value provided to the general public by the nontidal wetland adversely impacted by the regulated activity and the ability of the nontidal wetland to continue to provide the identified functions and benefits to the general public.