Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State

Comments Page for Draft Guidance Document

Are you interested in providing comment on this document?

The Department of Ecology is seeking review and comment on the first of a series of guidance documents on how to determine the ordinary high water mark. The first document is titled "Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State." Subsequent documents will address OHWM determinations on lakes and marine shorelines. The documents are intended to provide guidance to field practitioners on methods and practices that contribute to accurate and defensible OHWM determinations.

Why did I receive this review request?

You are receiving this review request because you either attended an OHWM training class through Ecology’s Coastal Training Program or your name is on one of Ecology’s email lists. We recognize that not everyone on the list may have the expertise or interest in providing review comments but wanted to be inclusive with the review request. Please excuse cross postings if you received more than one.

What is involved in the review?

You will not have to edit the document for grammar and punctuation. We are asking you to provide feedback on organization and content by addressing the following questions:

1. Is the document organized in a clear and logical way, with information easily accessible?

2. Are we leaving out anything of importance?

3. Are we putting the wrong emphasis on anything?

4. Is more information needed on hydrologic methods?

5. Are there important references we have missed?

6. Do you have any ideas or suggestions to improve the organization of the document?

7. Do you find the field data sheet useful? What changes would you like to see?

8. Appendix C provides a list of plant species that, based on our field experience, typically occur either below, at/straddle, or above the OHWM. Do you agree with the listings and sorting? Can you provide examples of field sites where the plant species either support or refute the estimated plant distribution according to the OHWM gradient?

9. Do you refer to useful web sites that are not listed in Appendix D?

10. Is the field data sheet in Appendix A useful?

11. Are case studies understandable or appropriate?

The authors would appreciate your name, phone number and email address in case they’d like to contact you with questions or clarifications. This information is optional.

Name:

Phone:

E-mail:

For any suggested changes, we will ask you to provide the rationale and citations that support the change, if possible.

When are comments due?

We would like to obtain comments by May 15, 2008.

What about guidance on determining the OHWM on lakes and marine shorelines?

We will begin writing the guidance on lake and marine environments during the six week review period and follow up with a subsequent review and comment period. We are not sure if we will combine the final guidance documents as one document or issue them as separate documents.