A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | August 14th, 2014

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical cha

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (U.S. Congress 1986). Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the OHWM defines the lateral extent of federal jurisdiction in non-tidal waters of the United States (WoUS) in the absence of adjacent wetlands (U.S. Congress 1977). Thus, accurate and consistent OHWM delineation practices are essential for proper implementation of the CWA. The dynamic nature of stream systems and fluvial processes presents challenges for OHWM delineation. Natural sources of variability in river and stream systems (e.g., climate, sediment supply, landscape position, etc.) are compounded by direct and indirect anthropogenic sources of variability (e.g., watershed alteration, dam emplacement and removal, climate change, etc.). Thus, it is challenging to impose a consistent measure of “ordinary” high flow conditions across systems in which the hydrology and geomorphology can vary greatly in both space and time. OHWM delineation in non-perennial (i.e., intermittent and ephemeral) streams can be especially challenging. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines intermittent streams as having “flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Ephemeral streams have “flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream,” and “[r]unoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). In contrast to both intermittent and ephemeral streams, perennial streams have “flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year,” and “[g]roundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Given the less persistent streamflow regimes characteristic of non- perennial streams, particularly ephemeral systems, the characterization of ordinary high water flows is perhaps more challenging than in perennially flowing systems. Moreover, depending on climate, vegetation, and other related factors, the appearance of some OHWM indicators may vary greatly between wet and dry seasons or between relatively infrequent flow events, more so than in many perennial streams. Mountainous terrain can present additional challenges to OHWM delineation. For instance, the relatively steep and confined valleys in which mountain streams commonly flow can restrict the development of some alluvial features (e.g., flood-plains, bankfull benches, etc.) that are typical of low-gradient systems and that may help to identify the OHWM. Thus, in non-perennial mountain streams, it is often difficult to determine what constitutes ordinary high water and to interpret the physical and biological indicators established and maintained by ordinary high water flows. Challenges and inconsistencies pertaining to OHWM delineation practices are becoming increasingly relevant in mountainous parts of the western U.S. in light of expanding development. This increased pressure on fluvial systems highlights the need for accurate, consistent, and repeatable OHWM delineation practices in this region. These factors, combined with the particular challenges of OHWM delineation in non-perennial mountain streams, provided the impetus for developing this delineation guide. This guide presents the concepts, field indicators, and methods for assessing, delineating, and documenting the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Region of the United States (Figure 1). The information presented here is based on the findings of Mersel et al. (2014) (discussed in Section 1.5) and on years of field observations and data gathering in the WMVC Region and in other regions of the U.S. by the authors and other contributing experts. The remainder of Section 1 provides background information regarding the concept of the OHWM and pertaining to stream hydrology and geomorphology in general. Section 2 discusses and provides examples of the specific field indicators used to identify the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region. Section 3 discusses field methods for delineating the OHWM and addresses additional techniques and lines of evidence that may help in problematic delineation scenarios. The information presented here is technical guidance and does not define, amend, or replace any existing regulations, laws, or legal guidance related to the OHWM or to the regulation of WoUS. Furthermore, determining whether any stream is a jurisdictional WoUS is beyond the scope of this document and involves further assessment in accordance with regulations, case law, and clarifying guidance. This guide pertains to non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region of the U.S., and while the information presented here may have a wider applicability to other regions or to perennial rivers within the WMVC Region, this has not been tested or validated. This manual serves as a companion to A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008) as these two regions—the WMVC and the Arid West—are interspersed with one another. Best professional judgment is required to determine which manual is most appropriate for any given location within these two regions. The technical guidance presented here aims to provide an informed and consistent approach to OHWM delineation within the WMVC Region; however, OHWM delineation is not a precise practice. The OHWM can take on a variety of appearances and characteristics and may change over time due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Best professional judgment and consideration of the unique characteristics of each project site are always required.

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Stanford University | April 17th, 2019

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that ach

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan adoption. Meeting this goal requires GSAs to avoid causing any of the six undesirable results that are central to SGMA, including undesirable result number 4 (UR No. 4) – “significant and unreasonable degraded water quality” throughout the basin. Unlike most other undesirable results, UR No. 4 is the subject of robust federal, state and local regulatory regimes carried out by a number of different entities. While the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards have the broadest responsibilities to protect groundwater quality, many other agencies also have relevant responsibilities. The other distinctive feature of UR No. 4 is that groundwater management that prevents chronic lowering of groundwater levels may be insufficient to prevent significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality. For example, significant changes in groundwater pumping can potentially mobilize naturally occurring constituents or cause migration or expansion of contaminant plumes even when the extracted amount is within the basin’s sustainable yield. This Guide is intended to assist GSAs along with other agencies and stakeholders in understanding the meaning of UR No. 4, and to provide insights into how GSAs can successfully fulfill their legal responsibilities regarding groundwater quality. To avoid UR No. 4 under SGMA, this Guide recommends that GSAs do the following: 1. Understand the existing regulatory regime for groundwater quality and, as necessary, confer with entities that have regulatory authority over groundwater quality in their basins. (See Section 3 of this Guide). 2. Consider existing federal, state and local groundwater quality standards when developing groundwater quality minimum thresholds in their basins. Federal, state or local regulatory requirements were established after careful scientific study, legal review and procedural steps mandated by law. They are designed to protect public health and welfare, and they provide the clearest indication of the point beyond which there is a real risk of an undesirable result. (See Section 3.1). 3. Work closely with their Regional Water Quality Control Boards to address all groundwater quality issues. GSAs working in the Central Valley are especially encouraged to work with the Central Valley Regional Board to address salt and nutrient groundwater contamination. Programs in this region are continuing to evolve and will require that GSAs remain aware of changing regulatory requirements. Additionally, there are many groundwater quality monitoring efforts in this region that are generating a lot of groundwater quality data. These efforts should be aligned with any groundwater monitoring efforts being undertaken by GSAs. (See Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3.2). 4. Use existing groundwater quality data and information to (1) assess and prioritize groundwater quality issues in their basins, (2) meet requirements that GSPs include a description of current and historical groundwater conditions within the basin and (3) serve as either the basis for or a complement to local groundwater quality monitoring programs developed by GSAs. 5. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 3.2) if they identify groundwater quality problems that either arose or were exacerbated after January 1, 2015: • Where there is a significant groundwater quality problem that is clearly under the purview of another agency, confer with that agency and seek to confirm a reasonable plan to address the groundwater quality problem. If such a plan exists, the water quality problem and the plan should be referenced in the GSP. Section 3 and Table 1 in the Guide provide information on existing regulatory programs and the agencies responsible for their enforcement. • Where a significant groundwater quality problem is not clearly under the purview of another agency, or the responsible agency is unable to confirm a reasonable plan to address the problem, confer with Regional or State Board staff, and perhaps affected parties, to identify a reasonable plan to address the problem. If no reasonable plan is identified, and remediating the problem is impractical, excessively wasteful of resources or otherwise infeasible, the GSA should include in the Plan an explanation of the problem and the reasons why remediation is impractical or infeasible. 6. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 5) if they are planning projects or actions that may affect groundwater quality: • Assess the potential impacts that the projects or actions are likely to have on groundwater quality over time. If the GSA concludes that the proposed project or action could have unacceptable adverse impacts on water quality, GSAs should consider options such as revising the project to avoid or mitigate the project’s impacts or developing alternative projects that avoid water quality problems. • Ensure regulatory compliance for any GSP management actions (e.g., recharge projects, water banking) that have the potential to negatively impact water quality in their basins or adjacent basins. (Sections 3 and 5 provide information on regulatory requirements and considerations associated with groundwater recharge and active basin management, respectively.) 7. Develop supplemental groundwater monitoring networks where necessary. Many basins being managed under SGMA have significant water quality data gaps. Thus, GSAs in many basins will likely need to develop or expand local groundwater quality monitoring networks. Decisions to do so should be informed by (1) the extent and quality of existing groundwater quality in the region, (2) the level of groundwater development, (3) the severity of existing groundwater quality issues and their proximity to domestic or irrigation wells, public water supply sources or other vulnerable users, (4) current or proposed groundwater management actions or projects, (5) local resources, and (6) the hydrogeologic complexity of the basin. GSAs are not responsible for enforcing existing water quality standards or collecting data to support existing water quality programs. However, they are responsible for avoiding “significant and unreasonable” degradation of water quality in their basins. Working with federal, state and local water quality monitoring and enforcement entities will help GSAs understand groundwater quality issues in their basins, enabling them to develop GSPs that avoid UR No. 4.

A hybrid machine learning model to predict and visualize nitrate concentration throughout the Central Valley aquifer, California, USA

Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) | June 9th, 2017

Intense demand for water in the Central Valley of California and related increases in groundwater nitrate concentration threaten the sustainability of the groundwater res

Intense demand for water in the Central Valley of California and related increases in groundwater nitrate concentration threaten the sustainability of the groundwater resource. To assess contamination risk in the region, we developed a hybrid, non-linear, machine learning model within a statistical learning framework to predict nitrate contamination of groundwater to depths of approximately 500m below ground surface. A database of 145 predictor variables representing well characteristics, historical and current field and landscape-scale nitrogen mass balances, historical and current land use, oxidation/reduction conditions, groundwater flow, climate, soil characteristics, depth to groundwater, and groundwater age were assigned to over 6000 private supply and public supply wells measured previously for nitrate and located throughout the study area. The boosted regression tree (BRT) method was used to screen and rank variables to predict nitrate concentration at the depths of domestic and public well supplies. The novel approach included as predictor variables outputs from existing physically based models of the Central Valley. The top five most important predictor variables included two oxidation/reduction variables (probability of manganese concentration to exceed 50 ppb and probability of dissolved oxygen concentration to be below 0.5 ppm), field-scale adjusted unsaturated zone nitrogen input for the 1975 time period, average difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration during the years 1971–2000, and 1992 total landscape nitrogen input. Twenty-five variables were selected for the final model for log-transformed nitrate. In general, increasing probability of anoxic conditions and increasing precipitation relative to potential evapotranspiration had a corresponding decrease in nitrate concentration predictions. Conversely, increasing 1975 unsaturated zone nitrogen leaching flux and 1992 total landscape nitrogen input had an increasing relative impact on nitrate predictions. Three-dimensional visualization indicates that nitrate predictions depend on the probability of anoxic conditions and other factors, and that nitrate predictions generally decreased with increasing groundwater age.

A joint Gaussian process model of geochemistry, geophysics, and temperature for groundwater TDS in the San Ardo Oil Field, California, USA

Journal of Hydrology (Elsevier) | May 27th, 2025

A Machine Learning Approach to Predict Groundwater Levels in California Reveals Ecosystems at Risk

Frontiers in Earth Science (Frontiers) | December 17th, 2021

Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are increasingly threatened worldwide, but the shallow groundwater resources that they are reliant upon are seldom monitored. In t

Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are increasingly threatened worldwide, but the shallow groundwater resources that they are reliant upon are seldom monitored. In this study, we used satellite-based remote sensing to predict groundwater levels under groundwater dependent ecosystems across California, USA. Depth to groundwater was modelled for a 35-years period (1985–2019) within all groundwater dependent ecosystems across the state (n = 95,135). Our model was developed within Google Earth Engine using Landsat satellite imagery, climate data, and field-based groundwater data [n = 627 shallow (< 30 m) monitoring wells] as predictors in a Random Forest model. Our findings show that 1) 44% of groundwater dependent ecosystems have experienced a significant long-term (1985–2019) decline in groundwater levels compared to 28% with a significant increase; 2) groundwater level declines have intensified during the most recent two decades, with 39% of groundwater dependent ecosystems experiencing declines in the 2003–2019 period compared to 27% in the 1985–2002 period; and 3) groundwater declines are most prevalent within GDEs existing in areas of the state where sustainable groundwater management is absent. Our results indicate that declining shallow groundwater levels may be adversely impacting California’s groundwater dependent ecosystems. Particularly where groundwater levels have fallen beneath plant roots or streams thereby affecting key life processes, such as forest recruitment/succession, or hydrological processes, such as streamflow that affects aquatic habitat. In the absence of groundwater monitoring well data, our model and findings can be used to help state and local water agencies fill in data gaps of shallow groundwater conditions, evaluate potential effects on GDEs, and improve sustainable groundwater management policy in California.

A multi-isotope (B, Sr, O, H, and C) and age dating (3H–3He and14C) study of groundwater from Salinas Valley, California: Hydrochemistry, dynamics, and contamination processes

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 31st, 2002

The chemical and isotope (11B/10B, 87Sr/86Sr, 18O/16O, 2H/H, 13C/12C, 14C, and 3He/3H) compositions of groundwater from the upper aquifer system of the Salinas Valley in

The chemical and isotope (11B/10B, 87Sr/86Sr, 18O/16O, 2H/H, 13C/12C, 14C, and 3He/3H) compositions of groundwater from the upper aquifer system of the Salinas Valley in coastal central California were investigated in order to delineate the origin and processes of groundwater contamination in this complex system. The Salinas Valley has a relatively deep, confined ‘‘400- foot’’ aquifer, overlain by a ‘‘180-foot’’ aquifer and a shallower perched aquifer, all made up of alluvial sand, gravel and clay deposits. Groundwater from the aquifers have different 14C ages: fossil (14C = 21.3 percent modern carbon (pmc) for the 400-foot aquifer and modern (14C = 72.2–98.2 pmc) for the 180-foot aquifer. Fresh groundwater in all aquifers is recharged naturally and artificially through the Salinas River. The two modes of recharge can be distinguished chemically.We identified several different saline components with distinguishable chemical and isotopic fingerprints. Saltwater intrusion in the northern basin has C1 concentrations up to 1700 mg/L, a Na/Cl ratio less than seawater, a marine Br/Cl ratio, a Ca/Cl ratio greater than seawater, d11B between +17 and +38% and 87Sr/86Sr between 0.7088 and 0.7096. Excess dissolved Ca, relative to the expected concentration for simple dilution of seawater, correlates with 87Sr/86Sr ratios, suggesting base exchange reaction with clay materials. (2) Agriculture return flow is high inNO3 and SO4, with a 87Sr/86Sr = 0.7082,d11B = 19% and d13C between 23 and 17%. The 3H–3He ages (5–17 years) and 14C data suggest vertical infiltration rates of irrigation water of 3–10 m/yr. (3) Nonmarine saline water in the southern part of the valley has high total dissolved solids up to 3800 mg/L, high SO4, Na/Cl ratio >1, d11B between +24 and +30%, and 87Sr/86Sr = 0.70852. This groundwater may have acquired its geochemical signature from leaching of sedimentary rocks associated with the Coast Range marine deposits of Mesozoic to early Cenozoic age. The combination of different geochemical and isotopic fingerprints enables us to delineate the impact of salt sources in different areas of the valley and to reconstruct the origin of the SO4-enriched NO3-depleted saline plume that is located west of the city of Salinas. We suggest that the latter is derived from a mixture of different natural saline waters rather than from anthropogenic contamination.

A National Framework for Groundwater Monitoring in the United States

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2013

The establishment and management of a National Ground-Water Monitoring Network (NGWMN) in the United States would represent a significant achievement in water-resource ma

The establishment and management of a National Ground-Water Monitoring Network (NGWMN) in the United States would represent a significant achievement in water-resource management. The need for ground-water monitoring focused on the major aquifers and aquifer systems in the USA is increasingly important as a key element of sustainable ground-water resource management and use. The National Framework described in this report provides detailed information and recommendations for developing and operating a national ground-water monitoring network that would provide ongoing data collection on ground-water quantity and quality. These data will be available to the public and will be critical for addressing ground-water management issues at the Federal, State, Tribal and local levels. The data will be particularly useful for “state of the resource” assessments requested by State Legislatures and the U.S. Congress. The National Framework was developed by the Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW), an ad-hoc committee under the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI), which is a Department of the Interior Federal Advisory Committee.

A New Technique for Modeling Land Subsidence Facilitates Better Groundwater Management

Stanford University | December 1st, 2019

Land subsidence – the sudden sinking or gradual settling of Earth’s surface – can occur naturally or be triggered by human activity. One of the most comm

Land subsidence – the sudden sinking or gradual settling of Earth’s surface – can occur naturally or be triggered by human activity. One of the most common human-affected factors is groundwater pumping, a practice that has been steadily increasing due to prolonged periods of drought. Groundwater pumping is so prevalent in some areas that it is severely compromising the quantity and quality of the groundwater as well as the physical structure of the land and aquifer capacity beneath it. Large-scale initiatives for putting water back into the ground, or groundwater recharge, are being implemented in some regions. However, groundwater resource managers still need better information to determine where the land is at greatest risk of subsidence as well as where recharge efforts would be the most effective. Integrating two reliable data gathering sources – helicopter-deployed systems (airborne electromagnetic or AEM technology) that measure electromagnetic fields and satellite-deployed systems (interferometric synthetic aperture radar or InSAR) to measure deformations – offers groundwater managers an improved method for more accurately modeling changes in the land surface related to the pumping and recharge of groundwater. Additionally, the ability to more precisely detect subsidence may offer an early warning system for declining groundwater levels.

A real-time groundwater management model using data assimilation

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | June 30th, 2011

We apply the proposed management model to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project of the Las Posas Groundwater Basin in southern California. The adapted nudging al

We apply the proposed management model to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project of the Las Posas Groundwater Basin in southern California. The adapted nudging algorithm is used to estimate the missing pumping rates of private wells. We then use the estimated pumping rates in a real-time groundwater management model to improve management decisions of the ASR well fields.

A simmering revolt against groundwater cutbacks in California

Stanford University | December 14th, 2022

In 2014, California legislators, focused on groundwater’s accelerating decline during a prolonged drought, passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Its impera

In 2014, California legislators, focused on groundwater’s accelerating decline during a prolonged drought, passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Its imperatives: keeping groundwater levels sustainable by 2040 and keeping control of groundwater in local hands. Both goals are now in limbo. As the state endures yet another prolonged drought and state water managers have balked at approving plans covering the basins at greatest risk – the vast majority in the San Joaquin Valley – more growers in a few of the new local groundwater agencies are in revolt at the new rules that will curtail access to the water they once took for granted.