Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch, Vineland, NJ Subwatershed ...

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch, Vineland, NJ
Subwatershed Restoration Master Plan
Prepared by:
Citizens United to Protect the
Maurice River and its Tributaries
November 30, 2006

2
Forward
In the summer of 2000, my wife Julie and I attended a New Jersey Conservation Foundation land
preservation rally where the goal was to identify important conservation lands that would be beneficial
to buy for permanent preservation in Southern New Jersey. Jane Galetto, President of Citizens United
to Protect the Maurice River, told us how special the natural lands were where Muddy Run flows from
Parvin State Park (not to be confused with Parvins Branch) into the Maurice River across from the City
of Vineland.
Then one day that Fall, we decided to launch a canoe into the Maurice River and paddle upstream in
search of a pristine aquatic ecosystem in the Union Lake Wildlife Management Area, and possibly see
some threatened and endangered species. But in stark contrast to the clear water, full of different
species of fish and beautiful aquatic vegetation in Muddy Run and the Maurice River, we ran into a
huge cloudy orange and stinky discharge of water coming out of Parvins Branch from the City of
Vineland.
Having never seen anything of that magnitude or character in the many South Jersey streams I have
experienced over the past 35 years, I decided to call the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) Hot Line, file a complaint, get a case number, and get to the source of the stinky
orange water polluting the Maurice River. So that is when and where this project started.
The NJDEP field inspector assigned to the case searched around the area for about 2 weeks looking
for the source, and finally came to the un-substantiated conclusion that water was going underground
through the old landfill, collecting rust from old landfill junk, and then belching up out of the ground
all around the sewerage treatment plant. And since there was nothing anyone could do about the old
landfill, then there was nothing that could be done to further solve the mystery of the orange water.
Meanwhile, this was about the time that Governor Christy Whitman was taking canoe rides in
Southern New Jersey and promising $600,000 grants to county governments like Cumberland County
to start a “Watershed Management Process” to identify and stop nonpoint source pollutants from
degrading our surface water quality.
Since I did not find NJDEP’s preliminary assessment about the orange water to be plausible, I
decided to write to the Division of Watershed Management (DWM) and propose that they take a more
in depth look at this pollution and try to figure out what was the cause and where was the source. My
letter went out in the spring of 2001, and DWM took a close look at the request and decided to take
some watershed management action.
NJDEP requested an environmental consultant, TRC OMNI Environmental, to take a look at the
situation and propose a publicly funded study project to look at all possible sources for the whole
stream system involved, all the way up into the City of Vineland. So on September 11, 2001 (yes,
9/11), I met in the field with 2 OMNI consultants, and the project planning process was started.
A non-profit partner would be required to receive the grant funding, so I went to Jane Galetto and
asked for Citizens United (CU) to host the project, and I would then become the volunteer Water
Quality Project Manager for Citizens United. Jane agreed, so then in May of 2002, NJDEP
Commissioner Bradley Campbell sent us a letter authorizing $56,400 to be granted to CU, with a
condition that CU would have to contribute an additional $20,000 as a match.

3
Fortunately the match could be from volunteer efforts, so I committed to contribute at least
$20,000 of my time to manage the project. The project started on July 1, 2002, and followed a long
and twisting course for the next 4 ½ years.
Today, the orange stinky water is still pouring into the Maurice River just above Sherman Ave., 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. A large partnership of interested parties have applied sound science to the
causes of the orange water, as well as the identification and study of a number of other sources of
water quality degradation in the Parvin and Tarkiln Branches in the City of Vineland.
While the causes and the sources and the degree of water quality degradation were found to be
complex and difficult to understand and deal with, the application of watershed science and research to
the conditions and problems has yielded many important facts and recommendations that should prove
useful in understanding and acting to improve the water quality of this subwatershed.
The City of Vineland, like all municipalities in our state, must now meet new permit requirements
to regulate stormwater runoff from paved streets and roads, roof tops, and other impervious surfaces.
As the Water Quality Project Manager for Citizens United, it is my hope that the City of Vineland,
NJDEP, Cumberland County, and the general public will use this information and recommendations to
manage stormwater runoff and land use so that water quality in the Parvin and Tarkiln Branches, and
the Maurice River, will be measurably improved in the future.
Fred Akers
Orange water flowing from Parvins Branch into the Maurice River above Sherman Avenue.

Acknowledgements
4
Special thanks to: Dr. Pete Kallin, Project Manager for TRC OMNI for his guidance and
continuity; Jane Galetto, President of Citizens United, for all her continued support and
encouragement; Dennis Palmer, Executive Director of the Landis Sewerage Authority, for hosting on
site meetings and sampling; and Karen Ward, NJDEP, for guiding all the accounting and paperwork
associated with this 319h Grant.
A rich diversity of people contributed to this project, and all involved are herby acknowledged and
sincerely thanked for their participation:
Citizens United
Jane Galetto
Anthony W. Ficcaglia
Gerry Barsotti
John D’Orio
Dom Barsotti
Renee Scagnelli
Tim Jacobson
Julie Akers
Steve Testa Upper Deerfield Boy Scout Troop 27
TRC OMNI Environmental
Peter Kallin
Chris Obropta
Katie Buckley
Michael Wright
Nicole Joy
Jeremiah Bergstrom
Amy Soli
Greg Soska
Jonathan Johnson
Landis Sewerage Authority
Dennis Palmer
James Hughes
Leslie Glessner
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Larry Baier
Ken Klipstein
Mike Haberland
Dave McPartland
Jay Springer
Karen Ward
Danielle Donkersloot
Kerry Pflugh
Mark Ferco
Lou Claudi

I. Introduction................................................................................................................7
II. Watershed Characterization.....................................................................................9
A. Watershed Inventory................................................................................................9
1. Watershed Management Area 17.........................................................................9
2. Maurice River Watershed..................................................................................10
3. Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed ..................................................10
B. GIS.........................................................................................................................11
III. Watershed Assessment ............................................................................................12
A. Sampling Stations ..................................................................................................12
1. PB1 (Parvin Branch at South Orchard Road)....................................................13
2. PB2 (Parvin Branch above confluence with Maurice River) ............................13
3. TB1 (Tarkiln Branch at South Orchard Road) ..................................................14
4. SEDN (Parvin Branch, North Bank 100 yards east of Route 55)......................14
5. SEDS (Parvin Branch, South Bank 100 yards east of Route 55) ......................14
6. GWN (Parvin Branch, North Bank 100 yards east of Route 55).......................14
7. GWS ( Parvin Branch, South Bank 100 yards east of Route 55) ......................15
B. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol ......................................................................15
1. Methods .............................................................................................................15
2. Results................................................................................................................17
3. Stormwater Outlet Identification/Mapping........................................................19
C. Chemical Evaluation..............................................................................................19
1. Existing Data .....................................................................................................19
2. Watershed Sampling..........................................................................................19
3. Results................................................................................................................25
D. Biological Analysis................................................................................................26
1. Methods .............................................................................................................26
2. Results................................................................................................................28
IV. Recommendations....................................................................................................31
A. Stormwater Management.......................................................................................31
1. Conduct an Evaluation of Stormwater Phase II Compliance ............................31
2. Enact a Stormwater Runoff Pollution Ordinance for New Development .........32
3. Implement Stormwater BMPs ...........................................................................33
4. Develop Training Sessions for Municipalities ..................................................33
B. Riparian Area Management...................................................................................34
1. Control Debris in Floodplains ...........................................................................34
2. Manage Invasive Plants .....................................................................................34
3. Enhance Natural Habitats ..................................................................................35
4. Enact Stream Corridor/Greenway Management................................................35
5. Manage Construction Sites................................................................................35
6. Protect Watershed Easements along Surface Waters ........................................36
7. Acquire and Protect Floodplain Property ..........................................................36
C. Measurable Milestones ..........................................................................................37
5

6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Parvin-Tarkiln Main Branch Reach Report page 38
Appendix B Tarkiln Branch Reach Report page 40
Appendix C Parvin Branch Reach Report page 42
Appendix D Sampling Results Tables page 44
Appendix E Dry Weather Sampling Results Concentration Graphs page 50
Appendix F Benthic Macroinvertebrate Tables page 56
Appendix G In-Situ Data Tables page 61
Appendix H Stream Assessment Protocol (SVAP) and copy of page 65
modified survey form
Appendix I Quality Assurance Sampling Plan for Parvin Brook and page 110
Tarkiln Brook Water Quality Assessment
Appendix J Parvin-Tarkiln Branches GIS page 111
Appendix K OMNI WMA-17 Data GIS page 112
Appendix L OMNI WMA-17 Characterization & Assessment page 113

I. INTRODUCTION
7
The Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed (Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed) covers
approximately 9 square miles in the City of Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey. A significant
impact on water quality within the watershed is the presence of iron oxides in the streambed, which
degrades benthic habitat and fosters the growth of undesirable and odiferous algae. Substantial
portions of the watershed are developed and contribute significant quantities of stormwater, sediment,
and debris to the streams during rain events. Characterizing and locating the source of these
contaminants and developing measures to control them will improve both water quality and aquatic
habitat within the stream.
In order to develop a restoration plan to address impacts to water quality in Parvin Branch and
Tarkiln Branch, Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries (Citizens United),
TRC Omni Environmental Corporation (TRC Omni), and other project partners completed an
assessment of Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed. This study analyzed sediment, surface water and
groundwater samples to assess water quality. The data were used to identify probable sources of water
quality degradation (including the iron oxides) in order to make recommendations for appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to protect and improve water quality in this watershed. The endproduct
of these studies is the Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan.
The Watershed Restoration Master Plan provides a defined strategy for implementing water
quality improvement and protection projects in Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed. A watershed-wide
assessment helps identify projects that address water quality issues and can be justified in grant
applications to secure funding. This necessary planning process includes:
‣ Assessment of riparian areas for needed stream bank stabilization,
‣ Evaluation of existing impairments,
‣ Identification of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution sources,
‣ Recommended solutions to address water quality impairments, and
‣ Realistic timetables for implementing projects.
The Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan Project identifies and
prioritizes impaired riparian areas and recommends BMPs to improve the health and water quality of
rivers, streams and lakes at the watershed level. This plan ranks NPS projects and provides costs
associated with implementation of BMPs. The plan and recommendations will guide future restoration
and planning efforts to best address impairments in the watershed.
The Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed falls within Watershed Management Area (WMA) 17 and is a
subwatershed of the Maurice River Watershed. WMA 17 consists of three major rivers: the Cohansey,
Salem, and Maurice Rivers (Figure 1).

Figure 1. New Jersey’s Watershed
Management Areas and WMA17
8

II.
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
A. Watershed Inventory
1. Watershed Management Area 17
WMA 17 is the largest watershed management area in New Jersey. It comprises 885 square
miles and encompasses most of Cumberland and Salem Counties and parts of Gloucester and
Atlantic Counties. WMA 17’s three major rivers, the Cohansey, Salem, and Maurice Rivers,
all drain to the Delaware River and Bay. Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch are tributaries to
the Maurice River (Figure 2).
9
Parvin Subwatershed, HUC 14
Figure 2. WMA 17, the Maurice River Watershed,
and the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed.

2. Maurice River Watershed
10
The Maurice River Watershed located in Cumberland County is 386 square miles in
size and approximately 50 miles in length. The Maurice River has five major tributaries:
Scotland Run, Manantico Creek, Muskee Creek, Muddy Run, and the Manumuskin River.
Minor tributaries include White Marsh Run, Little Robin Branch, Blackwater Branch, Burnt
Mill Branch, Parvin Branch, and Tarkiln Branch. The Maurice River Watershed also contains
approximately 20 lakes, the largest of which is Union Lake in Millville, New Jersey. The
primary land use throughout this watershed is agriculture.
3. Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed
The Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed is 9 square miles in size. Tarkiln Branch is
approximately 12,350 feet in length, and Parvin Branch (including its tributaries) is 30,000 feet
in length. Tarkiln Branch converges with Parvin Branch upstream of the confluence of Parvin
Branch and the Maurice River.
The Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed is located entirely within the City of Vineland,
Cumberland County, New Jersey. The primary land use in the watershed is urban
development, but others include forests, wetlands, and agriculture (Table 1).
Table 1. Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed Land Use and Area a
1995 Land Use Acres Square Miles % of Watershed
Urban 3429.5 5.36 60.01
Forest 1010.3 1.58 17.68
Wetlands 626.2 0.98 10.96
Agriculture 566.6 0.89 9.92
Barren Land 54.3 0.08 0.95
Water 27.6 0.04 0.48
Total 5714.5 8.93 100.00
a) NJDEP 1995/97 Land use/Land cover Update, Maurice, Salem and Cohansey Watershed Management Area,
WMA 17.
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch are both classified by New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as freshwater 2, non-trout/saline waters (FW2-NT/SE1).
They are both considered to be Category 2 (C2) waters, which means they are not designated as
outstanding national resource waters or Category 1 (C1) waters for the purpose of
implementing antidegradation policies. However, because parts of Parvin Branch and the
Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed extend into the Union Lake Wildlife Management Area, Parvin
Branch and Tarkiln Branch are subject to the 300-foot buffer protection that applies to C1
waters.
NJDEP evaluates biological and surface water quality data to determine the degree of
impairment of waterbodies and to aid in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs). To assess conditions in the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed vicinity, NJDEP uses two
sampling stations that are part of its ambient biomonitoring network (AMNET) – stations
AN0750 (Parvin Branch at Rt. 55 in Vineland) and AN0751 (Maurice River at Sherman Ave.
in Vineland). NJDEP classifies both stations as being in non-attainment for aquatic life.

B. GIS
11
Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this project was the integration of data into a
Geographic Information System or GIS. With the information assembled in the GIS, project
partners were able to present and summarize the assembled information, provide analyses aimed at
identifying watershed restoration issues, and develop recommendations for implementation
initiatives to correct real problems.
The project partners identified and collected all available data for the watershed necessary
to clearly describe the region, prepared a comprehensive analysis, and identified issues related to
riparian areas. Specifically, we acquired existing data from various sources including GIS layers
from the NJDEP’s GIS database, NJDEP aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles, USGS water quality data, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soils information, AMNET data, and County GIS datasets. Using ESRI’s ArcView GIS, the
partners evaluated:
‣ Watershed boundaries, streams, flood plains, major wetland areas, municipal and county
borders, and major roads;
‣ Land use for the entire watershed;
‣ Key open space areas;
‣ Point source discharge locations;
‣ Point source water quality and flow data from the last five years;
‣ Available in-stream water quality and flow data collected over the last five years;
‣ Biological survey monitoring locations and results;
‣ Stream classifications; and
‣ Riparian corridor assessment data collected during the project.
A comprehensive and user-friendly mapping system utilizing ArcView GIS to characterize
the watershed has been developed. The GIS integrates mapping and various geographic data
together in easy-to-understand layers allowing for interpretation by the viewer.
Figure 3

12
III.
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
A water quality monitoring plan was developed to gather additional physical, chemical, and
biological data to assess the health of the streams and identify impairments. The goal of the
monitoring program was to identify likely impairment sources and then develop appropriate BMPs to
address the causes, as the quality of existing data was not sufficient for BMP development. The
monitoring program included: 1) macroinvertebrate sampling to assess the long-term health of the instream
habitat; 2) chemical sampling to analyze short-term water quality; 3) a stream visual assessment
protocol to help identify specific locations for future BMPs; and 4) hand-digging shallow wells to
assess groundwater characteristics and gradients. Monitoring was performed under the guidance of a
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan that was developed for the program.
The primary goals of the study were to: 1) obtain current water quality data for comparison to
existing and historical data; 2) assess water quality in Parvin Branch, Tarkiln Branch, and groundwater
resources; and 3) identify the source of any detected impairments in order to develop BMPs to protect
and improve water quality. A secondary goal was to determine the source of the reduced iron entering
the stream via the shallow groundwater, resulting in orange precipitate and iron bacteria activity.
The watershed was divided into 22 separate reaches, and volunteers were trained in the Stream
Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP). All the reaches were inspected, photographed, and assessed.
All stormwater outfalls were identified for conditions and locations. The SVAP data collected,
combined with the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed Restoration Master Plan, provides the direction and
methodology to gather additional information of the physical conditions of the waterways needed to
combine various data layers to prioritize specific projects for future implementation.
A. Sampling Stations
A total of three stream water column sampling stations (PB1, PB2, and TB1), two soil
sampling stations (SEDN and SEDS), and two groundwater sampling stations (GWN and GWS)
were established for this study (Appendix E). Each sampling station location was confirmed in the
field with global positioning system (GPS) and marked with plastic flagging identifying the site
and attached to an adjacent tree. The sampling sites and their locations are described in Table 2
below.
Table 2. Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed Sample Stations
Site ID Site Name Location Latitude Longitude
PB1 Parvin Branch Parvin Branch at South Orchard 335621.17 228834.98
Road
PB2 Parvin Branch Parvin Branch above confluence 330557.51 224913.65
with Maurice River
TB1 Tarkiln Branch Tarkiln Branch at South Orchard 335823.26 231297.04
Road
SEDN Parvin Branch, North Bank 433 yards east of Route 55 332502.56 228209.29
(Sediment Station)
SEDS Parvin Branch, South Bank 366 yards east of Route 55 332608.00 227673.74
(Sediment Station)
GWN Parvin Branch, North Bank 433 yards east of Route 55 332502.56 228209.29
(Groundwater Station)
GWS Parvin Branch, South Bank
(Groundwater Station)
366 yards east of Route 55 332608.00 227673.74

13
1. PB1 (Parvin Branch at South Orchard Road)
Site location is just upstream from South Orchard Road, which is a paved road with a
concrete bridge. Parvin Branch is a second order stream at the sampling site with an altered
stream channel 25 feet wide, situated between deciduous wooded wetlands 100 feet or more
wide on both sides. This location is about 2,400 feet upstream from the confluence with the
Tarkiln Branch, and down stream from approximately 4 miles of second order stream and first
order tributaries. Wetlands, agriculture, and urban land use with substantial impervious
surfaces can be found upstream.
The active channel depth is about 1 foot or less, and the bank full height is about 2.5
feet with some near vertical bank slopes. The dominant substrate includes sand, silt and mud,
and significant aquatic vegetation can be found in the water column. The water column is
generally clear, with no orange particulates evident in the water or embedded in the substrate.
The stream is connected to the deciduous wooded wetland flood plain with low,
moderately stable, well vegetated vertical banks. Shelter for aquatic life and pool substrate and
variability are suboptimal and/or marginal, with 50-80% of the stream affected by extensive
sediment deposition. The channel has been straightened and altered to convey stormwater with
little sinuosity, but there was no evidence of recent alteration and the existing vegetative
protection of the bank was almost optimal.
2. PB2 (Parvin Branch above confluence with Maurice River)
This site is located at the bottom of the Parvin Branch HUC 14 about 300 ft upstream
from the Maurice River. Over 8 miles of first and second order streams drain about 5700 acres
(9 square miles) of mixed land uses, mostly urban, past this site. Deciduous wooded wetlands
and forest extend for over 1000 feet on both sides of the stream, which is 14 feet wide at the
sampling location.
The active channel depth is about 1 foot or less, and the bank full height is about 3.0
feet with some unusual braided connections to the flood plain. The channel downstream from
the site was altered in the distant past causing marginal sinuosity, but upstream sinuosity is
more natural. The dominant substrate includes gravel, sand, silt/mud, in roughly equal
proportions.
Channel flow, bank vegetative protection, and the riparian vegetative zone width are
optimal with the exception of extensive invasive species. But the conditions of the banks are
moderately unstable even with substantial vegetative protection, indicating a potential for
“flashing” or high velocity flows.
Shelter for fish and macroinvertebrates, pool substrate, and pool variability are extant
but suboptimal. The in-stream habitat types are varied, including gravel bars, undercut banks,
large woody debris, and silt imbedded areas. This location is strongly influenced by the iron
water phenomena, and all in-stream objects have a significant degree of iron floc
embeddedness. Any disturbance to the substrate creates a “cloud” of fine orange particles
within the water column. There is no significant aquatic vegetation present, but some small
amounts do occur at the shallow waters edge.

3. TB1 (Tarkiln Branch at South Orchard Road)
14
Site location is just upstream from South Orchard Road, which is a paved road with a
concrete culvert. Tarkiln Branch is a first order stream at the sampling site with an altered
stream channel 16 feet wide, situated in a 50% crown cover deciduous forest extending from
100 feet to more than 300 feet on both sides. This location is about 3400 feet upstream from
the confluence with the Parvin Branch, and down stream from approximately 1.7 miles of first
order stream with no tributaries. The Tarkiln Branch drains a large urban area of the City of
Vineland with a high percentage of impervious surfaces and substantial stormwater discharge.
The active channel depth is about 1 foot or less, and the bank full height is 3 to 4 feet or
higher with some near vertical bank slopes. The dominant substrate includes sand, silt and mud,
and more than 80% of the stream bottom is affected by extensive sediment deposition including
mid-stream sand bars. The water column is generally clear, with no orange particulates evident
in the water or imbedded in the substrate.
The stream is disconnected from its flood plain with moderately unstable, well
vegetated, vertical banks. Shelter for aquatic life and pool substrate and variability are
marginal, and there is very little water in the channel with mostly deep standing pools separated
by sand bars. The channel has been straightened and altered to convey stormwater with little
sinuosity, and active erosion and down cutting could be observed. A very large debris dam is
located just down stream from the site in a standing pool, which is indicative of stormwater
flash flooding.
4. SEDN (Parvin Branch, North Bank 100 yards east of Route 55)
This site has a dual use for both sediment profiling and groundwater sampling. It is
located 1300 feet east of Route 55 on the edge of forested wetlands 200 feet from the Landis
Sewerage Authority’s infiltration beds, 340 feet from the main stem of Parvin Branch, and 100
feet up gradient from a flowing braid from Parvin Branch. There is a slight hill at this location,
and the sampling site is on the southwest side of this hill close to the flood plain. This site is on
the same side of the creek as the infiltration beds.
5. SEDS (Parvin Branch, South Bank 100 yards east of Route 55)
This site has a dual use for both sediment profiling and groundwater sampling. It is
located 1100 feet east of Route 55 in a large patch of deciduous forested wetlands flood plain
700 feet from the Landis Sewerage Authority’s infiltration beds, 130 feet from the main stem of
Parvin Branch, and 50 feet from a small braid from Parvin Branch. The topography is flat
wetlands with significant down cutting visible on the nearby stream segments. This site is
located on the opposite bank from the infiltration beds.
6. GWN (Parvin Branch, North Bank 100 yards east of Route 55)
This site has a dual use for both sediment profiling and groundwater sampling. It is
located 1300 feet east of Route 55 on the edge of forested wetlands 200 feet from the Landis
Sewerage Authority’s infiltration beds, 340 feet from the main stem of Parvin Branch, and 100
feet up gradient from a flowing braid from Parvin Branch. There is a slight hill at this
location, and the sampling site is on the southwest side of this hill close to the flood plain. This
site is on the same side of the creek as the infiltration beds.

15
7. GWS ( Parvin Branch, South Bank 100 yards east of Route 55)
This site has a dual use for both sediment profiling and groundwater sampling. It is
located 1100 feet east of Route 55 in a large patch of deciduous forested wetlands flood plain
700 feet from the Landis Sewerage Authority’s infiltration beds, 130 feet from the main stem of
Parvin Branch, and 50 feet from a small braid from Parvin Branch. The topography is flat
wetlands with significant down cutting visible on the nearby stream segments. This site is
located on the opposite bank from the infiltration beds.
B. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
To assess riparian areas, a methodology based on the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) “Stream Visual Assessment Protocol” (SVAP) was developed to provide for a
rapid, systematic, quantitative assessment of riparian area conditions. A copy of this protocol is
provided in Appendix H.
1. Methods
a. USDA SVAP
The USDA Stream Visual Assessment Protocol provides a basic level of stream health
evaluation. Conservation-minded citizens with little biological or hydrological training can
successfully apply it for watershed assessment. The SVAP is the first level in a hierarchy of
ecological assessment protocols established by the USDA and available in the Stream Ecological
Assessment Field Handbook.
This protocol provides a reconnaissance level assessment based primarily on physical
conditions within the assessment area. It may not detect some resource problems caused by factors
located beyond the area being assessed. The use of higher tier methods (such as ambient
biomonitoring) is required to more fully assess the ecological condition and to detect problems
originating elsewhere in the watershed.
The protocol ranks conditions for several elements using a scoring system from 1 (worst) to
10 (best) for most parameters. The protocol clearly illustrates what type of conditions should
receive which score, and all scores are then averaged to determine a final assessment of the overall
condition of the stream. Below are the elements that are scored in the assessment process:
‣ Channel Conditions: natural and stable vs. channelized and/or eroding.
‣ Hydrologic Alteration: stream can access floodplain vs. incised/structured
condition.
‣ Riparian Zone: wide vegetated buffer vs. narrow, disturbed vegetated buffer.
‣ Bank Stability: low, stable banks vs. actively eroding, failing banks.
‣ Water Appearance: clear vs. turbid or muddy water appearance.
‣ Nutrient Enrichment: clear water with diverse aquatic community vs. greenish
water with dense macrophytic vegetation.
‣ Barriers to Fish Movement: no barriers vs. dams, culverts or other structures.
‣ In-stream Fish Cover: diverse cover (logs, boulders, pools, riffles, overhanging
vegetation, etc.) vs. no cover.
‣ Invertebrate Habitat: clean water with gravel/organic substrate vs. cloudy water
with sediment-laden substrate.

16
The scoring ranges used for assessment are as follows:
< 6.0 Poor
6.1 - 7.4 Fair
7.5 - 8.9 Good
> 9.0 Excellent
In addition to completing the assessment protocol, the existing conditions were
documented using photographs. An extensive library of photographs is contained in the
reports attached to this document.
b. Modified SVAP
In order to create a more appropriate protocol to assess property conditions found in
Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed, SVAP had to be adapted. Several items were added to the
protocol to better indicate potential NPS pollution issues from developing and developed
areas typical of New Jersey communities. The existing protocol was amended to include
information such as GPS coordinates of the site, site ownership (public or private), land
use, potential NPS sources, and BMP recommendations. These modifications afforded a
more detailed and regionally specific assessment. A copy of the modified survey form is
included in Appendix H.
c. SVAP Surveys
Next, a work plan was developed for conducting a comprehensive survey of the
riparian areas in Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed. Aerial photographs, USGS topographic
maps, soils data, and land use maps were examined to plan the best survey routes and to
identify initial areas of concern. The watershed was divided into smaller, manageable subwatersheds,
and groups of volunteers were trained and assigned to conduct surveys of each
of these sub-watersheds. The concept was to design an assessment program that uses local
knowledge of the watershed combined with professional expertise in watershed planning
and science.
Using the protocol, impaired reaches were classified as to their degree of
degradation in terms of bank erosion, bank stability, lack of vegetative buffer, health of fish
habitat, etc., as well as obvious impacts from NPS pollution. Sites were photo-documented,
and GPS coordinates were taken for each surveyed site. All the survey information for each
site was entered into a MS Access and GIS database of the watershed. The database
includes information about the following:
‣ Land use,
‣ Slopes,
‣ Vegetation,
‣ Wetlands,
‣ Stormwater discharge points,
‣ Potential pollution sources, and
‣ Known recreational areas.

17
The area of assessment included a 100-foot-wide buffer along both sides of the
waterways. Once completed, the surveys provided up-to-date information on existing conditions
and provided for a more detailed study of critical areas. Particular attention was paid to NJDEP’s
AMNET sites and identifying the causes of the impairments found at these sites.
Two training sessions were held to train volunteers in the SVAP protocol, however NJDEP
requested that no assessments be conducted or data collected before the QAPP was approved. The
length of the approval process resulted in some lost momentum on the part of the volunteer base.
The resulting QAPP required a Tier C or D assessment so extra training was provided to the
primary CU coordinator who ended up doing the data collections virtually single handedly.
While waiting for QAPP approval, several stream cleanup events were held and large
quantities of debris were collected from various areas within the watershed by various Boy Scout
Troops. Also, several “stream walk” surveys were conducted to identify issues such as improper
trash handling near the stream corridor.
2. Results
Using the approved protocol, all stream reaches in the watershed were field surveyed and
photographed. Data was collected through the SVAP forms and pictures and linked to the GIS.
Each stream reach characterized below represents approximately 2000 linear feet of stream and
each was evaluated as to adjacent land uses, environmental features, stormwater outlets, and other
unique features with significance regarding watershed impairments.
a. Parvin-Tarkiln Main Branch Reaches (M1 through M3)
The field surveys on the Main Branch occurred during two separate periods.
Reaches M1 and M2 were surveyed in April 2005. Reach M1 is characterized as a
historically channelized stream until it empties into an impounded area creating a pond.
Below the pond, the stream becomes a braided channel and is closely connected with
adjacent floodplain and wetland areas. Downstream in the M2 reach, the stream again
becomes channelized with visible entrenchment and eroding undercut banks limiting access
to the floodplain for the stream.
The survey of the M3 reach occurred in May 2004 and indicates that the
channelized stream bed has begun to meander and reconnect with adjacent floodplain and
wetlands areas. Impacts to streambed stability due to flashy stormwater flows were noted.
Throughout the reaches of the Main Branch, issues of flashy stormwater flows
eroding and destabilizing the stream bed and channel were noted and concerns regarding
water quality due to the visible iron flocculation and deposition were raised. Further details
and photographs of conditions are contained in the Parvin-Tarkiln Main Branch Reach
Report in Appendix A.
b. Tarkiln Branch Reaches (T1 through T6)
The Tarkiln stream reaches were surveyed multiple times over the course of three
years beginning in May 2003 and ending in April 2005. This stream flows westerly nearly
two miles from the community of Vineland until it joins with the Parvin Branch. In its
most upstream reaches (identified as T1 and T2) the Tarkiln Branch serves solely as a
channelized stormwater conveyance with little base flow and multiple stormwater

18
discharges and crossings within its urban setting. Once the stream flows through the
culvert crossing at West Avenue in Vineland, while still showing signs of a channelized
stormwater conveyance, becomes connected to large areas of forested floodplain wetlands.
Segments of the stream allow for connection to these adjacent flood plain wetlands while
other segments exhibit signs of entrenchment and continue to be impacted by significant
stormwater discharges.
Major concerns in the Tarkiln Branch were noted regarding the need for removing
and minimizing trash, debris and floatables as well as reconnecting the stream to floodplain
wetlands to improve water quality, flood plain storage, and groundwater recharge. Further
details and photographs of conditions are contained in the Tarkiln Branch Reach Report in
Appendix B.
c. Parvin Branch Reaches (P1 through P13) Surveys
The Parvin Branch reaches were surveyed multiple periods beginning in May 2004
and ending in November 2006. This stream flows westerly nearly three miles from the
community of Vineland until it joins with the Tarkiln Branch. In its most upstream reaches
(identified as P1 and P2) the Parvin Branch serves as a stormwater conveyance with little
base flow and multiple stormwater discharges and crossings within its urban setting.
Adjacent areas of undeveloped wooded wetlands remain along portions of the stream, but
the entrenched channel does not allow for connections to the adjacent flood plain areas.
Numerous stormwater discharges were identified along with encroaching areas of
development and large quantities of trash and debris. Little or no base flow was evident.
As the Parvin Branch transitions from its urban headwaters into reaches P3 through
P5, the channelized stream begins to meander and at points reconnects to adjacent
floodplain and wetland areas. In addition, land use near the stream begins to include
agricultural lands that sheet flow directly into floodplain areas. Woody debris
accumulation is visible within the channel and base flows in the stream become evident.
The stream then flows through 3 large box culverts beneath West Boulevard into the
next set of reaches P6 through P10. This segment of the Parvin Branch flows through
extensive forested floodplain wetlands, but is impacted by multiple stormwater discharges
from nearby industrial facilities through open ditches and a shallow pond. To the north of
the stream, extensive agricultural fields direct surface runoff into floodplain and stream.
Much of stream remains channelized and is disconnected from adjacent floodplain storage
areas.
As the stream flows into the final reaches (P11 through P13), the channel widens
and has established floodplain benches and visible evidence of frequent connections to
adjacent floodplain wetlands and storage areas were observed. The channel begins to
meander through extensive floodplain wetlands and as it nears its confluence with the
Tarkiln Branch, steady base flows provide for aquatic habitat throughout the reach.
Primary concerns for the Parvin Branch include stabilization of stormwater outlets
discharging directly to the stream, large contributions of trash and debris, and impacts of
agricultural activities in adjacent floodplain and wetlands areas. Further details and
photographs of conditions are contained in the Parvin Branch Reach Report in Appendix
C.

19
3. Stormwater Outlet Identification/Mapping
While conducting the SVAP analyses, GPS locations of stormwater outlets and a
photographic inventory were completed. The data is contained in the GIS and includes GPS
Point Files, and GPS Point Pictures. The GPS Point files contain an ArcView shapefile (NJ
State Plane projection) of the XY coordinates and physical attributes on the stream reach which
includes stormwater outlet coordinates. The GPS Point Picture files contains digital
photographs of those XY attributes (including pictures of stormwater outlets) with the .jpg file
name of the photograph referenced to the identification number of each point in the shape file.
C. Chemical Evaluation
1. Existing Data
TRC Omni and Citizens United obtained existing hydrologic and water quality data for
the watershed from a number of resources including USGS, USEPA, and NJDEP databases and
local stakeholders (e.g. Landis Sewerage Authority (LSA) and Cumberland County College).
Data was reviewed and incorporated into the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed GIS. Analysis of the
existing data included converting the data into electronic formats, completing a QA/QC review,
and actually analyzing the data to identify trends and/or areas of concern. Existing data can be
used both to determine current water quality and to establish a historical baseline against which
to compare data collected during this new study.
2. Watershed Sampling
A monitoring plan was developed to gather surface water (Parvin Branch and Tarkiln
Branch) and groundwater quality data. The monitoring plan included NJDEP-approved
sampling protocols for collecting physical and chemical data in these resources. Appropriate
protocols, sampling points, and schedules were selected for both wet weather (stormwater) and
dry weather (base flow) sampling. Chemical analyses were completed by NJDEP-certified
laboratories as well as by volunteers using field sampling kits. Local volunteer groups were
instrumental in completing the physical and chemical assessments of the stream, including
visual assessments of flow.
Surface water, groundwater and sediment sampling occurred at Parvin Branch and
Tarkiln Branch from May 2005 to April 2006. During this time, Citizens United to Protect the
Maurice River and its tributaries (CUPMRT) and TRC Omni collected eleven (11) sets of
surface water samples at the three chemical and biological stations, PB1, PB2 and TB1, one (1)
set of sediment samples from SEDS and SSN and three (3) sets of groundwater samples at
monitoring wells GWN and GWS. In addition to this sample collection, CUPMRT performed
some further in-situ measurements, including at reference sites on the Maurice River at
Sherman and Almond Aves. (MS & MA). Table 3 details the sampling schedule.

Table 3: Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Sampling Schedule
20
Date Sites In-situ Laboratory Data
Data
4/27/05 SEDN, SEDS Soil
5/26/05 PB2, PB1, TB1 Yes Surface Water (dry)
6/09/05 PB2, PB1, TB1 Yes Macroinvertebrates
6/24/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS Yes Surface Water (dry)
7/27/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS Yes Surface Water (dry)
8/23/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS Yes Surface Water (dry)
9/05/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS Yes Macroinvertebrates
9/14/05 GWN, GWS Yes Groundwater
9/23/05 PB2, MS, MA Yes None
9/28/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS Yes Surface Water (marginal dry)
9/29/05 PB2 Yes None
11/14/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS, Yes Surface Water (dry)
MA
12/05/05 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS, Yes Surface Water (dry)
MA
12/22/05 GWN, GWS Yes Groundwater
1/10/06 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS, Yes Surface Water (dry)
MA
2/16/06 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS, Yes Surface Water (dry)
MA
4/03/06 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS, Yes Surface Water (dry)
MA
4/24/06 PB2, PB1, TB1, MS, Yes Surface Water (marginal wet)
MA
5/30/06 MS, MA Yes None
Chemical and biological sampling occurred at Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
approximately once per month from May 26, 2005 to April 24, 2006. Eleven (11) sets of
samples were collected in dry and wet weather conditions. Sites PB1 and TB1 are located
upstream of the confluence of the Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Brook and were chosen to
characterize the conditions immediately upstream of the area of concern. Station PB2 is
located near the downstream end of the spatial extent immediately prior to the confluence of
Parvin Branch and the Maurice River. Appendix I contains the QAPP which includes a map
that shows the locations of the chemical and biological sampling stations. Timing and budget
constraints made it difficult to complete all of the sampling described within the sampling plan,
but every effort was made to execute as many events as possible that met the event type
constraints.
Nine (9) dry weather sample collection events were performed in accordance with the
sampling plan when precipitation was less than 0.1 inches in the 72 hours prior to the event.
One (1) sample collection event on September 28, 2005 was performed during marginal dry
weather. Table 4 presents the dry weather events and corresponding precipitation and flow
conditions. Precipitation and weather data was retrieved from the weather station at the
Millville Airport from the wunderground website:
(http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMIV/).

Table 4. Dry weather sampling events
21
Date
Cumulative 72 hour
Precipitation (inches)
Flow
Description
05/26/05 0.04 Medium
06/24/05 0.00 Medium-Low
07/27/05 0.13 Medium-Low
08/23/05 0.00 Medium-Low
9/28/05 0.38 Medium-Low
11/14/05 0.00 Medium-Low
12/05/05 0.00 Medium-Low
01/10/06 0.00 Medium-Low
02/16/06 0.00 Medium-Low
04/03/06 0.03 Medium-Low
Additionally, one marginal wet weather collection event was conducted on April 24,
2006. During the 72 hours prior to this event, there was a cumulative rainfall of 1.13 inches.
Most of this rainfall occurred on April 22, 2006, one day before samples were collected. Due
to timing and feasibility issues, it was impossible to obtain a true wet weather event in
accordance with the sampling plan.
Citizens United preformed all the in-situ measurements for stream flow, pH, temperature,
DO, specific conductance, and redox. Instrumentation used to perform in-situ measurements
was properly calibrated in conformance with manufacture’s instructions, NJDEP field sampling
procedures, and EPA -B-97-003. This included the calibration of equipment before every
sampling event and the disposal of all buffers after each calibration session. 13 sets of signed
Chain of Custody documents were executed on the sample collection dates and are on file. All
sampling containers were furnished by NJAL. (See Appendix G for In-Situ data).
Flow was measured as a visual assessment at the time of sampling for sites PB2, PB1,
and TB1, using a scale of Low, Medium, or High. A staff gage was installed at PB2 and stage
measurements were measured and recorded at this site. A USGS staff gage at the Sherman Ave
site (MS) was read and recorded at the beginning of 10 QAPP sampling events, excluding the
first sampling on April 24, 2005. There is a USGS Real Time flow gage at Almond Ave. (site
MA). The online data for this site was not researched and recorded as part of the QAPP, but it
is archived and available to the public by date online from the USGS at
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nj/nwis/uv?01411500. The flow data collected by Citizens United is
shown in Table 5.
pH and temperature were measured using an automatic temperature compensating,
double junction, Oakton pH Testr 30 with a range of -1.00 to 15.00 pH, a resolution of 0.01 pH,
and a relative accuracy of 0.01 pH. Calibration point buffers used for each sampling event
were 4.01 pH and 7.0 pH. All buffers were used once for calibration and then disposed. For
additional reference a LaMotte 1766 pH Tracer was calibrated and used in the field
simultaneously with the Testr 30, and these measurements were recorded in the field log but
not submitted as project data. pH data is summarized in Table 6.

22
Table 5. In-Situ Flow Data
Date PB2 PB1 TB1 MS
Flow Stage Inches Flow Flow Stage Inches
5/26/05 M 9 M M NR
6/09/05 M NR M M NR
6/24/05 M-L 6.5 M-L L 4.48
7/27/05 M 5.5 L M-L 5.56
8/23/05 M 5.0 L L- 5.30
9/05/05 M 5.5 L- L- 5.20
9/23/05 M 4.75 NR NR NR
9/28/05 M 4.75 L- No Flow 5.15
9/29/05 M NR NR NR NR
11/14/05 M 6.75 M L 5.60
12/05/05 M 10.5 M L+ 6.38
1/10/06 M 9.5 M-L L 6.30
2/16/06 M 10.5 M L 6.32
4/03/05 M 5.5 M L-M 5.74
4/24/06 M-H 12.25 M-H L-M 6.36
5/30/06 NR NR NR NR 5.56
Table 6. In-Situ pH
Date PB2 -pH PB1-pH TB1-pH MS-pH MA-pH
5/26/05 6.90 6.00 6.00
6/09/05 6.10 6.40 6.40
6/24/05 6.70 6.80 6.40 6.70
7/27/05 6.30 6.00 6.00 6.00
8/23/05 6.60 6.30 6.10 6.48
9/05/05 6.80 6.30 6.30 6.58
9/23/05 6.70 6.69 6.64
9/28/05 6.53 6.00 dry 6.73
9/29/05 6.50
11/14/05 6.99 6.36 6.09 6.60 6.54
12/05/05 6.85 6.34 6.11 6.39 6.28
1/10/06 6.77 6.22 5.98 6.54 6.18
2/16/06 6.87 6.19 5.98 6.77 6.45
4/03/05 6.86 6.18 5.83 6.90 6.52
4/24/06 6.77 6.48 6.41 6.77 6.31
5/30/06 6.66 6.54

23
For dissolved oxygen, Winkler Tritration was set as the reference standard for the
project by July of 2005. CU used a LaMotte Model EDO Code 7414 Winkler Titration kit in
the field to measure DO. All manufactures instructions were closely followed and the Sodium
Thiosulfate solution was standardized daily prior to each sampling event. The Dissolved
Oxygen sampling results are presented in Table 7.
Date
Table 7. In-Situ Dissolved Oxygen
PB2 –DO PB1-DO TB1-DO
(ppm) (ppm)
(ppm)
MA-DO
(ppm)
5/26/05 13.50 (mg/L) 6.30 (mg/L) 6.10 (mg/L)
6/09/05 7.27 (mg/L) 8.10 (mg/L) 7.80 (mg/L)
6/24/05 7.58 (mg/L) 6.80 (mg/L) 8.32 (mg/L)
7/27/05 5.0 6.6 5.6
8/23/05 5.5 6.8 4.4
9/05/05 6.2 5.6 4.8
9/28/05 5.0 5.6 dry
11/14/05 6.0 4.8 1.6 8.0
12/05/05 7.2 6.8 6.4 10.2
1/10/06 6.8 6.8 8.1 9.2
2/16/06 7.4 8.6 9.4 10.5
4/03/05 6.8 8.2 8.2 9.0
4/24/06 6.6 6.1 6.0 6.1
Conductivity, or Specific Conductance (SC), was added to the In-Situ parameters by
Citizens United to identify the potential presence of chloride, phosphate, and nitrate, in
accordance with EPA 841-B-97-003, section 5.9. A temperature compensating LaMotte
EC/TDS/SAL Tracer Code 1749 was used to measure conductivity. The conductivity range
from 0 to 199.9 microseimens per centimeter (µ/cm) was used, and a standard buffer of 84
microseimans per centimeter was used to calibrate the instrument prior to each sampling event.
All buffers were used once and thrown out. For additional conductivity reference, a La Motte
Code 1766 meter was used simultaneously during each sampling event with the 1749 meter,
and these measurements were recorded in the filed notes but not in the final data. In-Situ
conductivity data is recorded in Table 8.
Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP) was also added to the In-Situ parameters as a
potential means to measure and compare redox gradients across the sampling sites. A double
junction Oakton ORPTestr 10, 10BNC was used to test ORP at each site during each sampling
event. The range was -999 mV to +1000 mV with a resolution of 1 mV and an accuracy of
plus or minus 2 mV, and the manufacturer recommended that calibration of this instrument was
not necessary. ORP results are presented in Table 9.

24
Table 8. In-Situ Specific Conductance (µ/cm)
Date PB2 -SC PB1-SC TB1-SC MS-SC MA-SC
6/09/05 449.00 229.00 143.00
8/23/05 600.00 221.00 78.60 149.30
9/05/05 628.00 181.00 84.40 173.50
9/23/05 608.00 155.10 95.10
9/28/05 602.00 136.00 Dry 147.00
9/29/05 615.00 157.50 110.40
11/14/05 558.00 219.00 86.70 137.80 96.10
12/05/05 459.00 168.80 72.90 139.00 100.80
1/10/06 518.00 192.60 97.40 148.10 111.80
2/16/06 504.00 212.00 130.10 133.40 105.00
4/03/05 507.00 203.00 78.70 111.60 88.10
4/24/06 237.00 96.00 130.00 149.20 97.00
Table 9. In-Situ Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP)
Date PB2 -ORP PB1-ORP TB1-ORP MS-ORP MA-ORP
9/05/05 20.00 138.00 81.00 58.00
9/23/05 -9.00 75.00 140.00
9/28/05 -16.00 116.00 Dry 64.00
9/29/05 -3.00
11/14/05 -7.00 102.00 94.00 76.00 111.00
12/05/05 9.00 106.00 122.00 144.00 153.00
1/10/06 5.00 103.00 123.00 76.00 145.00
2/16/06 11.00 132.00 144.00 67.00 153.00
4/03/05 25.00 151.00 173.00 89.00 160.00
4/24/06 33.00 125.00 130.00 88.00 153.00
5/30/06 85.00 130.00
Stream bank soil material was collected from overburden material obtained during the
initial hand digging of the groundwater wells on April 27, 2005. Soil samples were collected at
sites SEDS and SEDN. Appendix I contains a map of the location of the soil sampling
stations. Soil analysis stations were chosen to characterize potential impacts from these sources
from the watershed drainage areas north and south of the area of concern.
Samples of groundwater were obtained from the hand dug wells GWN and GWS on
May 17, 2005, September 14, 2005 and December 22, 2005. Appendix I contains a map of the
locations of these wells. Groundwater analysis stations were chosen to characterize potential
impacts from these sources from the watershed drainage areas north and south of the area of
concern.
Detailed protocols for surface and groundwater sampling are available in the Quality
Assurance Sampling Plan for Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Brook Water Quality Assessment
prepared by Citizens United (March 2005) found in Appendix I.

3. Results
a. Existing Data
25
WMA 17 Characterization & Assessment summary (Appendix L)
b. Watershed Sampling
Water quality was measured at PB1, PB2, and TB1 on 14 dates between May 2005
and April 2006. Water samples were analyzed for a number of standard water quality
parameters including nitrogen (nitrate and ammonia), phosphorus (total and dissolved),
dissolved oxygen, solids (total dissolved and total suspended), iron, pH, conductivity, and
temperature. Results are in Appendix D and in the dry weather concentration figures found
in Appendix E. Water quality was also measured in GWN and GWS on three dates in
2005. Samples were analyzed for standard water quality parameters and priority pollutants.
Results are in Appendix D.
Sediment samples from SEDN and SEDS were analyzed once for priority
pollutants and nutrients. Based on the results of the groundwater sampling, no significant
contaminants were noted in the initial priority pollutant or metals scans. In accordance with
the QAPP, no further samples were analyzed. Results are in Appendix D.
Based on the water quality data, it is clear that PB1 and TB2 are stormwater
dominated and the water quality reflects the urban nature of the watershed. PB1
consistently has nitrate levels in the 8-10 mg/l range, especially during the warmer months.
The source of this nitrate is possibly the agricultural fields along the stream just above this
part of the watershed. The Tarkiln Branch in particular demonstrated very flashy hydrology
and in fact dried up during drought periods. The first flush after a drought demonstrated
high fecal coliform readings, probably reflecting the fact that many people were walking
their dogs in the dry stream bed as well as normal wildlife use.
At PB2, the stream is a groundwater dominated stream. The high iron content (~7
mg/l) indicates a strong influence from reduced groundwater passing through high iron
soils. The effect of the Landis infiltration beds is clearly evident. The groundwater on the
north side of the stream is much higher in ammonia, TDS, and TKN than the groundwater
on the south side and this is reflected in the surface water concentrations. This ammonia
probably results from biodegradation of BOD from the discharge as well as biodegradation
of some of the organic peat soils through which the groundwater passes. While the stream
generally meets the water quality criteria for DO and TSS, it generally exceeds the criterion
for total P. The source of this P is likely the groundwater, which has roughly the same
levels. This phosphorous is likely not very bioavailable because of the high iron content
and is probably bound in large part to the iron oxides in suspension.
Specific Conductance at PB2 indicated a significant difference between this site and
all other sites. The average conductivity at PB2 was 524 µ/cm, with a high of 628 µ/cm
and a low of 237 µ/cm. PB1 was the next highest site, with an average of 186 µ/cm, and a
high of 229 µ/cm and a low of 96 µ/cm. The upstream unimpaired ecoregion reference site
at Almond Ave. and the Maurice River had an average of 101 µ/cm, with a high of 111.8
µ/cm and a low of 88.10 µ/cm.

26
According to EPA 841-B-97-003, section 5.9, there are known connections between
sewerage treatment plants and higher than natural conductivity from discharges of chloride,
phosphate, and nitrate. The facts that site PB2 has treated sewerage infiltration beds
discharging upstream to the water table in close proximity, the significant presence of
ammonia, TDS, and TDK, and the significantly high specific conductance, all seem to
indicate that there are direct hydrologic connections between the surface waters of Parvins
Branch and the continually recharging groundwaters from the Landis Sewerage Authority
treatment plant.
Another factor that has the potential to increase the degree of connectivity between
ground water and surface water adjacent to the sewerage treatment plant is that the stream
segments closest to the plant (T6, M1, and M2) are being continually down cut from
powerful stormwater discharges from the urban impervious surfaces upstream. As the
stream bottom is scoured away and lowered deeper into the water table, more surface area
of the bed and the banks of the stream becomes accessible to receiving groundwater base
flows.
The stream segments T6, M1, M2, and M3 above and below PB2 were found to
have a preponderance of orange turbid water with frequent occurrences of bright orange
groundwater seeps from the stream bed and banks, and globular accumulations of orange
matter that dispersed into turbid plumes in the water column when disturbed (see the SVAP
report for the Main Branch Reaches, Appendix A). Work done by USGS in the Pocomoke
River in Maryland http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-346/ indicates that this turbidity could
result primarily from iron oxyhydroxide floc due to precipitation of ferric compounds as
ferrous-rich ground water emerges as stream base flow.
This internal generated turbidity has nothing to do with runoff and sediment
transport from upland areas, and is described as an “authigenic precipitate”. While these
iron precipitates can play a role in the behavior and cycling of P in the system, they can also
impact biota in the system, such as aquatic plants and pollution sensitive aquatic insects.
The iron precipitating in the river causes turbidity, which reduces light penetration to rooted
aquatic vegetation, and may impact other organisms like filter feeding macroinvertebates by
coating gills and interfering with oxygen transfer and food intake.
D. Biological Analysis
1. Methods
a. AMNET Data
NJDEP maintains over 800 AMNET monitoring stations throughout New Jersey.
There are two AMNET sampling sites in the vicinity of the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed
(Figure 3). Station AN0750 (Parvin Branch, Rt. 55, City of Vineland, Cumberland County,
Millville Quad) is located within the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed. Station AN0751
(Maurice River, Sherman Ave., City of Vineland, Cumberland County, Millville Quad) is
located just downstream of the confluence of the Maurice River and Parvin Branch. This
station is just outside the boundary of the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed, but is used to assess
the impacts of Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch waters on the water quality of the
Maurice River. Water quality data from the AMNET stations was obtained and included in
the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed GIS.

27
AN0750
AN0751
Figure 4. NJDEP 1998 AMNET Sites AN0750 and AN0751.
a. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Three sample sites were established: two on Parvin Branch (PB1 and PB2) and one
on Tarkiln Branch (TB1). These sites were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates on June
9, 2005 and September 5, 2005 and were also used for surface water monitoring. Benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling was completed on June 9, 2005 by Citizens United to Protect
the Maurice River and its Tributaries (CUPMRT) and TRC Omni Environmental Corp.
(TRC Omni). During this sampling event, Dr. Amy Soli of TRC Omni provided training in
benthic macroinvertebrate collection techniques. CUMPRT completed the benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling on September 5, 2005.

28
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using a 500 µm mesh kick-net.
Invertebrates were collected by kicking a 1 m 2 area upstream of the kick-net in order to
dislodge the invertebrates. Three 1 m 2 areas representing a variety of habitats were
sampled at each stream site; the invertebrates and substrate collected were combined into
one composite sample. Large pieces of substrate collected in the net were inspected for
invertebrates (and discarded), as was the kick-net. Captured invertebrates were placed in
bottles containing 80% ethanol and labels with site identification information. Vegetation
(e.g. leafpacks) and substrate collected in the kick-net were also placed in the bottles for
later inspection to remove organisms. A supplemental qualitative sample of coarse
particulate organic matter (CPOM) was also collected at each site during each sampling
episode and preserved separately in 80% ethanol.
The preserved benthic samples were later sorted in the laboratory. All Benthic
macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level, usually to
family. Benthic macroinvertebrate sorting and identification was conducted by CUPMRT.
Dr. Amy Soli of TRC Omni provided a quality assurance check for the identification of
benthic macroinvertebrate samples. Dr. Soli evaluated a minimum of 10% of the samples to
verify proper identification of benthic macroinvertebrates. A list of taxa collected, and the
number of individuals of each taxa, is located in Appendix H. Benthic macroinvertebrate
data were analyzed using benthic metrics discussed in the US EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols manual (Barbour et al., 1999) and the NJDEP’s Bureau of Freshwater and
Biological Monitoring’s (BFBM) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP).
Habitat assessment and the measurement of physicochemical parameters were
conducted concurrently with macroinvertebrate sampling. Surface water sampling for the
measurement of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and conductivity was conducted
on a representative cross-section of the stream. At least four (4) subsurface grab samples
were collected across an established transect. These grab samples were composited into one
container from which physiochemical parameters were measured. Habitat assessment data
included weather conditions, water quality, sediment composition, and in-stream habitats.
These variables were assessed prior to the commencement of sampling efforts.
2. Results
a. AMNET Data
AMNET stations AN0750 and AN0751 were both designated as “moderately
impaired” in the 1995-1996 and 2000-2001 surveys. NJDEP noted that station AN0750
had a paucity of clean water organisms and a malodorous iron precipitate. Station AN0751
was described as having a paucity of clean water organisms and “much trash.” The health
of the biological community is used by NJDEP as a primary indicator of water quality
impairment and is integral when NJDEP staff consider funding restoration projects
throughout the State. Of note, in the latest biomonitoring assessment (1998), all stations
along the Maurice River main stem and headwaters tributaries upstream of the Parvin
Branch confluence are listed as unimpaired. Clearly the Parvin & Tarkiln Watershed is
contributing to the impairment of the Maurice River, which begins at its confluence with
Parvin Branch.

. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
29
Various benthic metrics based on diversity and pollution tolerance were calculated
following the guidelines of Barbour et al. (1999) and the NJDEP’s BFBM RPB(2006,
2004) (Appendix H). Richness indices included taxa richness; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera (EPT) richness; %EPT; and % contribution dominant family (%CDF).
EPT richness is the total number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa in
each sample; %EPT is percentage of the total number of organisms in each sample
belonging to the EPT orders. The %CDF is the percentage of the total number of
organisms in each sample in the numerically dominant family. Taxa were also classified as
being tolerant, semi-tolerant, or intolerant to pollution based on Family Tolerance Values
(FTV) provided by the NJDEP BFBM. Using the FTV’s, the Modified Family Biotic Index
(FBI) was calculated. The NJDEP bases their FBI on that developed by Hilsenhoff (1988).
The bioassessment indices (taxa richness, EPT, %EPT, %CDF, and FBI) were calculated
for each site for each sampling date.
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling yielded between 2 and 12 taxa and 6 and 123
individuals per site. With the exception of PB1 on 9/5/2005 and TB1 on 9/5/2005, the
predominant taxon in each sample was Chironomidae (midge flies), a pollution tolerant
organism. Physidae was the dominant taxon in the TB1 sample on 9/5/2005. Bivalvia
(Pelecypoda) was the dominant taxon in the PB1 sample on 9/5/2005. Both Physidae and
Bivalvia are pollution tolerant organisms. None of the samples contained members of the
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
(the EPT taxa) are traditionally considered to be sensitive taxa and their presence implies
minimal water quality impairment. While their absence cannot be used to prove poor water
quality (since habitat, water temperature, and other physiochemical parameters may instead
contribute to their absence), it does provide additional evidence of impaired water quality.
Few semi-tolerant taxa were also found and included Dytiscids, Calopterygidae,
Coenagrionidae, Aeshnidae, and Tipulidae.
Appendix F shows the benthic bioassessment metric values. The benthic data was
analyzed for five bioassessment indices: taxa richness, taxa richness, EPT richness, % CDF,
% EPT, and the Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI). These indices are used by the
NJDEP BFBM and are used to calculate the New Jersey Impairment Score (NJIS). Taxa
richness and EPT richness are measurements commonly used as indicators of water quality
because decreases in these parameters indicate decreasing water quality. Percent
dominance is of interest because a shift towards dominance by relatively few taxa indicates
environmental stress. Percent EPT is measured because increases in this metric denote
improved water quality. (Kurtz et al. 2000) Finally, the HFBI (a.k.a. the modified family
biotic index) is used as an indicator of organic pollution, with lower HFBI values indicating
a lower likelihood of organic pollution (Hilsenhoff 1988).
As was mentioned, these five metrics are used by the NJDEP to classify streams as
being non-impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired (NJDEP 2004). The NJIS
for sample PB1 on 6/9/2005 and the PB1 sample on 9/5/2005 was 6 and 15, respectively.
Thus, the NJIS indicated that PB1 was severely impaired on 6/9/2005 and moderately
impaired on 9/5/2005. The NJIS for samples PB2 on 6/9/2005 and 9/5/2005 was 3,
indicating severely impaired conditions on both sampling dates. Finally, the NJIS for the
TB1 sample on 6/9/2005 was 9 and 6 from the 9/5/2005 sample. Thus, the NJIS indicated
that TB1 was moderately impaired on 6/9/2005 and severely impaired on 9/5/2005.

30
The benthic macroinvertebrate data indicated impaired water quality at all stations
on all sample dates. First, there were no sensitive taxa identified from any of the samples,
especially the EPT taxa. In addition, taxa richness was relatively low; higher NJIS are
associated with taxa richness greater than 10. The %CDF also indicated impaired
conditions; %CDF of less than 40 is associated with non-impaired (or relatively
unimpaired) waters. The %CDF was less than 40 in only one sample- PB1 on 9/5/2005
(one date with the moderately impaired classification). Finally, the FBI was always
between 5.67 and 6.77. According to the NJIS, these values indicate moderately impaired
water quality. Hilsenhoff (1988) designates streams with HFBI values of between 5.76 and
6.50 to be of fairly poor water quality, indicating that substantial organic pollution is likely.
Table 10 lists the species identified and counted by Citizens United.
Table 10. Parvin Branch Macroinvertebrate Count for all Sites
SITE > PB2 PB2 PB1 PB1 TB1 TB1
DATE > 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005
Sample % sorted > 100% 100% 67% 100% 50% 100%
Taxon Description Total Total Total Total Total Total
Simulidae black flies 8 4
Chironomidae midges 19 5 75 13 67 8
Coleoptra beetles 1 11 2
dragon &
Odonata damselflies 1 14 2
Crustacea amphipoda-scuds 3 1
Gastropoda snails 13 8 16 51
Pelecypoda clams 4 22 1
Worms worms-oligachatta 4 7 8 17
Eggs yes yes
Cases
yes
Crayfish 2
Cranefly 2
Salamanders yes yes yes

IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Stormwater Management
1. Conduct an Evaluation of Stormwater Phase II Compliance
31
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
implemented the USEPA’s Phase II rules into the New Jersey Storm Water Permitting
Rules effective February 1, 2004. The municipal storm water regulation program
(NJAC 7:14A) prescribes eight basic requirements that, when implemented together, are
intended to result in significant reductions in the pollutants being discharged to
receiving waters from municipal storm sewer systems. The regulations provide that
these eight elements are the “minimum control measures” for compliance with the
municipal program. The eight Statewide Basic Requirements (7:14A-25.6(b)) are:
• Public involvement/participation;
• Construction site stormwater runoff control;
• Post-construction stormwater management in new development and
redevelopment;
• Public education on stormwater impacts;
• Prohibiting improper disposal of waste;
• Control of solid and floatable materials;
• Maintenance yards and highway service area program; and
• Employee training
Municipalities have some flexibility in determining what BMPs and measurable
goals for each minimum control measure are most appropriate for its particular
community. The municipality has the option to select BMPs from the menu of BMPs
provided by NJDEP or to develop system specific BMPs. When the BMPs and
measurable goals are submitted in the municipal permit application, those elements
become the required storm water management program (SWMP) for the municipality.
Additionally, municipalities are encouraged to develop BMPs that will allow the
municipality to gauge and measure goals for permit compliance and program
effectiveness. The goals will vary from municipality to municipality based on
particular storm water problems of the municipality and the measures chosen to combat
them.
To comply with the new regulations, municipalities must include in the permit
submittal the chosen Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for each
of the eight elements. Municipalities need to evaluate the effectiveness of their SWMP
to meet the overarching goals of the stormwater regulation program, which are:
• Reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable;
• Protect water quality; and
• Satisfy the appropriate requirements of the Clean Water Act.

32
Municipalities will be required to assess their progress in achieving their
program’s measurable goals. The most efficient, cost-effective approach to obtaining
compliance with the stormwater rules involves dividing the effort into two phases. The
first phase involves an initial Baseline Assessment of the municipality’s infrastructure
and current programs and resources to evaluate what elements will be most necessary to
comply with the regulations and satisfy the eight required elements. The second phase
is to prepare a municipal stormwater management plan as required by NJAC 7:14A and
defined in NJAC 7:8. The plans that have been prepared and submitted by the
communities within this study area need to be reviewed and if necessary, additional
emphasis needs to be placed on implementing BMPs and enforcing actions that address
fecal coliform and other contamination in stormwater runoff.
2. Enact a Stormwater Runoff Pollution Ordinance for New
Development
As previously stated, conventional storm water management has utilized dry
detention basins to address storm water quantity issues. Unfortunately, this type of
BMP application does not address storm water quality. We recommend that watershed
partners promote enactment of municipal ordinances throughout the watershed that will
require more attention to BMPs that will address storm water quality issues.
Specifically, the ordinance should require that applicants for new developments prove
that there will be “no net increase” in storm water pollutant loads for key parameters.
This approach has recently been adopted by NJDEP and other municipalities.
On January 11, 2000, Governor Whitman issued Executive Order 109 (EO109),
which requires that an environmental review be completed by NJDEP for each
Wastewater Management Plan (WMP), or WMP amendment that is requested. It
directs NJDEP to require that a nonpoint source (NPS) pollutant loading analysis be
completed for proposed development. The NPS analysis must determine the pre- and
post-development storm water pollutant loading rates from the project area, and identify
best management practices (BMPs) that reduce the post-development pollutant load to
the pre-development pollutant load. The typical parameters required for study by
NJDEP include total suspended solids, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total
petroleum hydrocarbons.
In June 2001, Montgomery Township enacted a NPS ordinance that contains
provisions similar to those enacted through EO109; however, this ordinance applies to
all development, not just development that triggers a WMP amendment. The ordinance
requires that a study be submitted that demonstrates that the post-development nonpoint
source pollutant loads be equal to or less than existing NPS pollutant loads. An even
more comprehensive ordinance is in place in Harding Township in Morris County and
Readington Township, Hunterdon County.

3. Implement Stormwater BMPs
33
New best management practices (BMPs) are being proposed and implemented
throughout the state and opportunities to improve existing stormwater management
practices in the study area should be addressed. An effective system not only safely and
economically conveys excess runoff but also maximizes opportunities for attenuating,
infiltrating, and filtering surface runoff close to where it is generated. This reduces both
total runoff volume and flow velocities, and results in less erosion and lower
concentrations of nonpoint source pollution in waterways.
Development and redevelopment in the study area should require improvement
of existing infrastructure to not only adequately convey stormwater but also filter
stormwater pollutants. Traditional controls such as catch basins, piped discharge, and
detention basins are not enough to prevent degradation to local streams and waterways.
BMP techniques need to be included in the municipal stormwater plans and applied to
retrofit existing systems. What is needed is a more creative use of available space and
resources focusing on disconnecting impervious areas from drainage systems and
filtering runoff from smaller storm events and the first flush of stormwater runoff using
best management practices. Specific BMP designs are proposed in the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (NJDEP; April 2004). Stormwater
BMP examples include:
• Filter strips to filter runoff from roof tops and paved areas
• Infiltration measures, including infiltration trenches, vegetated swales and
bioretention areas
• Upgrading existing detention areas to provide greater hydrologic and water
quality benefits as well as flood prevention
• Installing approved pre-manufactured storm water treatment devices (approved
by New Jersey Center for Advanced Technologies (NJCAT))
4. Develop Training Sessions for Municipalities
Municipal employees, in particular, the Public Works Department set the
standard for others in the community and work daily to improve the quality of life for
residents. Programs are required as part of the new stormwater regulations to educate
those involved daily in handling nonpoint source pollutants and improving stormwater
management. Based on this study, the following areas of emphasis are recommended
for the communities in the area of concern:
• Goose Management,
• Pet Waste Management,
• Street Sweeping,
• In-stream Debris Removal,
• Stormwater Infrastructure Evaluation and Maintenance,
• Upkeep of Maintenance Facilities, and
• De-Icing Materials: Storage & Distribution.
This training program needs to include measures and strategies for enforcing
municipal requirements and documenting progress throughout the community.

B. Riparian Area Management
34
1. Control Debris in Floodplains
Streams are a reflection of what goes into them and what exists on the land
within the drainage area. During the course of the stream visual assessment, floodplains
were noted to often have debris, such as yard waste (sometimes in large amounts, for
instance from a landscaper) and other manmade debris from passing traffic. Debris,
natural or manmade, smothers existing plant life, causing erosion and leading to the
proliferation of exotic, invasive vegetation; furthermore, it has the possibility of
leaching nutrients to the stream. This practice is illegal and more people need to be
aware of the consequences of disposing of debris along the waterway. “No Littering”
signs can help deter dumping, as can fines and penalties. Also, community cleanups
and “Adopt a Stream” programs enhance stewardship in the watershed and can unite a
community in further protecting their local waterways. Finally, debris such as old tires
can play a role in increasing mosquito habitat in the watershed. Dumping penalties can
help eliminate this problem.
In addition, storm water runoff discharging directly into waterways presents a
debris and water quality concern. Often, opportunities exist along waterways in parks
and open space areas to retrofit stormwater discharge pipes that empty directly into a
receiving waterbody by installing pre-manufactured treatment devices or daylighting
pipes and discharging stormwater into vegetated swales or constructed wetlands to trap
floatables, promote settling and nutrient uptake prior to flowing into a lake or pond.
Either in-line systems or off-line systems can direct first flush flows into treatment areas
to remove debris, sediment and other pollutants prior to flowing into receiving waters.
While these retrofit solutions can become expensive, for large drainage areas, they can
provide a cost-effective solution to treating stormwater runoff, protecting waterways
from nonpoint source pollution and reducing future costs for maintenance and dredging.
2. Manage Invasive Plants
Invasive exotic plant species present a threat to the health and integrity of
riparian areas. Plant species such as oriental bittersweet, Japanese honeysuckle,
Japanese knotweed, Norway maple, multiflora rose and purple loosestrife often become
established in disturbed edges and then spread into riparian zones replacing the diverse
native plant community and degrading the area’s habitat value.
If invasive vegetation has become established, removal of the invasive
vegetation by weeding or herbicide application must be done. Several invasive plant
species can become established in riparian systems. Invasive species need to be
removed and return growth closely monitored. Those species that should be removed as
soon as they appear include: purple loosestrife, phragmites, Japanese knotweed,
multiflora rose, tree-of-heaven, Norway maple, and honeysuckle. Organizing volunteer
efforts to undertake invasive vegetation removal can be done, but will require an annual
or semi-annual commitment for several years to follow up and continue to manage the
site. If sufficient volunteer effort cannot be employed, herbicide applications can be
used. The herbicide must be applied by a licensed applicator per the manufacturer’s
specifications and local rules and regulations. The USFWS can provide technical
assistance to communities or organizations working to control invasive exotics along
waterways.

3. Enhance Natural Habitats
35
Lakes and ponds serve an important functional value and are an attractive
feature in our communities. However, water quality in many lakes and ponds is
vulnerable to high levels of nutrients, fecal coliform and biochemical oxygen demand.
Furthermore, many lakes and ponds are plagued by geese that contribute a significant
nutrient and fecal coliform load to the system. Shorelines are also eroding. Sediment
resulting from shoreline erosion is being deposited in the waterbody, along with
sediment that is carried downstream by feeder tributaries. If sedimentation and nutrient
enrichment continue to occur, waterbodies will reach a eutrophic state, thereby
impacting wildlife habitat, severely degrading downstream water quality, and
destroying recreational opportunities. Establishing a narrow buffer of dense, native
vegetation at the water’s edge that is between 2 and 3 foot in height, deters unwanted
geese, provides filtering of overland stormwater runoff, and helps to stabilize soils
along shorelines.
4. Enact Stream Corridor/Greenway Management
Streams and rivers create a natural greenway network throughout the watershed.
A management ordinance would assist in maintaining the health of these buffers and
setting forth recommended maintenance practices for controlling invasive plant species,
planting additional native species, stabilizing degraded areas and defining proper
techniques for care. This ordinance would enable some control of land-use practices in
riparian areas, even in privately owned areas. Sample ordinances are available from the
Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC).
5. Manage Construction Sites
In following through with minimum disturbance, there is much that can be done
before, during, and after construction to limit its impact. For one, a Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance are recommended to provide more subsistence to what is
already laid out in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act, Chapter 251 of New
Jersey Public Laws. The less soils that have to be moved, the bigger benefit for the
land; soils native to an area, unless polluted, should be expected to stay on-site,
especially the top 12 inches of soil, usually rich in humus.
Also, preserving natural vegetation on a construction site, as much as possible,
is important for reasons of soil stabilization, habitat protection, and runoff treatment.
Other benefits include enhanced aesthetic, an already established area of vegetation,
less maintenance needed, reduction in water table via transpiration, and a buffer
screening noise and visual disturbance. Other considerations during the construction
phase are suggested in the following:
• To maintain the health of trees that will be left on site, boards and other objects
should not be nailed to the trunk;
• Tree marking should be done before the start of construction and should be
shown on the engineer’s drawings;
• Tree roots within the drip zone should not be cut;
• Barriers should be utilized to prevent equipment entering the natural, preserved
areas;

36
cut.
A tree ordinance can also be used to keep track of what should and should not be
6. Protect Watershed Easements along Surface Waters
Many opportunities exist for both farmers and landowners to “sell” an easement
along waterways that exist as their private land without actually selling. Government
programs can lease the land under a contractual agreement that the homeowner will
keep the easement wild and natural. In addition, some local nonprofit land trust
organizations can work with property owners to develop a conservation easement to
protect all or portions of a property from future land use changes.
7. Acquire and Protect Floodplain Property
Several funding programs have and continue to provide funds to acquire
properties prone to flooding. These programs focus on purchasing properties that are
routinely damaged by floods and present a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of
the public. FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers are active in this endeavor and
opportunities to reclaim flood plain areas should be pursued whenever possible. The
Blue Acres Bond Act of 1995 contained money for grants and loans for municipalities
and counties to purchase lands along waterways that have been damaged by floods,
prone to damage by floods, or protect other lands from flood damage. This program
also serves to enhance recreation opportunities and promote conservation.
Public parks and open space areas are excellent sites for demonstrating new
materials, techniques and best management practices. Examples of BMPs and methods
for “minimum disturbance” are outlined in the NJDEP’s New Jersey Stormwater Best
Management Practice Manual. Minimum disturbance as referred to by the NJDEP
relates to fitting development into the terrain. For example, permeable paving
techniques can be used to minimize site runoff and can be used for streets, parking
areas, and sidewalks, while retaining natural filtration capacity. Porous pavement is
most recommended for use as parking areas for office buildings, recreation facilities,
and shopping centers. Other uses can be for emergency stopping areas along roadways,
traffic islands, and road shoulders. Grid pavers are another type of permeable pavement
recommended by the NJDEP. These include interlocking concrete blocks, brick, turf
block, and stone, which allow water to infiltrate into the subsurface and are aesthetically
pleasing. Mulched trails add a natural aspect to developments rather than concrete
sidewalks, and further infiltration. Other types of infiltration best management
practices for development can be found in the New Jersey Stormwater Management
Practice Manual and include disconnecting impervious coverages, curb cuts and
diversion devices, and decreased road widths.

37
C. Measurable Milestones
This list of recommendations provides a guide for potential projects to be
implemented to improve surface water quality and improve the overall health of the Parvin
and Tarkiln Branch Watershed. Key in successfully implementing these projects in the
watershed will be working closely with NJDEP and the City of Vineland to develop a goal
oriented schedule and time table. This plan is intended to be a guide for the CUPMRT and
its partners as they work to achieve water quality improvements in the streams. The study
and recommendations should be viewed as a working document and periodically updated as
new issues arise, new data is collected, and when projects have been successfully
completed.
Figure 5. The 22 SVAP Stream Segments for Parvin and Tarkiln Branches

38
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX A
Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) data
Parvin-Tarkiln Main Branch Reaches M1 thru M3
The Parvin-Tarkiln SVAP data was collected and
filed digitally by “reach”. The Parvin-Tarkiln
Main Branch stream reaches M-1 thru M-3 total
6,001 linear feet, for an average length of 2,000
feet per reach. (Flow is from the right to the left).
The field surveys on the Main Branch occurred during two separate periods. Reaches M1 and M2
were surveyed in April 2005. Reach M1 is characterized as a historically channelized stream until it
empties into an impounded area creating a pond. Below the pond, the stream becomes a braided
channel and is closely connected with adjacent floodplain and wetland areas. Downstream in the M2
reach, the stream again becomes channelized with visible entrenchment and eroding undercut banks
limiting access to the floodplain for the stream.

The survey of the M3 reach occurred in May 2004 and indicates that the channelized stream bed
has begun to meander and reconnect with adjacent floodplain and wetlands areas. Impacts to
streambed stability due to flashy stormwater flows were noted.
39
Throughout the reaches of the Main Branch, issues of flashy stormwater flows eroding and
destabilizing the stream bed and channel were noted and concerns regarding water quality due to the
visible iron flocculation and deposition were raised. Further details and photographs of conditions are
contained in the Portable Document File (.pdf) version of Appendix A. (51 pages, 58 MB)
This data combines multiple data formats that includes gathering on the ground global positioning
system (GPS) coordinates and digital photography, and desk top Geographic Information System
(GIS) map analysis and interpretation of all available GIS mapping information for the Parvins Branch
project. ESRI’s ArcView 9.1 GIS software was used to analyze and publish “real time” data collected
from the field and existing landuse and landscape GIS data provided by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
In addition to the data provided here in Appendix A, Parvin-Tarkiln Main Branch Reaches M-1
thru M-3, additional source data can be found in Appendix J, Parvin-Tarkiln Branches GIS, in the
following folders:
Reach GPS – This file contains two files, GPS Points, and GPS Points Pictures. The GPS Points
file contains an ArcView shapefile (NJ State Plane projection) of the XY coordinates of physical
attributes on the reach. The GPS Points Picture file contains digital photographs of those XY attributes
with the .jpg file name of the photograph referenced to the identification number of each point in the
shape file.
Maps – This file contains the .jpg maps used in the .pdf file with the SVAP data.
Pictures – This file contains the universe of .jpg digital photographs (and film photo scans) that the
SVAP data pictures were selected from.
Table of Contents for Appendix A, Parvin-Tarkiln Main Branch Reaches M-1 thru M-3
Reach M-1 Page 3 Reach M-3 Page 33
Reach M-2 Page 16
Note: Please find this document on the data DVD. (51 pages, 58MB)

40
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) data
Tarkiln Branch Reaches T1 thru T6
The Parvin-Tarkiln SVAP data was collected and filed
digitally by “reach”. The Tarkiln Branch stream reaches
T-1 thru T-6 total 12,350 linear feet, for an average length
of 2,058 feet per reach. (Flow is from the right to the left).
The Tarkiln stream reaches were surveyed multiple times over the course of three years beginning
in May 2003 and ending in April 2005. This stream flows westerly nearly two miles from the
community of Vineland until it joins with the Parvin Branch. In its most upstream reaches (identified
as T1 and T2) the Tarkiln Branch serves solely as a channelized stormwater conveyance with little
base flow and multiple stormwater discharges and crossings within its urban setting.
Once the stream flows through the culvert crossing at West Avenue in Vineland, while still showing
signs of a channelized stormwater conveyance, becomes connected to large areas of forested floodplain
wetlands. Segments of the stream allow for connection to these adjacent flood plain wetlands while
other segments exhibit signs of entrenchment and continue to be impacted by significant stormwater
discharges.

41
Major concerns in the Tarkiln Branch were noted regarding the need for removing and
minimizing trash, debris and floatables as well as reconnecting the stream to floodplain wetlands to
improve water quality, flood plain storage, and groundwater recharge. Further details and photographs
of conditions are contained in the Tarkiln Branch Reach Report in Appendix B. (58 pages, 70MB)
This data combines multiple data formats that includes gathering on the ground global positioning
system (GPS) coordinates and digital photography, and desk top Geographic Information System
(GIS) map analysis and interpretation of all available GIS mapping information for the Parvin Tarkiln
Branches project. ESRI’s ArcView 9.1 GIS software was used to analyze and publish “real time” data
collected from the field and existing landuse and landscape GIS data provided by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.
In addition to the data provided here in Appendix B, Tarkiln Branch Reaches T-1 thru T-6,
additional source data can be found in Appendix J, Parvin-Tarkiln Branches GIS, in the following
folders:
Reach GPS – This file contains two files, GPS Points, and GPS Points Pictures. The GPS Points
file contains an ArcView shapefile (NJ State Plane projection) of the XY coordinates of physical
attributes on the reach. The GPS Points Picture file contains digital photographs of those XY attributes
with the .jpg file name of the photograph referenced to the identification number of each point in the
shape file.
Maps – This file contains the .jpg maps used in the .pdf file with the SVAP data.
Pictures – This file contains the universe of .jpg digital photographs (and film photo scans) that the
SVAP data pictures were selected from.
Table of Contents for Appendix A, Tarkiln Branch Reaches T-1 thru T-6
Reach T-1 Page 3 Reach T-4 Page 34
Reach T-2 Page 10 Reach T-5 Page 43
Reach T-3 Page 23 Reach T-6 Page 51
Note: Please find this document on the data DVD. (58 pages, 70MB)

42
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX C
Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) data
Parvin Branch Reaches P1 thru P13
The Parvin-Tarkiln SVAP data was collected and filed digitally by “reach”.
The Parvin Branch stream reaches P-1 thru P-13 total 25,249 linear feet, for
an average length of 1,942 feet per reach. (Flow is from the right to the left).
The Parvin Branch reaches were surveyed multiple periods beginning in May 2004 and ending in
November 2006. This stream flows westerly nearly three miles from the community of Vineland until
it joins with the Tarkiln Branch. In its most upstream reaches (identified as P1 and P2) the Parvin
Branch serves as a stormwater conveyance with little base flow and multiple stormwater discharges
and crossings within its urban setting. Adjacent areas of undeveloped wooded wetlands remain along
portions of the stream, but the entrenched channel does not allow for connections to the adjacent flood
plain areas. Numerous stormwater discharges were identified along with encroaching areas of
development and large quantities of trash and debris. Little or no base flow was evident.
As the Parvin Branch transitions from its urban headwaters into reaches P3 through P5, the
channelized stream begins to meander and at points reconnects to adjacent floodplain and wetland
areas. In addition, land use near the stream begins to include agricultural lands that sheet flow directly

into floodplain areas. Woody debris accumulation is visible within the channel and base flows in
the stream become evident.
43
The stream then flows through 3 large box culverts beneath West Boulevard into the next set of
reaches P6 through P10. This segment of the Parvin Branch flows through extensive forested
floodplain wetlands, but is impacted by multiple stormwater discharges from nearby industrial
facilities through open ditches and a shallow pond. To the north of the stream, extensive agricultural
fields direct surface runoff into floodplain and stream. Much of stream remains channelized and is
disconnected from adjacent floodplain storage areas.
As the stream flows into the final reaches (P11 through P13), the channel widens and has
established floodplain benches and visible evidence of frequent connections to adjacent floodplain
wetlands and storage areas were observed. The channel begins to meander through extensive
floodplain wetlands and as it nears its confluence with the Tarkiln Branch, steady base flows provide
for aquatic habitat throughout the reach.
Primary concerns for the Parvin Branch include stabilization of stormwater outlets discharging
directly to the stream, large contributions of trash and debris, and impacts of agricultural activities in
adjacent floodplain and wetlands areas. Further details and photographs of conditions are contained in
the Portable Document File (.pdf) version of Appendix C. (see DVD, 142 pgs, 147MB)
This data combines multiple data formats that includes gathering on the ground global positioning
system (GPS) coordinates and digital photography, and desk top Geographic Information System
(GIS) map analysis and interpretation of all available GIS mapping information for the Parvins Branch
project. ESRI’s ArcView 9.1 GIS software was used to analyze and publish “real time” data collected
from the field and existing landuse and landscape GIS data provided by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
In addition to the data provided here in Appendix C, Parvin Branch Reaches P-1 thru P-13,
additional source data can be found in Appendix J, Parvin-Tarkiln Branches GIS, in the following
folders:
Reach GPS – This file contains two files, GPS Points, and GPS Points Pictures. The GPS Points
file contains an ArcView shapefile (NJ State Plane projection) of the XY coordinates of physical
attributes on the reach. The GPS Points Picture file contains digital photographs of those XY attributes
with the .jpg file name of the photograph referenced to the identification number of each point in the
shape file.
Maps – This file contains the .jpg maps used in the .pdf file with the SVAP data.
Pictures – This file contains the universe of .jpg digital photographs (and film photo scans) that the
SVAP data pictures were selected from.
Table of Contents for Appendix C, Parvins Branch Reaches P-1 thru P-13
Reach P-1 Page 3 Reach P-8 Page 84
Reach P-2 Page 18 Reach P-9 Page 97
Reach P-3 Page 27 Reach P-10 Page 106
Reach P-4 Page 42 Reach P-11 Page 117
Reach P-5 Page 53 Reach P-12 Page 125
Reach P-6 Page 67 Reach P-13 Page 135
Reach P-7 Page 76

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX D
Water Chemistry Sampling Results Tables
Watershed Sampling
A monitoring plan was developed to gather surface water (Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch)
and groundwater quality data. The monitoring plan included NJDEP-approved sampling protocols for
collecting physical and chemical data in these resources. Appropriate protocols, sampling points, and
schedules were selected for both wet weather (stormwater) and dry weather (base flow) sampling.
Chemical analyses were completed by NJDEP-certified laboratories as well as by volunteers using
field sampling kits. Local volunteer groups were instrumental in completing the physical and chemical
assessments of the stream, including visual assessments of flow.
Surface water, groundwater and sediment sampling occurred at Parvin Branch and Tarkiln
Branch from May 2005 to April 2006. During this time, Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River
and its tributaries (CUPMRT) and TRC Omni collected eleven (11) sets of surface water samples at the
three chemical and biological stations, PB1, PB2 and TB1, one (1) set of sediment samples from SEDS
and SSN and three (3) sets of groundwater samples at monitoring wells GWN and GWS.
Water quality was measured at PB1, PB2, and TB1 on 14 dates between May 2005 and April
2006. Water samples were analyzed for a number of standard water quality parameters including
nitrogen (nitrate and ammonia), phosphorus (total and dissolved), dissolved oxygen, solids (total
dissolved and total suspended), iron, pH, conductivity, and temperature. Results are in Appendix D
and in the dry weather concentration figures found in Appendix E. Water quality was also measured
in GWN and GWS on three dates in 2005. Samples were analyzed for standard water quality
parameters and priority pollutants. Results are in Appendix D.
Sediment samples from SEDN and SEDS were analyzed once for priority pollutants and
nutrients. Based on the results of the groundwater sampling, no significant contaminants were noted in
the initial priority pollutant or metals scans. In accordance with the QAPP, no further samples were
analyzed. Results are in Appendix D.

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Chemical and Biological Sampling Results
Station Date Temp pH DO Alkalinity NH 3 -N
Fecal
Coliforms
Hardness Fe Mn
Nitrate
(NO 3 -N)
Nitrite
(NO 2 -N)
DOPO 4 TP TDS TKN TSS Turbidity
ºC s.u. mg/l mg/l mg/l colonies/100ml mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l NTUs
PB1
PB2
TB1
05/26/05 13.4 6.0 6.3 15 0.14 65 140 0.56 0.08 7.91 < 0.04 0.03 0.04 130 1.92 2.5 2.4
06/24/05 19.2 6.8 6.8 11 0.12 190 68 NR NR 10.60 < 0.04 0.02 0.08 190 0.45 5.5 4.1
07/27/05 20.2 6.0 6.6 33 0.34 170 71 NR NR 10.70 < 0.04 0.16 0.04 170 0.65 < 0.5 2.2
08/23/05 18.7 6.4 6.8 17 0.10 2100 68 NR NR 9.16 < 0.04 0.01 0.04 130 0.16 3.0 2.4
09/28/05 16.4 6.0 5.6 14 0.11 230 72 NR NR 5.20 < 0.04 0.01 0.03 90 0.29 4.5 1.6
11/14/05 16.0 6.4 4.8 18 0.07 180 36 NR NR 7.42 < 0.04 0.02 0.07 140 0.8 3.5 2.5
12/05/05 8.2 6.3 6.8 16 0.08 72 65 0.48 NR 7.13 < 0.04 0.02 0.03 120 0.58 4.5 2.7
01/10/06 10.0 6.2 6.8 18 < 0.05 < 2 71 0.49 0.10 8.59 < 0.04 0.03 0.11 130 0.44 < 0.5 2.8
02/16/06 NA NA 8.6 14 < 0.05 43 62 0.46 0.07 8.85 < 0.04 0.03 0.07 140 0.53 3.5 3.4
04/03/06 11.0 6.2 8.2 19 0.12 160 64 0.34 0.07 10.15 < 0.04 0.01 0.08 150 0.37 9.0 2.8
04/24/06 14.8 6.5 6.1 48 0.19 2400 38 0.57 0.04 2.03 < 0.04 0.03 0.13 76 1.77 4.5 7.4
05/26/05 13.6 6.9 13.5 39 0.87 10 76 6.57 0.07 3.46 < 0.04 0.03 0.08 250 3.15 11.5 34
06/24/05 18.2 6.7 7.6 42 0.94 < 4 52 NR NR 2.93 < 0.04 < 0.01 0.12 310 1.45 17.0 64
07/27/05 19.0 6.3 5.0 52 1.06 86 84 NR NR 2.72 < 0.04 < 0.01 0.05 300 1.40 15.0 65
08/23/05 17.2 6.6 5.5 57 0.11 140 53 NR NR 1.96 < 0.04 < 0.01 0.11 240 0.24 9.5 62
09/28/05 16.3 6.5 5.0 43 1.46 68 56 NR NR 1.59 < 0.04 0.03 0.12 320 2.22 26.0 70
11/14/05 14.7 7.0 6.0 59 1.01 24 58 NR NR 1.34 < 0.04 0.04 0.25 340 1.82 10.5 28
12/05/05 6.2 6.9 7.2 49 0.84 56 64 6.20 NR 2.07 < 0.04 0.07 0.11 270 1.36 7.0 13
01/10/06 9.0 6.8 6.8 48 0.62 < 2 80 6.50 0.05 2.55 < 0.04 0.02 0.18 280 1.58 12.0 28
02/16/06 9.0 6.9 7.4 52 0.28 38 49 6.76 0.05 2.68 < 0.04 0.05 0.16 320 0.95 9.5 22
04/03/06 11.4 6.9 6.8 57 0.26 82 52 7.82 0.05 2.57 < 0.04 < 0.01 0.15 300 0.45 17.0 25
04/24/06 14.3 6.8 6.6 32 0.23 500 38 5.57 0.06 1.62 < 0.04 0.05 0.23 140 2.37 16.0 27
05/26/05 13.2 6.0 6.1 11 0.10 46 48 0.51 0.06 1.71 < 0.04 0.01 0.03 90 1.80 4.0 2.7
06/24/05 18.8 6.4 8.3 9.2 0.13 30 30 NR NR 1.64 < 0.04 0.01 0.04 100 0.72 3.5 1.9
07/27/05 21.1 6.0 5.6 12 0.33 300 30 NR NR 1.66 < 0.04 0.02 0.03 68 0.56 < 0.5 1.6
08/23/05 19.6 6.1 4.4 13 0.11 6600 18 NR NR 1.11 < 0.04 0.03 0.1 39 0.13 18.0 6.2
09/28/05 Stream Dry, No Sample Obtained
11/14/05 14.9 6.1 1.6 17 0.06 18 28 NR NR 0.47 < 0.04 0.02 0.16 60 0.55 12.0 6.7
12/05/05 6.9 6.1 6.4 10 0.07 110 18 0.65 NR 1.15 < 0.04 0.03 0.04 53 0.58 4.0 1.7
01/10/06 10.0 6.0 8.1 8.8 < 0.05 < 2 30 0.60 0.12 1.52 < 0.04 0.03 0.12 62 0.77 < 0.5 2
02/16/06 10.3 6.0 9.4 7.6 0.05 4 25 0.47 0.06 1.66 < 0.04 0.02 0.08 86 0.36 1.0 2.2
04/03/06 8.2 5.8 10.8 9.6 0.08 10 4.8 0.54 0.05 1.47 < 0.04 0.02 0.06 65 0.30 3.5 2
04/24/06 14.8 6.5 6.1 16 0.29 2300 39 0.48 0.04 0.97 < 0.04 0.03 0.11 49 1.49 4.5 9.6
Blue fill indicates marginal wet weather event

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Groundwater Sampling Results
GWN
GWS
Parameter
Units 5/17/2005 9/14/2005 12/22/2005 5/17/2005 9/14/2005 12/22/2005
Value Value Value Value Value Value
1, 1-dichloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1, 1-dichloroethene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,1-dichloropropene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane
mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2-dibromoethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2-dichlorobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2-dichloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,2-dichloropropane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,3,5-trimethyl benzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
1,4 dichlorobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
2, 2dichloropropane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
2-chlorotoluene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
2-chlorovinyl ether mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
2-hexanone mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
4-chlorotoluene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Acetone mg/l < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Acrolien mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Acrylonitrile mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Alkalinity, total as CaCo3 mg/l 58 71 67 53 45 11
Ammonia as NH3-N mg/l 10.02 9.1 9.11 1 1.77 0.63
Antimony mg/l < 11.6 < 0.005 < 11.6 < 0.005
Arsenic mg/l < 6.4 < 0.004 21.1 0.023
benzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Beryllium mg/l < 0.6 < 0.003 < 0.6 < 0.003
bromobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
bromochloromethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
bromodichloromethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
bromoform mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
bromomethane mg/l < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
Cadmium mg/l < 0.8 < 0.001 < 0.8 0.002
carbon disulfide mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
carbon tetrachloride mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
chlorobenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
chloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
chloroform mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
chloromethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Chromium mg/l 5.8 0.004 4.4 < 0.003
Cis Dichloroethene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Copper mg/l < 7.4 < 0.01 23.7 0.02
dibromochloromehtane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
dibromomethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Dichlorodifuloromethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
ethylbenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Fecal Coliforms colonies/100ml < 2 < 4 < 4 < 2 < 4 4
Hardness, total as CaCo3 mg/l 14 33 40 54 48 37
hexachlorobutadiene mg/l < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
Hexachloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Iron mg/l 0.9 13 1.14 20.6 14
isopropyl benzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Lead mg/l < 5.4 < 0.003 26.1 0.005
m/p xylene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Manganese mg/l 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.1 0.12
Mercury mg/l < 0.1 < 0.0005 < 0.1 < 0.0005
methyl tertiary butyl ether mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
methylene chloride mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Methylethyl Ketone (MEK) mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
MIBK mg/l < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
naphthalene mg/l < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
n-butyl benzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Nickel mg/l 8.3 < 0.01 6.6 < 0.01
Nitrate as N, dissolved mg/l 0.4 0.52 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.72 < 0.02
Nitrite as N, Dissolved mg/l < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.02
Nitrobenzene mg/l < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
n-propyl benzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Ortho-Phosphate, dissolved mg/l 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.31 0.14
o-xylene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Pentachloroethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Phosphorus, total as P mg/l 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.07 1.2 0.51
p-isopropyltoluene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Groundwater Sampling Results
GWN
GWS
Parameter
Units 5/17/2005 9/14/2005 12/22/2005 5/17/2005 9/14/2005 12/22/2005
Value Value Value Value Value Value
sec-butylbenzene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Selenium mg/l < 8.4 < 0.005 < 8.4 < 0.005
Silver mg/l < 2.8 < 0.002 < 2.8 < 0.002
styrene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
tert-butylbenzyne mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
tetrachloroethene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Thallium mg/l < 9.4 < 0.005 < 9.4 < 0.005
THF mg/l < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
toluene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 310 320 330 230 250 190
Total Kjedahl Nitrogen mg/l 11.1 9.96 12.34 3.77 4.82 1.75
Total Suspended Solids mg/l 32 21 32 690 53 42
trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
trans-1,3-dichoropropene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
trichloroethene mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Turbidity NTUs 180 22 45 340 33 70
vinyl chloride mg/l < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Zinc mg/l 47.2 0.05 63 0.25

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Soil Sampling Results
Parameter Units SEDS SSN
1, 1-dichloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1, 1-dichloroethene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,1,1-trichloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,1,2-trichloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,1-dichloropropene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene ug/Kg < 370 < 620
1,2,3-trichloropropane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ug/Kg < 320 < 620
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2-dibromoethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2-dichlorobenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2-dichloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,2-dichloropropane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,3,5-trimethyl benzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,3-dichlorobenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,3-dichloropropane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
1,4 dichlorobenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
2-chlorotoluene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
2-chlorovinyl ether ug/Kg < 620 < 620
2-hexanone ug/Kg < 620 < 620
4-chlorotoluene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Acetone ug/Kg < 1200 < 1200
Acrolien ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Acrylonitrile ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Ammonia mg/kg < 8 < 8
Antimony mg/kg < 1.7 < 1.4
Arsenic mg/kg < 1.5 < 1.3
benzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Beryllium mg/kg < 0.05 < 0.029
bromobenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
bromochloromethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
bromodichloromethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
bromoform ug/Kg < 620 < 620
bromomethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Cadmium mg/kg < 0.17 < 0.14
carbon disulfide ug/Kg < 620 < 620
carbon tetrachloride ug/Kg < 620 < 620
chlorobenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
chloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
chloroform ug/Kg < 620 < 620
chloromethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Chromium mg/kg < 1.7 3.2
Cis Dichloroethene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
cis-1,3-dichloropropene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Copper mg/kg < 1.2 < 0.88
dibromochloromehtane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
dibromomethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Dichlorodifuloromethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Ethyl Ether ug/Kg < 620 < 620
ethylbenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
hexachlorobutadiene ug/Kg 1000 < 620
Hexachloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Iron mg/kg 1360 1750
isopropyl benzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Lead mg/kg 3.2 9.1
m/p xylene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Manganese mg/kg 5.6 35.5
Mercury mg/kg < 0.028 < 0.024
methylene chloride ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Methylethyl Ketone (MEK) ug/Kg < 620 < 620
MIBK ug/Kg < 620 < 620
naphthalene ug/Kg < 370 < 620
n-butyl benzene ug/Kg < 240 < 620
Nickel mg/kg < 1.3 < 1.9
Nitrate mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1
Nitrite mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1
Nitrobenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
n-propyl benzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
OrthoPhosphate mg/kg < 0.6 1.4
o-xylene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Pentachloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
p-isopropyltoluene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
sec-butylbenzene ug/Kg < 620 < 620

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Soil Sampling Results
Parameter Units SEDS SSN
Selenium mg/kg < 1.6 < 1.4
Silver mg/kg < 0.41 < 0.35
styrene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
tert-butylbenzyne ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol ug/Kg < 250 < 250
tetrachloroethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Thallium mg/kg < 1.6 < 1.4
THF ug/Kg < 620 < 620
toluene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/kg 8.9 9.5
Total Phosphorus mg/kg 32.3 49.6
Total Solids % 58.7 69.1
trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
trans-1,3-dichoropropene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
trichloroethene ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/Kg < 620 < 620
vinyl chloride ug/Kg < 620 < 620
Zinc mg/kg < 6 16.9

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX E
Dry Weather Chemical Concentration Plots
Watershed Sampling
A monitoring plan was developed to gather surface water (Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch)
and groundwater quality data. The monitoring plan included NJDEP-approved sampling protocols for
collecting physical and chemical data in these resources. Appropriate protocols, sampling points, and
schedules were selected for both wet weather (stormwater) and dry weather (base flow) sampling.
Chemical analyses were completed by NJDEP-certified laboratories as well as by volunteers using
field sampling kits. Local volunteer groups were instrumental in completing the physical and chemical
assessments of the stream, including visual assessments of flow.
Surface water, groundwater and sediment sampling occurred at Parvin Branch and Tarkiln
Branch from May 2005 to April 2006. During this time, Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River
and its tributaries (CUPMRT) and TRC Omni collected eleven (11) sets of surface water samples at the
three chemical and biological stations, PB1, PB2 and TB1, one (1) set of sediment samples from SEDS
and SSN and three (3) sets of groundwater samples at monitoring wells GWN and GWS.
Water quality was measured at PB1, PB2, and TB1 on 14 dates between May 2005 and April
2006. Water samples were analyzed for a number of standard water quality parameters including
nitrogen (nitrate and ammonia), phosphorus (total and dissolved), dissolved oxygen, solids (total
dissolved and total suspended), iron, pH, conductivity, and temperature. Results are in Appendix D
and in the dry weather concentration figures found in Appendix E. Water quality was also measured
in GWN and GWS on three dates in 2005. Samples were analyzed for standard water quality
parameters and priority pollutants. Results are in Appendix D.
Sediment samples from SEDN and SEDS were analyzed once for priority pollutants and
nutrients. Based on the results of the groundwater sampling, no significant contaminants were noted in
the initial priority pollutant or metals scans. In accordance with the QAPP, no further samples were
analyzed. Results are in Appendix D.

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Dry Weather Concentration Plots
Total Suspended Solids Concentration
50
45
40
Surface Water Quality Standard
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1
Fecal Coliform Concentration
7000
6000
Fecal Coliform (colonies/100ml)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
FW2-NT Surface Water Quality Standards
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Dry Weather Concentration Plots
Total Phosphorus Concentration
0.3
0.25
Total Phosphorus (mg/l)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Surface Water Quality Standard
0.05
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1
Dissolved Orthophosphate Concentration
0.18
0.16
0.14
Dissolved Orthophosphate (mg/l)
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Dry Weather Concentration Plots
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
15
14
13
12
11
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Surface Water Quality Standard
3
2
1
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1
Total Dissolved Solids Concentration
600
500
Surface Water Quality Standard
400
TDS (mg/l)
300
200
100
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Dry Weather Concentration Plots
Ammonia Concentration
1.6
1.4
1.2
Ammonia (mg/l)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1
Nitrate Concentration
12
10
8
Nitrate (mg/l)
6
4
2
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Dry Weather Concentration Plots
Iron Concentration
9
8
7
6
Iron (mg/l)
5
4
3
2
1
0
4/8/2005
5/28/2005
7/17/2005
9/5/2005
10/25/2005
12/14/2005
2/2/2006
3/24/2006
5/13/2006
Date
PB1 PB2 TB1

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX F
Benthic bioassessment metric values
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Three sample sites were established: two on Parvin Branch (PB1 and PB2) and one on Tarkiln
Branch (TB1). These sites were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates on June 9, 2005 and September
5, 2005 and were also used for surface water monitoring. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was
completed on June 9, 2005 by Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries
(CUPMRT) and TRC Omni Environmental Corp. (TRC Omni). During this sampling event, Dr. Amy
Soli of TRC Omni provided training in benthic macroinvertebrate collection techniques. CUMPRT
completed the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling on September 5, 2005.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using a 500 µm mesh kick-net. Invertebrates were
collected by kicking a 1 m 2 area upstream of the kick-net in order to dislodge the invertebrates. Three 1
m 2 areas representing a variety of habitats were sampled at each stream site; the invertebrates and
substrate collected were combined into one composite sample. Large pieces of substrate collected in the
net were inspected for invertebrates (and discarded), as was the kick-net. Captured invertebrates were
placed in bottles containing 80% ethanol and labels with site identification information. Vegetation (e.g.
leafpacks) and substrate collected in the kick-net were also placed in the bottles for later inspection to
remove organisms. A supplemental qualitative sample of coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) was
also collected at each site during each sampling episode and preserved separately in 80% ethanol.
Various benthic metrics based on diversity and pollution tolerance were calculated following the
guidelines of Barbour et al. (1999) and the NJDEP’s BFBM RPB(2006, 2004) (Appendix H). Richness
indices included taxa richness; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) richness; %EPT; and
% contribution dominant family (%CDF). EPT richness is the total number of Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa in each sample; %EPT is percentage of the total number of organisms
in each sample belonging to the EPT orders. The %CDF is the percentage of the total number of
organisms in each sample in the numerically dominant family. Taxa were also classified as being
tolerant, semi-tolerant, or intolerant to pollution based on Family Tolerance Values (FTV) provided by
the NJDEP BFBM. Using the FTV’s, the Modified Family Biotic Index (FBI) was calculated. The
NJDEP bases their FBI on that developed by Hilsenhoff (1988). The bioassessment indices (taxa
richness, EPT, %EPT, %CDF, and FBI) were calculated for each site for each sampling date.
The preserved benthic samples were later sorted in the laboratory. All Benthic
macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level, usually to family. Benthic
macroinvertebrate sorting and identification was conducted by CUPMRT. Dr. Amy Soli of TRC Omni
provided a quality

assurance check for the identification of benthic macroinvertebrate samples. Dr. Soli evaluated a
minimum of 10% of the samples to verify proper identification of benthic macroinvertebrates. A list of
taxa collected, and the number of individuals of each taxa, is located in Appendix H. Benthic
macroinvertebrate data were analyzed using benthic metrics discussed in the US EPA’s Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols manual (Barbour et al., 1999) and the NJDEP’s Bureau of Freshwater and
Biological Monitoring’s (BFBM) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP).
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling yielded between 2 and 12 taxa and 6 and 123 individuals per
site. With the exception of PB1 on 9/5/2005 and TB1 on 9/5/2005, the predominant taxon in each
sample was Chironomidae (midge flies), a pollution tolerant organism. Physidae was the dominant
taxon in the TB1 sample on 9/5/2005. Bivalvia (Pelecypoda) was the dominant taxon in the PB1 sample
on 9/5/2005. Both Physidae and Bivalvia are pollution tolerant organisms. None of the samples
contained members of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (the EPT taxa) are traditionally considered to be sensitive taxa and their presence implies
minimal water quality impairment. While their absence cannot be used to prove poor water quality
(since habitat, water temperature, and other physiochemical parameters may instead contribute to their
absence), it does provide additional evidence of impaired water quality. Few semi-tolerant taxa were
also found and included Dytiscids, Calopterygidae, Coenagrionidae, Aeshnidae, and Tipulidae.
Appendix F shows the benthic bioassessment metric values. The benthic data was analyzed for
five bioassessment indices: taxa richness, taxa richness, EPT richness, % CDF, % EPT, and the
Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI). These indices are used by the NJDEP BFBM and are used to
calculate the New Jersey Impairment Score (NJIS). Taxa richness and EPT richness are measurements
commonly used as indicators of water quality because decreases in these parameters indicate decreasing
water quality. Percent dominance is of interest because a shift towards dominance by relatively few taxa
indicates environmental stress. Percent EPT is measured because increases in this metric denote
improved water quality. (Kurtz et al. 2000) Finally, the HFBI (a.k.a. the modified family biotic index)
is used as an indicator of organic pollution, with lower HFBI values indicating a lower likelihood of
organic pollution (Hilsenhoff 1988).
As was mentioned, these five metrics are used by the NJDEP to classify streams as being nonimpaired,
moderately impaired, or severely impaired (NJDEP 2004). The NJIS for sample PB1 on
6/9/2005 and the PB1 sample on 9/5/2005 was 6 and 15, respectively. Thus, the NJIS indicated that
PB1 was severely impaired on 6/9/2005 and moderately impaired on 9/5/2005. The NJIS for samples
PB2 on 6/9/2005 and 9/5/2005 was 3, indicating severely impaired conditions on both sampling dates.
Finally, the NJIS for the TB1 sample on 6/9/2005 was 9 and 6 from the 9/5/2005 sample. Thus, the
NJIS indicated that TB1 was moderately impaired on 6/9/2005 and severely impaired on 9/5/2005.
The benthic macroinvertebrate data indicated impaired water quality at all stations on all sample
dates. First, there were no sensitive taxa identified from any of the samples, especially the EPT taxa. In
addition, taxa richness was relatively low; higher NJIS are associated with taxa richness greater than 10.
The %CDF also indicated impaired conditions; %CDF of less than 40 is associated with non-impaired
(or relatively unimpaired) waters. The %CDF was less than 40 in only one sample- PB1 on 9/5/2005
(one date with the moderately impaired classification). Finally, the FBI was always between 5.67 and
6.77. According to the NJIS, these values indicate moderately impaired water quality. Hilsenhoff
(1988) designates streams with HFBI values of between 5.76 and 6.50 to be of fairly poor water quality,
indicating that substantial organic pollution is likely.

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Benthic Survey Tables
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Macroinvertebrate Taxa: Classification, Enumeration, and Bioassessment
Indices
Site PB1 PB1 PB2 PB2 TB1 TB1
Date 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005
Sample (% Sorted) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Taxon Description Total Total Total Total Total Total
Simuliidae Blackflies 8 4
Chironomidae Midges 75 9 19 5 68 8
Dytiscidae Beetles 12 2
Elmidae Beetles 1 4
Haliplidae Beetles 9
Calopterygidae Damselflies 11 2
Coenagrionidae Damselflies 1 1
Aeshnidae Dragonflies 1
Amphipoda Scuds 2 1
Asellidae Sowbug 1
Physidae Snails 13 8 16 51
Planorbidae Snails 1
Bivalvia (Pelecypoda) Clams 4 22 1
Oligochaeta Worms 7 8 4 20 1
Cambaridae Crayfish 2
Tipulidae Cranefly 1 2
Culicidae Mosquito 1
Collembola
Springtail
(semi-aquatic)
1
Egg Masses Yes Yes
Cases
Yes
Salamanders Yes Yes Yes
Non-Macro. Taxa 3
Taxa Richness 8 12 4 2 8 5
Total Individuals a 110 78 26 6 123 64
EPT 0 0 0 0 0 0
%EPT 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Dominant
Family Contribution
68.18 28.21 73.08 83.33 55.28 79.69
Modified Family
Boiotic Index
6.30 6.44 6.23 5.67 6.41 6.77
a) The NJDEP does not include Total Individuals as a metric when calculating the NJIS Score.

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Benthic Survey Tables
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Macroinvertebrate Taxa: Modified Family Biotic Index Calculations
Site PB1 PB1 PB1 PB1 PB1 PB1 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 TB1 TB1 TB1 TB1 TB1 TB1
Date 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005
Taxon Description Total
Tolerance
Score
x i t i
Total
Tolerance
Score
x i t i
Total
Tolerance
Score
Simuliidae Blackflies 8 6 48 4 6 24
Chironomidae Midges 75 6 450 9 6 54 19 6 114 5 6 30 68 6 408 8 6 48
Dytiscidae Beetles 12 5 60 2 5 10
Elmidae Beetles 1 4 4 4 4 16
Haliplidae Beetles 9 5 45
Calopterygidae Damselflies 11 5 55 2 5 10
Coenagrionidae Damselflies 1 9 9 1 9 9
Aeshnidae Dragonflies 1 3 3
Amphipoda Scuds 2 4 8 1 4 4
Asellidae Sowbug 1 8 8
Physidae Snails 13 7 91 8 7 56 16 7 112 51 7 357
Planorbidae Snails 1 6 6
Bivalvia (Pelecypoda) Clams 4 8 32 22 8 176 1 8 8
Oligochaeta Worms 7 8 56 8 8 64 4 8 32 20 8 160 1 8 8
Cambaridae Crayfish 2 5 10
Tipulidae Cranefly 1 3 3 2 3 6
Culicidae Mosquito 1 8 8
Collembola
Springtail
(semi-aquatic)
1 10 10
Total 110 693 78 502 26 162 6 34 123 788 64 433
Modified Family
Biotic Index
6.30 6.44 6.23 5.67 6.41 6.77
x i t i
Total
Tolerance
Score
x i t i
Total
Tolerance
Score
x i t i
Total
Tolerance
Score
x i t i

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch
Watershed Restoration Master Plan
November 30, 2006
Benthic Survey Tables
Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Macroinvertebrate Taxa: NJIS Score and Biological Assessment
Site PB1 PB1 PB1 PB1 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 TB1 TB1 TB1 TB1
Date 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 9/5/2005 9/5/2005
Taxa Richness 8 3 12 6 4 0 2 0 8 3 5 3
EPT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%EPT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Dominant Family Contribution 68.18 0 28.21 6 73.08 0 83.33 0 55.28 3 79.69 0
Family Boiotic Index 6.30 3 6.44 3 6.23 3 5.67 3 6.41 3 6.77 3
NJIS SCORE 6 15 3 3 9 6
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Severly impaired Moderately Impaired Severly impaired Severly impaired Moderately Impaired Severly impaired
Biometrics 6 3 0
Taxa Richness >10 10-5 4-0
E+P+T >5 5-3 2-0
% CDF (% Percent Dominance) 60
% EPT >35 35-10

Appendix G, In-Situ Data
Citizens United preformed all the in-situ measurements for stream flow, pH, temperature, DO,
specific conductance, and redox. Instrumentation used to perform in-situ measurements was properly
calibrated in conformance with manufacture’s instructions, NJDEP field sampling procedures, and EPA
-B-97-003. This included the calibration of equipment before every sampling event and the disposal of
all buffers after each calibration session. 13 sets of signed Chain of Custody documents were executed
on the sample collection dates and are on file. All sampling containers were furnished by NJAL. (See
Appendix G for In-Situ data).
PARVIN BRANCH AND TARKLIN BRANCH ASSESSMENT PROJECT (RP03-026)
IN-SITU DATA LOG
SAMPLING SITES
PB2 PB1 TB1
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
5/26/2005 6.90 13.60 13.50 M 6.00 13.40 6.30 M 6.00 13.20 6.10 M
6/9/2005 6.10 17.90 7.27 449.00 M 6.40 18.80 8.10 229.00 M 6.40 20.40 7.80 143.00 M
6/24/2005 6.70 18.20 7.58 M-L 6.80 19.20 6.80 M-L 6.40 18.80 8.31 L
7/27/2005 6.30 19.00 5.0 ppm M 6.00 20.20 6.6 ppm L 6.00 21.10 5.6 ppm M-L
8/23/2005 6.60 17.20 5.5 ppm 600.00 M 6.30 18.70 6.8 ppm 221.00 L 6.10 19.60 4.4 ppm 78.60 L-
9/5/2005 6.80 19.90 6.2 ppm 628.00 20.00 M 6.30 20.50 5.6 ppm 181.00 138.00 L- 6.30 22.70 4.8 ppm 84.40 81.00 L-
9/23/2005 6.70 19.70 608.00 -9.00 M
9/28/2005 6.53 16.30 5.0 ppm 602.00 -16.00 M 6.00 16.40 5.6 ppm 136.30 116.00 L-
No Water
9/29/2006 6.50 16.80 615.00 -3.00 M
11/14/2005 6.99 14.70 6.0 ppm 558.00 -7.00 M 6.36 16.00 4.8 ppm 219.00 102.00 M 6.09 14.90 1.6 ppm 86.70 94.00 L
12/5/2005 6.85 6.20 7.2 ppm 459.00 9.00 M 6.34 8.20 6.8 ppm 168.80 106.00 M 6.11 6.90 6.4 ppm 72.90 122.00 L+
1/10/2006 6.77 8.40 6.8 ppm 518.00 5.00 M 6.22 10.00 6.8 ppm 192.60 103.00 M-L 5.98 9.70 8.1 ppm 97.40 123.00 L
2/16/2006 6.87 8.60 7.4 ppm 504.00 11.00 M 6.19 10.50 8.6 ppm 212.00 132.00 M 5.98 12.00 9.4 ppm 130.10 144.00 L
4/3/2006 6.86 11.40 6.8 ppm 507.00 25.00 M 6.18 11.00 8.2 ppm 203.00 151.00 M 5.83 10.80 8.2 ppm 78.70 173.00 L-M
4/24/2006 6.77 14.30 6.6 ppm 237.00 33.00 M-H 6.48 14.80 6.1 ppm 96.00 125.00 M-H 6..41 14.80 6.0 ppm 65.10 130.00 L-M
PARVIN BRANCH AND TARKLIN BRANCH ASSESSMENT PROJECT (RP03-026)
IN-SITU DATA LOG
SAMPLING SITES
Site MS - Sherman Staff Gauge Directly above Parvin Branch on MR Site MA - Almond Ave. Reference Site
GPS 39.4481 x -75.0722
GPS 39.4488 x -75.0727 GPS 39.4955 x -75.0763
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP
6/24/2005 6.70 4.48" 6.70
7/27/2005 6.00 26.30 5.56"
8/23/2005 6.48 20.80 149.30 5.30"
9/5/2005 6.58 23.20 173.50 58.00 5.20" 6.63 22.70 118.90 110.00
9/23/2005 6.69 23.40 155.10 75.00 6.68 22.70 124.50 75.00 6.64 23.50 95.10 140.00
9/28/2005 6.73 17.90 147.00 64.00 5.15 6.75 18.30 119.50 81.00
11/14/2005 6.60 12.90 157.50 76.00 5.60" 6.67 13.01 130.00 80.00 6.54 13.90 8.0 ppm 110.40 111.00
12/5/2005 6.39 5.10 137.80 144.00 6.38" To Deep
6.28 4.80 10.2 ppm 96.10 153.00
1/10/2006 6.54 6.60 139.00 76.00 6.30" 6.55 7.50 117.80 81.00 6.18 6.80 9.2 ppm 100.80 145.00
2/16/2006 6.77 8.60 148.10 67.00 6.32" 6.39 7.70 135.00 168.00 6.45 9.70 10.5 ppm 111.80 153.00
4/3/2006 6.90 12.10 133.40 89.00 5.74" 6.86 11.10 120.50 89.00 6.52 12.30 9.0 ppm 105.00 160.00
4/24/2006 6.77 15.50 111.60 88.00 6.36" 6.79 15.20 105.80 90.00 6.31 15.20 6.1 ppm 88.10 153.00
5/30/2006 6.66 25.30 149.20 85.00 5.56" 6.54 26.40 97.00 130.00

Parvin Branch Project Data Comparison
Water Quality Data at Monitoring site PB2 compared to Water Quality Data at ANO740
PB2
MR/Almond Ave. Reference Site (ANO740)
GPS 39.4496 x -75.0721 GPS 39.4955 x -75.0763
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
9/23/2005 6.70 19.70 608.00 -9.00 M 6.64 23.50 95.10 140.00
9/28/2005 6.53 16.30 5.0 ppm 602.00 -16.00 M
9/29/2006 6.50 16.80 615.00 -3.00 M
11/14/2005 6.99 14.70 6.0 ppm 558.00 -7.00 M 6.54 13.90 8.0 ppm 110.40 111.00
1/10/2006 6.77 8.40 6.8 ppm 518.00 5.00 M 6.18 6.80 9.2 ppm 100.80 145.00
2/16/2006 6.87 8.60 7.4 ppm 504.00 11.00 M 6.45 9.70 10.5 ppm 111.80 153.00
4/3/2006 6.86 11.40 6.8 ppm 507.00 25.00 M 6.52 12.30 9.0 ppm 105.00 160.00
4/24/2006 6.77 14.30 6.6 ppm 237.00 33.00 M-H 6.31 15.20 6.1 ppm 88.10 153.00 2.95"
Parvin Branch Project Data Comparison
Water Quality Data at Monitoring site PB2 compared to Water Quality Data at ANO751
PB2
Sherman Staff Gauge (ANO751)
GPS 39.4496 x -75.0721
GPS 39.4481 x -75.0722
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
5/26/2005 6.90 13.60 13.50 M
6/9/2005 6.10 17.90 7.27 449.00 M
6/24/2005 6.70 18.20 7.58 M-L 6.70 4.48"
7/27/2005 6.30 19.00 5.0 ppm M 6.00 26.30 5.56"
8/23/2005 6.60 17.20 5.5 ppm 600.00 M 6.48 20.80 149.30 5.30"
9/5/2005 6.80 19.90 6.2 ppm 628.00 20.00 M 6.58 23.20 173.50 58.00 5.20"
9/23/2005 6.70 19.70 608.00 -9.00 M 6.69 23.40 155.10 75.00
9/28/2005 6.53 16.30 5.0 ppm 602.00 -16.00 M
9/29/2006 6.50 16.80 615.00 -3.00 M
11/14/2005 6.99 14.70 6.0 ppm 558.00 -7.00 M 6.60 12.90 157.50 76.00 5.60"
1/10/2006 6.77 8.40 6.8 ppm 518.00 5.00 M 6.54 6.60 139.00 76.00 6.30"
2/16/2006 6.87 8.60 7.4 ppm 504.00 11.00 M 6.77 8.60 148.10 67.00 6.32"
4/3/2006 6.86 11.40 6.8 ppm 507.00 25.00 M 6.90 12.10 133.40 89.00 5.74"
4/24/2006 6.77 14.30 6.6 ppm 237.00 33.00 M-H 6.77 15.50 111.60 88.00 6.36"
5/30/2006 6.66 25.30 149.20 85.00 5.56

Parvin Branch Project Data Comparison
Water Quality Data at Monitoring site PB2 compared to Water Quality Data at TB1
PB2
PB1
GPS 39.4496 x -75.0721
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
5/26/2005 6.90 13.60 13.50 M 6.00 13.40 6.30 M
6/9/2005 6.10 17.90 7.27 449.00 M 6.40 18.80 8.10 229.00 M
6/24/2005 6.70 18.20 7.58 M-L 6.80 19.20 6.80 M-L
7/27/2005 6.30 19.00 5.0 ppm M 6.00 20.20 6.6 ppm L
8/23/2005 6.60 17.20 5.5 ppm 600.00 M 6.30 18.70 6.8 ppm 221.00 L
9/5/2005 6.80 19.90 6.2 ppm 628.00 20.00 M 6.30 20.50 5.6 ppm 181.00 138.00 L-
9/23/2005 6.70 19.70 608.00 -9.00 M
9/28/2005 6.53 16.30 5.0 ppm 602.00 -16.00 M 6.00 16.40 5.6 ppm 136.30 116.00 L-
9/29/2006 6.50 16.80 615.00 -3.00 M
11/14/2005 6.99 14.70 6.0 ppm 558.00 -7.00 M 6.36 16.00 4.8 ppm 219.00 102.00 M
1/10/2006 6.77 8.40 6.8 ppm 518.00 5.00 M 6.22 10.00 6.8 ppm 192.60 103.00 M-L
2/16/2006 6.87 8.60 7.4 ppm 504.00 11.00 M 6.19 10.50 8.6 ppm 212.00 132.00 M
4/3/2006 6.86 11.40 6.8 ppm 507.00 25.00 M 6.18 11.00 8.2 ppm 203.00 151.00 M
4/24/2006 6.77 14.30 6.6 ppm 237.00 33.00 M-H 6.48 14.80 6.1 ppm 96.00 125.00 M-H
Parvin Branch Project Data Comparison
Water Quality Data at Monitoring site PB2 compared to Water Quality Data at TB1
PB2
TB1
GPS 39.4496 x -75.0721
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
5/26/2005 6.90 13.60 13.50 M 6.00 13.20 6.10 M
6/9/2005 6.10 17.90 7.27 449.00 M 6.40 20.40 7.80 143.00 M
6/24/2005 6.70 18.20 7.58 M-L 6.40 18.80 8.31 L
7/27/2005 6.30 19.00 5.0 ppm M 6.00 21.10 5.6 ppm M-L
8/23/2005 6.60 17.20 5.5 ppm 600.00 M 6.10 19.60 4.4 ppm 78.60 L-
9/5/2005 6.80 19.90 6.2 ppm 628.00 20.00 M 6.30 22.70 4.8 ppm 84.40 81.00 L-
9/23/2005 6.70 19.70 608.00 -9.00 M
9/28/2005 6.53 16.30 5.0 ppm 602.00 -16.00 M
No Water
9/29/2006 6.50 16.80 615.00 -3.00 M
11/14/2005 6.99 14.70 6.0 ppm 558.00 -7.00 M 6.09 14.90 1.6 ppm 86.70 94.00 L
1/10/2006 6.77 8.40 6.8 ppm 518.00 5.00 M 5.98 9.70 8.1 ppm 97.40 123.00 L
2/16/2006 6.87 8.60 7.4 ppm 504.00 11.00 M 5.98 12.00 9.4 ppm 130.10 144.00 L
4/3/2006 6.86 11.40 6.8 ppm 507.00 25.00 M 5.83 10.80 8.2 ppm 78.70 173.00 L-M
4/24/2006 6.77 14.30 6.6 ppm 237.00 33.00 M-H 6..41 14.80 6.0 ppm 65.10 130.00 L-M

Parvin Branch Project Data Comparison
Water Quality Data at Monitoring site PB1 compared to Water Quality Data at ANO740
PB1
MR/Almond Ave. Reference Site (ANO740)
GPS 39.4955 x -75.0763
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
9/23/2005 6.64 23.50 95.10 140.00
9/28/2005 6.00 16.40 5.6 ppm 136.30 116.00 L-
9/29/2006
11/14/2005 6.36 16.00 4.8 ppm 219.00 102.00 M 6.54 13.90 8.0 ppm 110.40 111.00
1/10/2006 6.22 10.00 6.8 ppm 192.60 103.00 M-L 6.18 6.80 9.2 ppm 100.80 145.00
2/16/2006 6.19 10.50 8.6 ppm 212.00 132.00 M 6.45 9.70 10.5 ppm 111.80 153.00
4/3/2006 6.18 11.00 8.2 ppm 203.00 151.00 M 6.52 12.30 9.0 ppm 105.00 160.00
4/24/2006 6.48 14.80 6.1 ppm 96.00 125.00 M-H 6.31 15.20 6.1 ppm 88.10 153.00 2.95"
Parvin Branch Project Data Comparison
Water Quality Data at Monitoring site PB1 compared to Water Quality Data at TB1
PB1
TB1
DATE pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW pH TEMP C DO mg/L SC ORP FLOW
5/26/2005 6.00 13.40 6.30 M 6.00 13.20 6.10 M
6/9/2005 6.40 18.80 8.10 229.00 M 6.40 20.40 7.80 143.00 M
6/24/2005 6.80 19.20 6.80 M-L 6.40 18.80 8.31 L
7/27/2005 6.00 20.20 6.6 ppm L 6.00 21.10 5.6 ppm M-L
8/23/2005 6.30 18.70 6.8 ppm 221.00 L 6.10 19.60 4.4 ppm 78.60 L-
9/5/2005 6.30 20.50 5.6 ppm 181.00 138.00 L- 6.30 22.70 4.8 ppm 84.40 81.00 L-
9/23/2005
9/28/2005 6.00 16.40 5.6 ppm 136.30 116.00 L-
No Water
9/29/2006
11/14/2005 6.36 16.00 4.8 ppm 219.00 102.00 M 6.09 14.90 1.6 ppm 86.70 94.00 L
1/10/2006 6.22 10.00 6.8 ppm 192.60 103.00 M-L 5.98 9.70 8.1 ppm 97.40 123.00 L
2/16/2006 6.19 10.50 8.6 ppm 212.00 132.00 M 5.98 12.00 9.4 ppm 130.10 144.00 L
4/3/2006 6.18 11.00 8.2 ppm 203.00 151.00 M 5.83 10.80 8.2 ppm 78.70 173.00 L-M
4/24/2006 6.48 14.80 6.1 ppm 96.00 125.00 M-H 6..41 14.80 6.0 ppm 65.10 130.00 L-M

National Water and Climate Center
Technical Note 99–1
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
Stream Visual
Assessment Protocol

Issued December 1998
Cover photo:
Stream in Clayton County, Iowa, exhibiting an impaired
riparian zone.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its
programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age,
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status.
(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities
who require alternative means for communication of program information
(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center
at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil
Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is
an equal opportunity provider and employer.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Preface
This document presents an easy-to-use assessment protocol to evaluate the
condition of aquatic ecosystems associated with streams. The protocol does
not require expertise in aquatic biology or extensive training. Least-impacted
reference sites are used to provide a standard of comparison. The
use of reference sites is variable depending on how the state chooses to
implement the protocol. The state may modify the protocol based on a
system of stream classification and a series of reference sites. Instructions
for modifying the protocol are provided in the technical information section.
Aternatively, a user may use reference sites in a less structured manner
as a point of reference when applying the protocol.
The Stream Visual Assessment Protocol is the first level in a hierarchy of
ecological assessment protocols. More sophisticated assessment methods
may be found in the Stream Ecological Assessment Field Handbook. The
field handbook also contains background information on basic stream
ecology. Information on chemical monitoring of surface water and groundwater
may be found in the National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring.
The protocol is designed to be conducted with the landowner. Educational
material is incorporated into the protocol. The document is structured so
that the protocol (pp. 7–20) can be duplicated to provide a copy to the
landowner after completion of an assessment. The assessment is recorded
on a single sheet of paper (copied front and back).
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)
i

Acknowledgments
This protocol was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Aquatic Assessment Workgroup. The principal authors were
Bruce Newton, limnologist, National Water and Climate Center, NRCS,
Portland, OR; Dr. Catherine Pringle, associate professor of Aquatic
Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA; and Ronald Bjorkland, University
of Georgia, Athens, GA. The NRCS Aquatic Assessment Workgroup
members provided substantial assistance in development, field evaluation,
and critical review of the document. These members were:
Tim Dunne, biologist, NRCS, Annandale, NJ
Ray Erickson, area biologist, NRCS, Texarkana, AR
Chris Faulkner, aquatic biologist, USEPA, Washington, DC
Howard Hankin, aquatic ecologist, Ecological Sciences Division, NRCS,
Washington, DC
Louis Justice, state biologist, NRCS, Athens, GA
Betty McQuaid, soil ecologist, Watershed Science Institute, NRCS,
Raleigh, NC
Marcus Miller, wetlands specialist, Northern Plains Riparian Team, NRCS,
Bozeman, MT
Lyn Sampson, state biologist, NRCS, East Lansing, MI
Terri Skadeland, state biologist, NRCS, Lakewood, CO
Kathryn Staley, fisheries biologist, Wildlife Habitat Management
Institute, NRCS, Corvallis, OR
Bianca Streif, state biologist, NRCS, Portland, OR
Billy Teels, director, Wetlands Science Institute, NRCS, Laurel, MD
Additional assistance was provided by Janine Castro, geomorphologist,
NRCS, Portland, OR; Mark Schuller, fisheries biologist, NRCS, Spokane,
WA; Lyle Steffen, geologist, NRCS, Lincoln, NE; and Lyn Townsend,
forest ecologist, NRCS, Seattle, WA.
ii (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Contents: Introduction 1
What makes for a healthy stream? 1
What's the stream type? 1
Reference sites 2
Using this protocol 3
Reach description 6
Scoring descriptions 7
Channel condition ................................................................................................................. 7
Hydrologic alteration ............................................................................................................ 8
Riparian zone ......................................................................................................................... 9
Bank stability ....................................................................................................................... 10
Water appearance ............................................................................................................... 11
Nutrient enrichment ........................................................................................................... 12
Barriers to fish movement ................................................................................................. 12
Instream fish cover ............................................................................................................. 13
Pools ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Insect/invertebrate habitat ................................................................................................. 14
Canopy cover ....................................................................................................................... 15
Coldwater fishery ...................................................................................................... 15
Warmwater fishery ................................................................................................... 15
Manure presence ................................................................................................................. 16
Salinity .................................................................................................................................. 16
Riffle embeddedness .......................................................................................................... 17
Macroinvertebrates observed ............................................................................................ 17
Technical information to support implementation 21
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 21
Origin of the protocol ......................................................................................................... 21
Context for use .................................................................................................................... 21
Development ........................................................................................................................ 21
Implementation ................................................................................................................... 22
Instructions for modification............................................................................................. 22
References 25
Glossary 27
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)
iii

Appendix A—1997 and 1998 Field Trial Results 31
Purpose and methods ......................................................................................................... 31
Results .................................................................................................................................. 31
Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 34
Tables Table A–1 Summary of studies in the field trial 31
Table A–2 Summary of replication results 32
Table A–3 Accuracy comparison data from studies with too few sites 33
to determine a correlation coefficient
Figures Figure 1 Factors that influence the integrity of streams 2
Figure 2 Stream visual assessment protocol worksheet 4
Figure 3 Baseflow, bankfull, and flood plain locations (Rosgen 1996) 6
Figure 4 Relationship of various stream condition assessment 22
methods in terms of complexity or expertise required
and the aspects of stream condition addressed
Figure A–1 Means and standard deviations from the Parker’s Mill 32
Creek site in Americus, GA
Figure A–2 Correlation between SVAP and IBI values in the Virginia 33
study
Figure A–3 Correlation between SVAP and Ohio Qualitative Habitat 33
Evaluation Index values in the Virginia study
Figure A–4 Correlation between SVAP and IBI values in the Carolinas 33
study
Figure A–5 Correlation between SVAP and macroinverte-brate index 33
values in Carolinas study
Figure A–6 Version 4 scores for VA plotted against version 3 scores 34
iv (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
Introduction
This assessment protocol provides a basic level of
stream health evaluation. It can be successfully applied
by conservationists with little biological or
hydrological training. It is intended to be conducted
with the landowner and incorporates talking points for
the conservationist to use during the assessment. This
protocol is the first level in a four-part hierarchy of
assessment protocols. Tier 2 is the NRCS Water Quality
Indicators Guide, Tier 3 is the NRCS Stream Ecological
Assessment Field Handbook, and Tier 4 is the
intensive bioassessment protocol used by your State
water quality agency.
This protocol provides an assessment based primarily
on physical conditions within the assessment area. It
may not detect some resource problems caused by
factors located beyond the area being assessed. The
use of higher tier methods is required to more fully
assess the ecological condition and to detect problems
originating elsewhere in the watershed. However,
most landowners are mainly interested in evaluating
conditions on their land, and this protocol is well
suited to supporting that objective.
What makes for a healthy
stream?
A stream is a complex ecosystem in which several
biological, physical, and chemical processes interact.
Changes in any one characteristic or process have
cascading effects throughout the system and result in
changes to many aspects of the system.
Some of the factors that influence and determine the
integrity of streams are shown in figure 1. Often several
factors can combine to cause profound changes.
For example, increased nutrient loads alone might not
cause a change to a forested stream. But when combined
with tree removal and channel widening, the
result is to shift the energy dynamics from an aquatic
biological community based on leaf litter inputs to one
based on algae and macrophytes. The resulting chemical
changes caused by algal photosynthesis and respiration
and elevated temperatures may further contribute
to a completely different biological community.
Many stream processes are in a delicate balance. For
example, stream power, sediment load, and channel
roughness must be in balance. Hydrologic changes
that increase stream power, if not balanced by greater
channel complexity and roughness, result in "hungry"
water that erodes banks or the stream bottom. Increases
in sediment load beyond the transport capacity
of the stream leads to deposition, lateral channel
movement into streambanks, and channel widening.
Most systems would benefit from increased complexity
and diversity in physical structure. Structural
complexity is provided by trees fallen into the channel,
overhanging banks, roots extending into the flow,
pools and riffles, overhanging vegetation, and a variety
of bottom materials. This complexity enhances habitat
for organisms and also restores hydrologic properties
that often have been lost.
Chemical pollution is a factor in most streams. The
major categories of chemical pollutants are oxygen
depleting substances, such as manure, ammonia, and
organic wastes; the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus;
acids, such as from mining or industrial activities;
and toxic materials, such as pesticides and salts or
metals contained in some drain water. It is important
to note that the effects of many chemicals depend on
several factors. For example, an increase in the pH
caused by excessive algal and aquatic plant growth
may cause an otherwise safe concentration of ammonia
to become toxic. This is because the equilibrium
concentrations of nontoxic ammonium ion and toxic
un-ionized ammonia are pH-dependent.
Finally, it is important to recognize that streams and
flood plains need to operate as a connected system.
Flooding is necessary to maintain the flood plain
biological community and to relieve the erosive force
of flood discharges by reducing the velocity of the
water. Flooding and bankfull flows are also essential
for maintaining the instream physical structure. These
events scour out pools, clean coarser substrates
(gravel, cobbles, and boulders) of fine sediment, and
redistribute or introduce woody debris.
What's the stream type?
A healthy stream will look and function differently in
different parts of the country and in different parts of
the landscape. A mountain stream in a shale bedrock
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 1

is different from a valley stream in alluvial deposits.
Coastal streams are different from piedmont streams.
Figuring out the different types of streams is called
stream classification. Determining what types of
streams are in your area is important to assessing the
health of a particular stream.
There are many stream classification systems. For the
purpose of a general assessment based on biology and
habitat, you should think in terms of a three-level
classification system based on ecoregion, drainage
area, and gradient. Ecoregions are geographic areas in
which ecosystems are expected to be similar. A national-level
ecoregion map is available, and many
states are working to develop maps at a higher level of
resolution. Drainage area is the next most important
factor to defining stream type. Finally, the slope or
gradient of the reach you are assessing will help you
determine the stream type. If you are familiar with
another classification system, such as Rosgen or
Montgomery/Buffington, you should use that system.
This protocol may have been adjusted by your state
office to reflect stream types common in your area.
Reference sites
One of the most difficult issues associated with stream
ecosystems is the question of historic and potential
conditions. To assess stream health, we need a benchmark
of what the healthy condition is. We can usually
assume that historic conditions were healthy. But in
areas where streams have been degraded for 150 years
or more, knowledge of historic conditions may have
been lost. Moreover, in many areas returning to historic
conditions is impossible or the historic conditions
would not be stable under the current hydrology.
Therefore, the question becomes what is the best we
can expect for a particular stream. Scientists have
grappled with this question for a long time, and the
Figure 1 Factors that influence the integrity of streams (modified from Karr 1986)
Solubilities Alkalinity
Temperature
Velocity
Adsorption
D.O.
Land use
High/low
extremes
Nutrients
Organics
Chemical
variables
Hardness
pH
Turbidity
Ground
water
Flow
Regime
Precipitation
& runoff
Disease
Parasitism
Feeding
Biotic
factors
Reproduction
Competition
Water
resource
integrity
Predation
Nutrients
Sunlight
Organic matter
inputs
Energy
source
1° and 2°
Production
Seasonal
cycles
Siltation
Sinuosity
Riparian
vegetation
Habitat
structure
Current
Canopy
Substrate
Width/depth
Bank stability
Channel
morphology
Instream
cover
Gradient
2 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

consensus that has emerged is to use reference sites
within a classification system.
Reference sites represent the best conditions attainable
within a particular stream class. The identification
and characterization of reference sites is an
ongoing effort led in most states by the water quality
agency. You should determine whether your state has
identified reference sites for the streams in your area.
Such reference sites could be in another county or in
another state. Unless your state office has provided
photographs and other descriptive information, you
should visit some reference sites to learn what healthy
streams look like as part of your skills development.
Visiting reference sites should also be part of your
orientation after a move to a new field office.
Using this protocol
This protocol is intended for use in the field with the
landowner. Conducting the assessment with the landowner
gives you the opportunity to discuss natural
resource concerns and conservation opportunities.
Before conducting the assessment, you should determine
the following information in the field office:
• ecoregion (if in use in your State)
• drainage area
• stream gradients on the property
• overall position on the landscape
Your opening discussion with landowners should start
by acknowledging that they own the land and that you
understand that they know their operation best. Point
out that streams, from small creeks to large rivers, are
a resource that runs throughout the landscape—how
they manage their part of the stream affects the entire
system. Talk about the benefits of healthy streams and
watersheds (improved baseflow, forage, fish, waterfowl,
wildlife, aesthetics, reduced flooding downstream,
and reduced water pollution). Talk about how
restoring streams to a healthy condition is now a
national priority.
Explain what will happen during the assessment and
what you expect from them. An example follows:
This assessment will tell us how your stream is
doing. We’ll need to look at sections of the stream that
are representative of different conditions. As we do
the assessment we’ll discuss how the functioning of
different aspects of the stream work to keep the system
healthy. After we’re done, we can talk about the
results of the assessment. I may recommend further
assessment work to better understand what’s going
on. Once we understand what is happening, we can
explore what you would like to accomplish with your
stream and ideas for improving its condition, if
necessary.
You need to assess one or more representative
reaches. A reach is a length of stream. For this protocol,
the length of the assessment reach is 12 times the
active channel width. The reach should be representative
of the stream through that area. If conditions
change dramatically along the stream, you should
identify additional assessment reaches and conduct
separate assessments for each.
As you evaluate each element, try to work the talking
points contained in the scoring descriptions into the
conversation. If possible, involve the owner by asking
him or her to help record the scores.
The assessment is recorded on a two-page worksheet.
A completed worksheet is shown in figure 2. (A
worksheet suitable for copying is at the end of this
note.) The stream visual assessment protocol worksheet
consists of two principal sections: reach identification
and assessment. The identification section
records basic information about the reach, such as
name, location, and land uses. Space is provided for a
diagram of the reach, which may be useful to locate
the reach or illustrate problem areas. On this diagram
draw all tributaries, drainage ditches, and irrigation
ditches; note springs and ponds that drain to the
stream; include road crossings and note whether they
are fords, culverts, or bridges; note the direction of
flow; and draw in any large woody debris, pools, and
riffles.
The assessment section is used to record the scores
for up to 15 assessment elements. Not all assessment
elements will be applicable or useful for your site. Do
not score elements that are not applicable. Score an
element by comparing your observations to the descriptions
provided. If you have difficulty matching
descriptions, try to compare what you are observing to
the conditions at reference sites for your area.
The overall assessment score is determined by adding
the values for each element and dividing by the number
of elements assessed. For example, if your scores
add up to 76 and you used 12 assessment elements,
you would have an overall assessment value of 6.3,
which is classified as fair. This value provides a numerical
assessment of the environmental condition of
the stream reach. This value can be used as a general
statement about the "state of the environment" of the
stream or (over time) as an indicator of trends in
condition.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 3

Figure 2
Stream visual assessment protocol worksheet
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
Elmer Smith Mary Soylkahn 6-20-99
Camp Creek
About 2,000 feet upstream of equipment shed
Owners name ___________________________________ Evaluator's name_______________________________ Date ________________
Stream name _______________________________________________ Waterbody ID number ____________________________________
Reach location _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2,200 acres 1.2 % (map)
Cherry Creek north of the Rt 310 bridge
40 30 20 10
Ecoregion ___________________________________ Drainage area _______________________ Gradient__________________________
Applicable reference site _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Land use within drainage (%): row crop ______ hayland ______ grazing/pasture _______ forest ______ residential _______
confined animal feeding operations ______ Cons. Reserve ________ industrial _______ Other: _________________
clear
15 feet
clear
x
Weather conditions-today ______________________________________ Past 2-5 days __________________________________________
Active channel width ______________________ Dominant substrate: boulder ______ gravel ______ sand ______ silt ______ mud ______
x
Site Diagram
N
Pasture
Pool
Riffle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Evidence of
concentrated
flow
Flow
x
x
Corn
x
x
4 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Figure 2
Stream visual assessment protocol worksheet—Continued
Assessment Scores
Channel condition
8
Pools
3
Hydrologic alteration
10
Invertebrate habitat
7
Riparian zone
Bank stability
Water appearance
1
5
3
Score only if applicable
Canopy cover
Manure presence
3
1
Nutrient enrichment
Barriers to fish movement
Instream fish cover
7
10
3
Salinity
Riffle embeddedness
Marcroinvertebrates
Observed (optional)
5
10
Overall score
(Total divided by number scored)
76/14
5.4
9.0 Excellent
This reach is typical of the reaches on the property. Severely
Suspected causes of observed problems_____________________________________________________________________
degraded riparian zones lack brush, small trees. Some bank problems from livestock access.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Channel may be widening due to high sediment load. Does not appear to be downcutting.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Install 391-Riparian Forest Buffer. Need to encourage livestock away from
Recommendations______________________________________________________________________________________
stream using water sources and shade or exclude livestock. Concentrated flows off fields
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
need to be spread out in zone 3 of buffer. Relocate fallen trees if they deflect current into
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
bank–use as stream barbs to deflect current to maintain channel.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 5

Reach description
The first page of the assessment worksheet records
the identity and location of the stream reach. Most
entries are self-explanatory. Waterbody ID and
ecoregion should be filled out only if these identification
and classification aids are used in your state.
Active channel width can be difficult to determine.
However, active channel width helps to characterize
the stream. It is also an important aspect of more
advanced assessment protocols; therefore, it is worth
becoming familiar with the concept and field determination.
For this protocol you do not need to measure
active channel width accurately — a visual estimate of
the average width is adequate.
Active channel width is the stream width at the
bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharge is the flow rate
that forms and controls the shape and size of the
active channel. It is approximately the flow rate at
which the stream begins to move onto its flood plain if
the stream has an active flood plain. The bankfull
discharge is expected to occur every 1.5 years on
average. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between
baseflow, bankfull flow, and the flood plain. Active
channel width is best determined by locating the first
flat depositional surface occurring above the bed of
the stream (i.e., an active flood plain). The lowest
elevation at which the bankfull surface could occur is
at the top of the point bars or other sediment deposits
in the channel bed. Other indicators of the bankfull
surface include a break in slope on the bank, vegetation
change, substrate, and debris. If you are not
trained in locating the bankfull stage, ask the landowner
how high the water gets every year and observe
the location of permanent vegetation.
Figure 3 Baseflow, bankfull, and flood plain locations (Rosgen 1996)
Baseflow
Flood plain
Bankfull
Baseflow
Flood plain
Bankfull
6 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Scoring descriptions
Each assessment element is rated with a value of 1 to
10. Rate only those elements appropriate to the
stream. Using the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
worksheet, record the score that best fits the observations
you make based on the narrative descriptions
provided. Unless otherwise directed, assign the lowest
score that applies. For example, if a reach has aspects
of several narrative descriptions, assign a score based
on the lowest scoring description that contains indicators
present within the reach. You may record values
intermediate to those listed. Some background information
is provided for each assessment element, as
well as a description of what to look for. The length of
the assessment reach should be 12 times the active
channel width.
Channel condition
Natural channel; no
structures, dikes. No
evidence of downcutting
or excessive
lateral cutting.
Evidence of past channel
alteration, but with
significant recovery of
channel and banks. Any
dikes or levies are set
back to provide access to
an adequate flood plain.
Altered channel; 50% of the reach
with riprap or channelization.
Dikes or levees
prevent access to the
flood plain.
10
7
3
1
Stream meandering generally increases as the gradient
of the surrounding valley decreases. Often, development
in the area results in changes to this meandering
pattern and the flow of a stream. These changes in
turn may affect the way a stream naturally does its
work, such as the transport of sediment and the development
and maintenance of habitat for fish, aquatic
insects, and aquatic plants. Some modifications to
stream channels have more impact on stream health
than others. For example, channelization and dams
affect a stream more than the presence of pilings or
other supports for road crossings.
Active downcutting and excessive lateral cutting are
serious impairments to stream function. Both conditions
are indicative of an unstable stream channel.
Usually, this instability must be addressed before
committing time and money toward improving other
stream problems. For example, restoring the woody
vegetation within the riparian zone becomes increasingly
difficult when a channel is downcutting because
banks continue to be undermined and the water table
drops below the root zone of the plants during their
growing season. In this situation or when a channel is
fairly stable, but already incised from previous downcutting
or mechanical dredging, it is usually necessary
to plant upland species, rather than hydrophytic, or to
apply irrigation for several growing seasons, or both.
Extensive bank-armoring of channels to stop lateral
cutting usually leads to more problems (especially
downstream). Often stability can be obtained by using
a series of structures (barbs, groins, jetties, deflectors,
weirs, vortex weirs) that reduce water velocity, deflect
currents, or act as gradient controls. These structures
are used in conjunction with large woody debris and
woody vegetation plantings. Hydrologic alterations are
described next.
What to look for: Signs of channelization or straightening
of the stream may include an unnaturally
straight section of the stream, high banks, dikes or
berms, lack of flow diversity (e.g., few point bars and
deep pools), and uniform-sized bed materials (e.g., all
cobbles where there should be mixes of gravel and
cobble). In newly channelized reaches, vegetation may
be missing or appear very different (different species,
not as well developed) from the bank vegetation of
areas that were not channelized. Older channelized
reaches may also have little or no vegetation or have
grasses instead of woody vegetation. Drop structures
(such as check dams), irrigation diversions, culverts,
bridge abutments, and riprap also indicate changes to
the stream channel.
Indicators of downcutting in the stream channel
include nickpoints associated with headcuts in the
stream bottom and exposure of cultural features, such
as pipelines that were initially buried under the
stream. Exposed footings in bridges and culvert outlets
that are higher than the water surface during low
flows are other examples. A lack of sediment depositional
features, such as regularly-spaced point bars, is
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 7

normally an indicator of incision. A low vertical scarp
at the toe of the streambank may indicate downcutting,
especially if the scarp occurs on the inside of a
meander. Another visual indicator of current or past
downcutting is high streambanks with woody vegetation
growing well below the top of the bank (as a
channel incises the bankfull flow line moves downward
within the former bankfull channel). Excessive
bank erosion is indicated by raw banks in areas of the
stream where they are not normally found, such as
straight sections between meanders or on the inside of
curves.
Hydrologic alteration
Flooding every 1.5 to 2
years. No dams, no
water withdrawals, no
dikes or other structures
limiting the
stream's access to the
flood plain. Channel is
not incised.
Flooding occurs only
once every 3 to 5 years;
limited channel incision.
or
Withdrawals, although
present, do not affect
available habitat for
biota.
Flooding occurs only
once every 6 to 10 years;
channel deeply incised.
or
Withdrawals significantly
affect available low flow
habitat for biota.
No flooding; channel
deeply incised or structures
prevent access to
flood plain or dam
operations prevent
flood flows.
or
Withdrawals have
caused severe loss of
low flow habitat.
or
Flooding occurs on a 1-
year rain event or less.
10
7
3
1
Bankfull flows, as well as flooding, are important to
maintaining channel shape and function (e.g., sediment
transport) and maintaining the physical habitat
for animals and plants. High flows scour fine sediment
to keep gravel areas clean for fish and other aquatic
organisms. These flows also redistribute larger sediment,
such as gravel, cobbles, and boulders, as well as
large woody debris, to form pool and riffle habitat
important to stream biota. The river channel and flood
plain exist in dynamic equilibrium, having evolved in
the present climatic regime and geomorphic setting.
The relationship of water and sediment is the basis for
the dynamic equilibrium that maintains the form and
function of the river channel. The energy of the river
(water velocity and depth) should be in balance with
the bedload (volume and particle size of the sediment).
Any change in the flow regime alters this balance.
If a river is not incised and has access to its flood
plain, decreases in the frequency of bankfull and outof-bank
flows decrease the river's ability to transport
sediment. This can result in excess sediment deposition,
channel widening and shallowing, and, ultimately, in
braiding of the channel. Rosgen (1996) defines braiding
as a stream with three or more smaller channels.
These smaller channels are extremely unstable, rarely
have woody vegetation along their banks, and provide
poor habitat for stream biota. A split channel, however,
has two or more smaller channels (called side
channels) that are usually very stable, have woody
vegetation along their banks, and provide excellent
habitat.
Conversely, an increase in flood flows or the confinement
of the river away from its flood plain (from either
incision or levees) increases the energy available to
transport sediment and can result in bank and channel
erosion.
The low flow or baseflow during the dry periods of
summer or fall usually comes from groundwater
entering the stream through the stream banks and
bottom. A decrease in the low-flow rate will result in a
smaller portion of the channel suitable for aquatic
organisms. The withdrawal of water from streams for
irrigation or industry and the placement of dams often
change the normal low-flow pattern. Baseflow can also
8 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

e affected by management and land use within the
watershed — less infiltration of precipitation reduces
baseflow and increases the frequency and severity of
high flow events. For example, urbanization increases
runoff and can increase the frequency of flooding to
every year or more often and also reduce low flows.
Overgrazing and clearcutting can have similar, although
typically less severe, effects. The last description
in the last box refers to the increased flood frequency
that occurs with the above watershed changes.
What to look for: Ask the landowner about the
frequency of flooding and about summer low-flow
conditions. A flood plain should be inundated during
flows that equal or exceed the 1.5- to 2.0-year flow
event (2 out of 3 years or every other year). Be cautious
because water in an adjacent field does not
necessarily indicate natural flooding. The water may
have flowed overland from a low spot in the bank
outside the assessment reach.
Evidence of flooding includes high water marks (such
as water lines), sediment deposits, or stream debris.
Look for these on the banks, on the bankside trees or
rocks, or on other structures (such as road pilings or
culverts).
Excess sediment deposits and wide, shallow channels
could indicate a loss of sediment transport capacity.
The loss of transport capacity can result in a stream
with three or more channels (braiding).
Riparian zone
Natural vegetation
extends at least
two active channel
widths on each
side.
Natural vegetation
extends one active
channel width on
each side.
or
If less than one
width, covers entire
flood plain.
Natural vegetation
extends half of the
active channel width
on each side.
Natural vegetation
extends a third of
the active channel
width on each side.
or
Filtering function
moderately compromised.
Natural vegetation
less than a third of
the active channel
width on each side.
or
Lack of regeneration.
or
Filtering function
severely compromised.
10
8
5
3
1
This element is the width of the natural vegetation
zone from the edge of the active channel out onto the
flood plain. For this element, the word natural means
plant communities with (1) all appropriate structural
components and (2) species native to the site or introduced
species that function similar to native species at
reference sites.
A healthy riparian vegetation zone is one of the most
important elements for a healthy stream ecosystem.
The quality of the riparian zone increases with the
width and the complexity of the woody vegetation
within it. This zone:
• Reduces the amount of pollutants that reach the
stream in surface runoff.
• Helps control erosion.
• Provides a microclimate that is cooler during the
summer providing cooler water for aquatic organisms.
• Provides large woody debris from fallen trees and
limbs that form instream cover, create pools, stabilize
the streambed, and provide habitat for stream
biota.
• Provides fish habitat in the form of undercut banks
with the "ceiling" held together by roots of woody
vegetation.
• Provides organic material for stream biota that,
among other functions, is the base of the food chain
in lower order streams.
• Provides habitat for terrestrial insects that drop in
the stream and become food for fish, and habitat
and travel corridors for terrestrial animals.
• Dissipates energy during flood events.
• Often provides the only refuge areas for fish during
out-of-bank flows (behind trees, stumps, and logs).
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 9

The type, timing, intensity, and extent of activity in
riparian zones are critical in determining the impact on
these areas. Narrow riparian zones and/or riparian
zones that have roads, agricultural activities, residential
or commercial structures, or significant areas of
bare soils have reduced functional value for the
stream. The filtering function of riparian zones can be
compromised by concentrated flows. No evidence of
concentrated flows through the zone should occur or,
if concentrated flows are evident, they should be from
land areas appropriately buffered with vegetated
strips.
What to look for: Compare the width of the riparian
zone to the active channel width. In steep, V-shaped
valleys there may not be enough room for a flood plain
riparian zone to extend as far as one or two active
channel widths. In this case, observe how much of the
flood plain is covered by riparian zone. The vegetation
must be natural and consist of all of the structural
components (aquatic plants, sedges or rushes, grasses,
forbs, shrubs, understory trees, and overstory trees)
appropriate for the area. A common problem is lack of
shrubs and understory trees. Another common problem
is lack of regeneration. The presence of only
mature vegetation and few seedlings indicates lack of
regeneration. Do not consider incomplete plant communities
as natural. Healthy riparian zones on both
sides of the stream are important for the health of the
entire system. If one side is lacking the protective
vegetative cover, the entire reach of the stream will be
affected. In doing the assessment, examine both sides
of the stream and note on the diagram which side of
the stream has problems. There should be no evidence
of concentrated flows through the riparian zone that
are not adequately buffered before entering the riparian
zone.
Bank stability
Banks are stable; banks
are low (at elevation of
active flood plain); 33% or
more of eroding surface
area of banks in outside
bends is protected by
roots that extend to the
base-flow elevation.
Moderately stable; banks
are low (at elevation of
active flood plain); less
than 33% of eroding surface
area of banks in
outside bends is protected
by roots that extend to the
baseflow elevation.
Moderately unstable;
banks may be low, but
typically are high (flooding
occurs 1 year out of 5
or less frequently); outside
bends are actively
eroding (overhanging
vegetation at top of bank,
some mature trees falling
into steam annually, some
slope failures apparent).
Unstable; banks may be
low, but typically are high;
some straight reaches and
inside edges of bends are
actively eroding as well as
outside bends (overhanging
vegetation at top of
bare bank, numerous
mature trees falling into
stream annually, numerous
slope failures apparent).
10
7
3
1
This element is the existence of or the potential for
detachment of soil from the upper and lower stream
banks and its movement into the stream. Some bank
erosion is normal in a healthy stream. Excessive bank
erosion occurs where riparian zones are degraded or
where the stream is unstable because of changes in
hydrology, sediment load, or isolation from the flood
plain. High and steep banks are more susceptible to
erosion or collapse. All outside bends of streams
erode, so even a stable stream may have 50 percent of
its banks bare and eroding. A healthy riparian corridor
with a vegetated flood plain contributes to bank stability.
The roots of perennial grasses or woody vegetation
typically extend to the baseflow elevation of water in
streams that have bank heights of 6 feet or less. The
root masses help hold the bank soils together and
physically protect the bank from scour during bankfull
and flooding events. Vegetation seldom becomes
established below the elevation of the bankfull surface
because of the frequency of inundation and the unstable
bottom conditions as the stream moves its
bedload.
The type of vegetation is important. For example,
trees, shrubs, sedges, and rushes have the type of root
masses capable of withstanding high streamflow
events, while Kentucky bluegrass does not. Soil type at
the surface and below the surface also influences bank
stability. For example, banks with a thin soil cover
over gravel or sand are more prone to collapse than
are banks with a deep soil layer.
10 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

What to look for: Signs of erosion include unvegetated
stretches, exposed tree roots, or scalloped edges. Evidence
of construction, vehicular, or animal paths near
banks or grazing areas leading directly to the water's
edge suggest conditions that may lead to the collapse of
banks. Estimate the size or area of the bank affected
relative to the total bank area. This element may be
difficult to score during high water.
Water appearance
Very clear, or clear but
tea-colored; objects
visible at depth 3 to 6 ft
(less if slightly colored);
no oil sheen on surface;
no noticeable film on
submerged objects or
rocks.
Occasionally cloudy,
especially after storm
event, but clears rapidly;
objects visible at depth 1.5
to 3 ft; may have slightly
green color; no oil sheen
on water surface.
Considerable cloudiness
most of the time; objects
visible to depth 0.5 to 1.5
ft; slow sections may
appear pea-green; bottom
rocks or submerged objects
covered with heavy
green or olive-green film.
or
Moderate odor of ammonia
or rotten eggs.
Very turbid or muddy
appearance most of the
time; objects visible to
depth < 0.5 ft; slow moving
water may be brightgreen;
other obvious
water pollutants; floating
algal mats, surface scum,
sheen or heavy coat of
foam on surface.
or
Strong odor of chemicals,
oil, sewage, other pollutants.
10
7
3
1
This element compares turbidity, color, and other
visual characteristics with a healthy or reference
stream. The depth to which an object can be clearly
seen is a measure of turbidity. Turbidity is caused
mostly by particles of soil and organic matter suspended
in the water column. Water often shows some
turbidity after a storm event because of soil and organic
particles carried by runoff into the stream or
suspended by turbulence. The water in some streams
may be naturally tea-colored. This is particularly true
in watersheds with extensive bog and wetland areas.
Water that has slight nutrient enrichment may support
communities of algae, which provide a greenish color
to the water. Streams with heavy loads of nutrients have
thick coatings of algae attached to the rocks and other
submerged objects. In degraded streams, floating algal
mats, surface scum, or pollutants, such as dyes and oil,
may be visible.
What to look for: Clarity of the water is an obvious
and easy feature to assess. The deeper an object in the
water can be seen, the lower the amount of turbidity.
Use the depth that objects are visible only if the
stream is deep enough to evaluate turbidity using this
approach. For example, if the water is clear, but only 1
foot deep, do not rate it as if an object became obscured
at a depth of 1 foot. This measure should be
taken after a stream has had the opportunity to "settle"
following a storm event. A pea-green color indicates
nutrient enrichment beyond what the stream can
naturally absorb.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 11

Nutrient enrichment
Clear water along entire
reach; diverse aquatic
plant community includes
low quantities of
many species of macrophytes;
little algal
growth present.
Fairly clear or slightly
greenish water along
entire reach; moderate
algal growth on stream
substrates.
Greenish water along entire
reach; overabundance of
lush green macrophytes;
abundant algal growth,
especially during warmer
months.
Pea green, gray, or brown
water along entire reach;
dense stands of macrophytes
clog stream;
severe algal blooms
create thick algal mats in
stream.
10
7
3
1
Nutrient enrichment is often reflected by the types and
amounts of aquatic vegetation in the water. High levels
of nutrients (especially phosphorus and nitrogen)
promote an overabundance of algae and floating and
rooted macrophytes. The presence of some aquatic
vegetation is normal in streams. Algae and macrophytes
provide habitat and food for all stream animals.
However, an excessive amount of aquatic vegetation is
not beneficial to most stream life. Plant respiration
and decomposition of dead vegetation consume dissolved
oxygen in the water. Lack of dissolved oxygen
creates stress for all aquatic organisms and can cause
fish kills. A landowner may have seen fish gulping for
air at the water surface during warm weather, indicating
a lack of dissolved oxygen.
What to look for: Some aquatic vegetation (rooted
macrophytes, floating plants, and algae attached to
substrates) is normal and indicates a healthy stream.
Excess nutrients cause excess growth of algae and
macrophytes, which can create greenish color to the
water. As nutrient loads increase the green becomes
more intense and macrophytes become more lush and
deep green. Intense algal blooms, thick mats of algae,
or dense stands of macrophytes degrade water quality
and habitat. Clear water and a diverse aquatic plant
community without dense plant populations are optimal
for this characteristic.
Barriers to fish movement
No barriers
Seasonal water
withdrawals inhibit
movement within
the reach
Drop structures,
culverts, dams, or
diversions (< 1 foot
drop) within the
reach
Drop structures,
culverts, dams, or
diversions (> 1 foot
drop) within 3 miles
of the reach
Drop structures,
culverts, dams, or
diversions (> 1
foot drop) within
the reach
10
8
5
3
1
Barriers that block the movement of fish or other
aquatic organisms, such as fresh water mussels, must
be considered as part of the overall stream assessment.
If sufficiently high, these barriers may prevent
the movement or migration of fish, deny access to
important breeding and foraging habitats, and isolate
populations of fish and other aquatic animals.
What to look for: Some barriers are natural, such as
waterfalls and boulder dams, and some are developed
by humans. Note the presence of such barriers along
the reach of the stream you are assessing, their size,
and whether provisions have been made for the passage
of fish. Ask the landowner about any dams or
other barriers that may be present 3 to 5 miles upstream
or downstream. Larger dams are often noted
on maps, so you may find some information even
before going out into the field. Beaver dams generally
do not prevent fish migration. Look for structures that
may not involve a drop, but still present a hydraulic
barrier. Single, large culverts with no slope and sufficient
water depth usually do not constitute a barrier.
Small culverts or culverts with slopes may cause high
water velocities that prevent passage.
12 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Instream fish cover
>7 cover types
available
6 to 7 cover types
available
4 to 5 cover types
available
2 to 3 cover types
available
None to 1 cover
type available
10
8
5
3
1
Cover types: Logs/large woody debris, deep pools, overhanging vegetation, boulders/cobble, riffles,
undercut banks, thick root mats, dense macrophyte beds, isolated/backwater pools,
other: ___________________________________.
This assessment element measures availability of
physical habitat for fish. The potential for the maintenance
of a healthy fish community and its ability to
recover from disturbance is dependent on the variety
and abundance of suitable habitat and cover available.
What to look for: Observe the number of different
habitat and cover types within a representative subsection
of the assessment reach that is equivalent in
length to five times the active channel width. Each
cover type must be present in appreciable amounts to
score. Cover types are described below.
Logs/large woody debris—Fallen trees or parts of
trees that provide structure and attachment for aquatic
macroinvertebrates and hiding places for fish.
Deep pools—Areas characterized by a smooth undisturbed
surface, generally slow current, and deep
enough to provide protective cover for fish (75 to 100%
deeper than the prevailing stream depth).
Overhanging vegetation—Trees, shrubs, vines, or
perennial herbaceous vegetation that hangs immediately
over the stream surface, providing shade and
cover.
Boulders/cobble—Boulders are rounded stones more
than 10 inches in diameter or large slabs more than 10
inches in length; cobbles are stones between 2.5 and
10 inches in diameter.
Undercut banks—Eroded areas extending horizontally
beneath the surface of the bank forming underwater
pockets used by fish for hiding and protection.
Thick root mats—Dense mats of roots and rootlets
(generally from trees) at or beneath the water surface
forming structure for invertebrate attachment and fish
cover.
Dense macrophyte beds—Beds of emergent (e.g.,
water willow), floating leaf (e.g., water lily), or submerged
(e.g., riverweed) aquatic vegetation thick
enough to provide invertebrate attachment and fish
cover.
Riffles—Area characterized by broken water surface,
rocky or firm substrate, moderate or swift current, and
relatively shallow depth (usually less than 18 inches).
Isolated/backwater pools—Areas disconnected
from the main channel or connected as a "blind" side
channel, characterized by a lack of flow except in
periods of high water.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 13

Pools
Deep and shallow pools
abundant; greater than
30% of the pool bottom
is obscure due to depth,
or the pools are at least
5 feet deep.
Pools present, but not
abundant; from 10 to 30%
of the pool bottom is
obscure due to depth, or
the pools are at least 3
feet deep.
Pools present, but shallow;
from 5 to 10% of the
pool bottom is obscure
due to depth, or the pools
are less than 3 feet deep.
Pools absent, or the
entire bottom is discernible.
10
7
3
1
Pools are important resting and feeding sites for fish.
A healthy stream has a mix of shallow and deep pools.
A deep pool is 1.6 to 2 times deeper than the prevailing
depth, while a shallow pool is less than 1.5 times
deeper than the prevailing depth. Pools are abundant if
a deep pool is in each of the meander bends in the
reach being assessed. To determine if pools are abundant,
look at a longer sample length than one that is 12
active channel widths in length. Generally, only 1 or 2
pools would typically form within a reach as long as 12
active channel widths. In low order, high gradient
streams, pools are abundant if there is more than one
pool every 4 channel widths.
What to look for: Pool diversity and abundance are
estimated based on walking the stream or probing
from the streambank with a stick or length of rebar.
You should find deep pools on the outside of meander
bends. In shallow, clear streams a visual inspection
may provide an accurate estimate. In deep streams or
streams with low visibility, this assessment characteristic
may be difficult to determine and should not be
scored.
Insect/invertebrate habitat
At least 5 types of habitat
available. Habitat is at a
stage to allow full insect
colonization (woody
debris and logs not
freshly fallen).
3 to 4 types of habitat.
Some potential habitat
exists, such as overhanging
trees, which will provide
habitat, but have not yet
entered the stream.
1 to 2 types of habitat. The
substrate is often disturbed,
covered, or removed
by high stream
velocities and scour or by
sediment deposition.
None to 1 type of habitat.
10
7
3
1
Cover types: Fine woody debris, submerged logs, leaf packs, undercut banks, cobble, boulders,
coarse gravel,
other: _________________________________________.
Stable substrate is important for insect/invertebrate
colonization. Substrate refers to the stream bottom,
woody debris, or other surfaces on which invertebrates
can live. Optimal conditions include a variety of
substrate types within a relatively small area of the
stream (5 times the active channel width). Stream and
substrate stability are also important. High stream
velocities, high sediment loads, and frequent flooding
may cause substrate instability even if substrate is
present.
What to look for: Observe the number of different
types of habitat and cover within a representative
subsection of the assessment reach that is equivalent
in length to five times the active channel width. Each
cover type must be present in appreciable amounts to
score.
14 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Score the following assessment elements
only if applicable
Canopy cover (if applicable)
Coldwater fishery
> 75% of water surface
shaded and upstream 2
to 3 miles generally
well shaded.
>50% shaded in reach.
or
>75% in reach, but upstream
2 to 3 miles poorly
shaded.
20 to 50% shaded.
< 20% of water surface in
reach shaded.
10
7
3
1
Warmwater fishery
25 to 90% of water
surface shaded; mixture
of conditions.
> 90% shaded; full canopy;
same shading condition
throughout the reach.
(intentionally blank)
< 25% water surface
shaded in reach.
10
7
1
Do not assess this element if active channel
width is greater than 50 feet. Do not assess this
element if woody vegetation is naturally absent
(e.g., wet meadows).
Shading of the stream is important because it keeps
water cool and limits algal growth. Cool water has a
greater oxygen holding capacity than does warm
water. When streamside trees are removed, the stream
is exposed to the warming effects of the sun causing
the water temperature to increase for longer periods
during the daylight hours and for more days during the
year. This shift in light intensity and temperature
causes a decline in the numbers of certain species of
fish, insects, and other invertebrates and some aquatic
plants. They may be replaced altogether by other
species that are more tolerant of increased light intensity,
low dissolved oxygen, and warmer water temperature.
For example, trout and salmon require cool,
oxygen-rich water. Loss of streamside vegetation (and
also channel widening) that cause increased water
temperature and decreased oxygen levels are major
contributing factors to the decrease in abundance of
trout and salmon from many streams that historically
supported these species. Increased light and the
warmer water also promote excessive growth of
submerged macrophytes and algae that compromises
the biotic community of the stream. The temperature
at the reach you are assessing will be affected by the
amount of shading 2 to 3 miles upstream.
What to look for: Try to estimate the portion of the
water surface area for the whole reach that is shaded
by estimating areas with no shade, poor shade, and
shade. Time of the year, time of the day, and weather
can affect your observation of shading. Therefore, the
relative amount of shade is estimated by assuming that
the sun is directly overhead and the vegetation is in
full leaf-out. First evaluate the shading conditions for
the reach; then determine (by talking with the landowner)
shading conditions 2 to 3 miles upstream.
Alternatively, use aerial photographs taken during full
leaf out. The following rough guidelines for percent
shade may be used:
stream surface not visible .......................................... >90
surface slightly visible or visible only in patches .. 70 – 90
surface visible, but banks not visible................... 40 – 70
surface visible and banks visible at times ........... 20 – 40
surface and banks visible ............................................

Manure presence (if applicable)
(Intentionally blank)
Evidence of livestock
access to riparian zone.
Occasional manure in
stream or waste storage
structure located on the
flood plain.
Extensive amount of
manure on banks or in
stream.
or
Untreated human waste
discharge pipes present.
5
3
1
Do not score this element unless livestock operations
or human waste discharges are present.
Manure from livestock may enter the water if livestock
have access to the stream or from runoff of grazing
land adjacent to the stream. In some communities
untreated human waste may also empty directly into
streams. Manure and human waste increase biochemical
oxygen demand, increase the loading of nutrients,
and alter the trophic state of the aquatic biological
community. Untreated human waste is a health risk.
What to look for: Do not score this element unless
livestock operations or human waste discharges are
present. Look for evidence of animal droppings in or
around streams, on the streambank, or in the adjacent
riparian zone. Well-worn livestock paths leading to or
near streams also suggest the probability of manure in
the stream. Areas with stagnant or slow-moving water
may have moderate to dense amounts of vegetation or
algal blooms, indicating localized enrichment from
manure.
Salinity (if applicable)
(Intentionally blank)
Minimal wilting, bleaching,
leaf burn, or stunting
of aquatic vegetation;
some salt-tolerant streamside
vegetation.
Aquatic vegetation may
show significant wilting,
bleaching, leaf burn, or
stunting; dominance of
salt-tolerant streamside
vegetation.
Severe wilting, bleaching,
leaf burn, or stunting;
presence of only salttolerant
aquatic vegetation;
most streamside
vegetation salt tolerant.
5
3
1
Do not assess this element unless elevated salinity
from anthropogenic sources is known to
occur in the stream.
High salinity levels most often occur in arid areas
and in areas that have high irrigation requirements.
High salinity can also result from oil and gas well
operations. Salt accumulation in soil causes a breakdown
of soil structure, decreased infiltration of water,
and potential toxicity. High salinity in streams affects
aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Salts
are a product of natural weathering processes of soil
and geologic material.
What to look for: High salinity levels cause a "burning"
or "bleaching" of aquatic vegetation. Wilting, loss
of plant color, decreased productivity, and stunted
growth are readily visible signs. Other indicators
include whitish salt encrustments on the streambanks
and the displacement of native vegetation by salttolerant
aquatic plants and riparian vegetation (such
as tamarix or salt cedar).
16 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Riffle embeddedness
(if applicable)
Gravel or cobble
particles are
< 20% embedded.
Gravel or cobble
particles are 20 to
30% embedded.
Gravel or cobble
particles are 30 to
40% embedded.
Gravel or cobble
particles are >40%
embedded.
Riffle is completely
embedded.
10
8
5
3
1
Do not assess this element unless riffles are
present or they are a natural feature that
should be present.
Riffles are areas, often downstream of a pool, where
the water is breaking over rocks or other debris causing
surface agitation. In coastal areas riffles can be
created by shoals and submerged objects. (This element
is sensitive to regional differences and should be
related to reference conditions.) Riffles are critical for
maintaining high species diversity and abundance of
insects for most streams and for serving as spawning
and feeding grounds for some fish species. Embeddedness
measures the degree to which gravel and cobble
substrate are surrounded by fine sediment. It relates
directly to the suitability of the stream substrate as
habitat for macroinvertebrates, fish spawning, and egg
incubation.
What to look for: This assessment characteristic
should be used only in riffle areas and in streams
where this is a natural feature. The measure is the
depth to which objects are buried by sediment. This
assessment is made by picking up particles of gravel
or cobble with your fingertips at the fine sediment
layer. Pull the particle out of the bed and estimate
what percent of the particle was buried. Some streams
have been so smothered by fine sediment that the
original stream bottom is not visible. Test for complete
burial of a streambed by probing with a length of
rebar.
Macroinvertebrates observed
Community dominated by
Group I or intolerant
species with good species
diversity. Examples
include caddisflies, mayflies,
stoneflies, hellgrammites.
Community dominated by
Group II or facultative
species, such as damselflies,
dragonflies, aquatic
sowbugs, blackflies,
crayfish.
Community dominated by
Group III or tolerant species,
such as midges,
craneflies, horseflies,
leeches, aquatic earthworms,
tubificid worms.
Very reduced number of
species or near absence of
all macroinvertebrates.
15
6
2
– 3
This important characteristic reflects the ability of the
stream to support aquatic invertebrate animals. However,
successful assessment requires knowledge of the
life cycles of some aquatic insects and other macroinvertebrates
and the ability to identify them. For this
reason, this is an optional element. The presence of
intolerant insect species (cannot survive in polluted
water) indicates healthy stream conditions. Some
kinds of macroinvertebrates, such as stoneflies, mayflies,
and caddisflies, are sensitive to pollution and do
not live in polluted water; they are considered
Group I. Another group of macroinvertebrates, known
as Group II or facultative macroinvertebrates, can
tolerate limited pollution. This group includes damselflies,
aquatic sowbugs, and crayfish. The presence of
Group III macroinvertebrates, including midges,
craneflies and leeches, suggests the water is significantly
polluted. The presence of a single Group I
species in a community does not constitute good
diversity and should generally not be given a score of
15.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 17

What to look for: You can collect macroinvertebrates
by picking up cobbles and other submerged
objects in the water. Look carefully for the insects;
they are often well camouflaged and may appear as
part of the stone or object. Note the kinds of insects,
number of species, and relative abundance of each
group of insects/macroinvertebrates. Each of the three
classes of macroinvertebrates are illustrated on pages
19 and 20. Note that the scoring values for this
element range from – 3 to 15.
18 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Stream
Invertebrates
Group One Taxa
Pollution sensitive organisms found in good
quality water.
1 Stonefly Order Plecoptera. 1/2" to
1 1/2", 6 legs with hooked tips, antennae,
2 hair-line tails. Smooth (no gills) on lower
half of body (see arrow).
2 Caddisfly: Order Trichoptera. Up to 1",
6 hooked legs on upper third of body, 2
hooks at back end. May be in a stick,
rock, or leaf case with its head sticking
out. May have fluffy gill tufts on underside.
3 Water Penny: Order Coleoptera. 1/4",
flat saucer-shaped body with a raised
bump on one side and 6 tiny legs and
fluffy gills on the other side. Immature
beetle.
4 Riffle Beetle: Order Coleoptera. 1/4",
oval body covered with tiny hairs, 6 legs,
antennae. Walks slowly underwater.
Does not swim on surface.
5 Mayfly: Order Ephemeroptera. 1/4" to
1", brown, moving, plate-like or feathery
gills on the sides of lower body (see
arrow), 6 large hooked legs, antennae, 2
or 3 long hair-like tails. Tails may be
webbed together.
6 Gilled Snail: Class Gastropoda. Shell
opening covered by thin plate called
operculum. When opening is facing you,
shell usually opens on right.
7 Dobsonfly (Hellgrammite): Family
Corydalidae. 3/4" to 4", dark-colored, 6
legs, large pinching jaws, eight pairs
feelers on lower half of body with paired
cotton-like gill tufts along underside, short
antennae, 2 tails, and 2 pairs of hooks at
back end.
Group Two Taxa
Somewhat pollution tolerant organisms can
be in good or fair quality water.
8 Crayfish: Order Decapoda. Up to 6", 2
large claws, 8 legs, resembles small
lobster.
9 Sowbug: Order Isopoda. 1/4" to 3/4",
gray oblong body wider than it is high,
more than 6 legs, long antennae.
Bar line indicate relative size
Source: Izaak Walton League of America,
707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD
20878-2983. (800) BUG-IWLA
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 19

Group Two Taxa
Somewhat pollution tolerant organisms can
be in good or fair quality water.
10 Scud: Order Amphipoda. 1/4", white to
gray, body higher than it is wide, swims
sideways, more than 6 legs, resembles
small shrimp.
11 Alderfly Larva: Family Sialedae. 1"
long. Looks like small Hellgramite but
has long, thin, branched tail at back end
(no hooks). No gill tufts underneath.
12 Fishfly Larva: Family Cordalidae. Up
to 1 1/2" long. Looks like small
hellgramite but often a lighter reddishtan
color, or with yellowish streaks. No
gill tufts underneath.
13 Damselfly: Suborder Zygoptera. 1/2"
to 1", large eyes, 6 thin hooked legs, 3
broad oar-shaped tails, positioned like a
tripod. Smooth (no gills) on sides of
lower half of body. (See arrow.)
14 Watersnipe Fly Larva: Family
Athericidae (Atherix). 1/4" to 1", pale to
green, tapered body, many caterpillarlike
legs, conical head, feathery "horns"
at back end.
15 Crane Fly: Suborder Nematocera. 1/3"
to 2", milky, green, or light brown, plump
caterpillar-like segmented body, 4 fingerlike
lobes at back end.
16 Beetle Larva: Order Coleoptera. 1/4"
to 1", light-colored, 6 legs on upper half
of body, feelers, antennae.
17 Dragon Fly: Suborder Anisoptera. 1/2"
to 2", large eyes, 6 hooked legs. Wide
oval to round abdomen.
18 Clam: Class Bivalvia.
Group Three Taxa
Pollution tolerant organisms can be in any
quality of water.
19 Aquatic Worm: Class Oligochaeta.
1/4" to 2", can be very tiny, thin wormlike
body.
20 Midge Fly Larva: Suborder Nematocera.
Up to 1/4", dark head, worm-like
segmented body, 2 tiny legs on each
side.
21 Blackfly Larva: Family Simulidae. Up
to 1/4", one end of body wider. Black
head, suction pad on other end.
22 Leech: Order Hirudinea. 1/4" to 2",
brown, slimy body, ends with suction
pads.
23 Pouch Snail and Pond Snails: Class
Gastropoda. No operculum. Breath air.
When opening is facing you, shell
usually open to left.
Bar line indicate relative size
24 Other Snails: Class Gastropoda. No
operculum.Breath air. Snail shell coils in
one plane.
20 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Technical information to
support implementation
Introduction
This section provides a guide for implementation of
the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP). The
topics covered in this section include the origin of the
protocol, development history, context for use in
relation to other methods of stream assessment,
instructions for modifying the protocol, and references.
Origin of the protocol
In 1996 the NRCS National Water and Climate Center
surveyed the NRCS state biologists to determine the
extent of activity in stream ecological assessment and
the need for technical support. The survey indicated
that less than a third of the NRCS states were active in
supporting stream assessment within their state. Most
respondents said they believed they should be more
active and requested additional support from the
National Centers and Institutes. In response to these
findings, the NRCS Aquatic Assessment Workgroup
was formed. In their first meeting the workgroup
determined that a simple assessment protocol was
needed. The Water Quality Indicators Guide (WQIG)
had been available for 8 years, but was not being used
extensively. The workgroup felt a simpler and more
streamlined method was needed as an initial protocol
for field office use.
The workgroup developed a plan for a tiered progression
of methods that could be used in the field as
conservationists became more skilled in stream assessment.
These methods would also serve different
assessment objectives. The first tier is a simple 2-page
assessment — the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
(SVAP). The second tier is the existing WQIG. The
third tier is a series of simple assessment methods that
could be conducted by conservationists in the field. An
example of a third tier method would be macroinvertibrate
sampling and identification to the taxonomic
level of Order. The fourth tier is fairly sophisticated
methods used in special projects. Examples of
fourth tier methods would be fish community sampling
and quantitative sampling of macroinvertebrates
with shipment of samples to a lab for identification.
The workgroup also found that introductory training
and a field handbook that would serve as a comprehensive
reference and guidance manual are needed.
These projects are under development as of this writing.
Context for use
The Stream Visual Assessment Protocol is intended to
be a simple, comprehensive assessment of stream
condition that maximizes ease of use. It is suitable as a
basic first approximation of stream condition. It can
also be used to identify the need for more accurate
assessment methods that focus on a particular aspect
of the aquatic system.
The relationship of the SVAP to other assessment
methods is shown in figure 4. In this figure a specific
reference to a guidance document is provided for
some methods. The horizontal bars indicate which
aspects of stream condition (chemical, physical, or
biological) are addressed by the method. The SVAP is
the simplest method and covers all three aspects of
stream condition. As you move upwards in figure 4 the
methods provide more accuracy, but also become
more focused on one or two aspects of stream condition
and require more expertise or resources to conduct.
The SVAP is intended to be applicable nationwide. It
has been designed to utilize factors that are least
sensitive to regional differences. However, regional
differences are a significant aspect of stream assessment,
and the protocol can be enhanced by tailoring
the assessment elements to regional conditions. The
national SVAP can be viewed as a framework that can
evolve over time to better reflect State or within-State
regional differences. Instructions for modification are
provided later in this document.
Development
The SVAP was developed by combining parts of several
existing assessment procedures. Many of these
sources are listed in the references section. Three
drafts were developed and reviewed by the workgroup
and others between the fall of 1996 and the spring of
1997. During the summer of 1997, the workgroup
conducted a field trial evaluation of the third draft.
Further field trials were conducted with the fourth
draft in 1998. A report on the field trial results is appendix
A of this document.
The field trials involved approximately 60 individuals
and 182 assessment sites. The field trial consisted of a
combination of replication studies (in which several
individuals independently assessed the same sites) and
accuracy studies (in which SVAP scores were compared
to the results from other assessment methods).
The average coefficient of variation in the replication
studies was 10.5 percent. The accuracy results indicated
that SVAP version 3 scores correlated well with
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 21

other methods for moderately impacted and high
quality sites, but that low quality sites were not scoring
correspondingly low in the SVAP. Conservationists in
the field who participated in the trial were surveyed on
the usability and value of the protocol. The participants
indicated that they found it easy to use and
thought it would be valuable for their clients.
Revisions were made to the draft to address the deficiencies
identified in the field trial, and some reassessments
were made during the winter of 1998 to see how
the revisions affected performance. Performance was
improved. Additional revisions were made, and the
fifth draft was sent to all NRCS state offices, selected
Federal agencies, and other partners for review and
comment during the spring of 1998.
Comments were received from eight NRCS state
offices, the Bureau of Land Management, and several
NRCS national specialists. Comments were uniformly
supportive of the need for the guidance and for the
document as drafted. Many commenters provided
improved explanatory text for the supporting descriptions
accompanying the assessment elements. Most of
the suggested revisions were incorporated.
Implementation
The SVAP is issued as a national product. States are
encouraged to incorporate it within the Field Office
Technical Guide. The document may be modified by
States. The electronic file for the document may be
downloaded from the National Water and Climate
Center web site at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov.
A training course for conservationists in the field
suitable for use at the state or area level has been
developed to facilitate implementation of the SVAP. It
is designed as either a 1-day or 2-day session. The first
day covers basic stream ecology and use of the SVAP.
The second day includes an overview of several
stream assessment methods, instruction on a macroinvertebrate
survey method, and field exercises to
apply the SVAP and macroinvertibrate protocols. The
training materials consist of an instructor's guide,
slides, video, a macroinvertebrate assessment training
kit, and a student workbook. Training materials have
been provided to each NRCS state office.
Instructions for modification
The national version of the Stream Visual Assessment
Protocol may be used without modification. It has
been designed to use assessment elements that are
least sensitive to regional differences. Nonetheless, it
can be modified to better reflect conditions within a
geographic area. Modifying the protocol would have
the following benefits:
• The protocol can be made easier to use with narrative
descriptions that are closer to the conditions
users will encounter.
• The protocol can be made more responsive to
differences in stream condition.
• Precision can be improved by modifying elements
that users have trouble evaluating.
• The rating scale can be calibrated to regionallybased
criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor
condition.
Figure 4
Relationship of various stream condition assessment methods in terms of complexity or expertise required and the
aspects of stream condition addressed
Difficult
or more
expertise
needed
National Handbook
of WQ Monitoring
Tier 4 Biotic Assessment
Geomorphic analysis
Proper functioning condition
Tier 3 Biotic Assessment
WQ Indicators Guide
Stream Visual Assessment
Simple
Chemical
Biological
Physical
22 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Two parts of the SVAP may be modified—the individual
elements and their narrative descriptions, and
the rating scale for assigning an overall condition rating
of excellent, good, fair, or poor.
The simplest approach to modifying the SVAP is based
on professional experience and judgment. Under this
approach an interdisciplinary team should be assembled
to develop proposed revisions. Revisions
should then be evaluated by conducting comparison
assessments at sites representing a range of conditions
and evaluating accuracy (correlation between different
assessment methods), precision (reproducibility
among different users), and ease of use.
A second, more scientifically rigorous method for
modifying the protocol is described below. This approach
is based on a classification system for stream
type and the use of reference sites.
Step 1 Decide on tentative number of versions.
Do you want to develop a revised version for your
state, for each ecoregion within your state, or for
several stream classes within each ecoregion?
Step 2 Develop tentative stream classification.
If you are developing protocols by stream class, you
need to develop a tentative classification system. (If
you are interested in a statewide or ecoregion protocol,
go to step 3.) You might develop a classification system
based on stream order, elevation, or landscape character.
Do not create too many categories. The greater the
number of categories, the more assessment work will
be needed to modify the protocol and the more you will
be accommodating degradation within the evaluation
system. As an extreme example of the latter problem,
you would not want to create a stream class consisting
of those streams that have bank-to-bank cropping and
at least one sewage outfall.
Step 3 Assess sites.
Assess a series of sites representing a range of conditions
from highly impacted sites to least impacted sites.
Try to have at least 10 sites in each of your tentative
classes. Those sites should include several potential
“least impacted reference sites.” Try to use sites that
have been assessed by other assessment methods
(such as sites assessed by state agencies or universities).
As part of the assessments, be sure to record
information on potential classification factors and if
any particular elements are difficult to score. Take
notes so that future revisions of the elements can be rescored
without another site visit.
Step 4 Rank the sites.
Begin your data analysis by ranking all the sites from
most impacted to least impacted. Rank sites according
to the independent assessment results (preferred) or
by the SVAP scores. Initially, rank all of the sites in the
state data set. You will test classifications in subsequent
iterations.
Step 5 Display scoring data.
Prepare a chart of the data from all sites in your state.
The columns are the sites arranged by the ranking. The
rows are the assessment elements, the overall numerical
score, and the narrative rating. If you have independent
assessment data, create a second chart by
plotting the overall SVAP scores against the independent
scores.
Step 6 Evaluate responsiveness.
Does the SVAP score change in response to the condition
gradient represented by the different sites? Are
the individual element scores responding to key resource
problems? Were users comfortable with all
elements? If the answers are yes, do not change the
elements and proceed to step 7. If the answers are no,
isolate which elements are not responsive. Revise the
narrative descriptions for those elements to better
respond to the observable conditions. Conduct a
"desktop" reassessment of the sites with the new
descriptions, and return to step 4.
Step 7 Evaluate the narrative rating breakpoints.
Do the breakpoints for the narrative rating correspond
to other assessment results? The excellent range
should encompass only reference sites. If not, you
should reset the narrative rating breakpoints. Set the
excellent breakpoint based on the least impacted
reference sites. You must use judgment to set the
other breakpoints.
Step 8 Evaluate tentative classification system.
Go back to step 4 and display your data this time by
the tentative classes (ecoregions or stream classes). In
other words, analyze sites from each ecoregion or
each stream class separately. Repeat steps 5 through 7.
If the responsiveness is significantly different from the
responsiveness of the statewide data set or the breakpoints
appear to be significantly different, adopt the
classification system and revise the protocol for each
ecoregion or stream class. If not, a single statewide
protocol is adequate.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 23

After the initial modification of the SVAP, the state
may want to set up a process to consider future revisions.
Field offices should be encouraged to locate and
assess least impacted reference sites to build the data
base for interpretation and future revisions. Ancillary
data should be collected to help evaluate whether a
potential reference site should be considered a reference
site.
Caution should be exercised when considering future
revisions. Revisions complicate comparing SVAP
scores determined before and after the implementation
of conservation practices if the protocol is substantially
revised in the intervening period. Developing
information to support refining the SVAP can be
carried out by graduate students working cooperatively
with NRCS. The Aquatic Assessment Workgroup
has been conducting a pilot Graduate Student Fellowship
program to evaluate whether students would be
willing to work cooperatively for a small stipend. Early
results indicate that students can provide valuable
assistance. However, student response to advertisements
has varied among states. If the pilot is successful,
the program will be expanded.
24 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

References
Binns, N.A., and F.M. Eiserman. 1979. Quantification
of fluvial trout habitat in Wyoming. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 103(3): 215-228.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. California
stream bioassessment procedures. Aquatic
Bioassessment Lab.
Chambers, J.R. 1992. U.S. coastal habitat degradation
and fishery declines. Trans. N. Am. Widl. and
Nat. Res. Conf. 57(11-19).
Davis, W.S., and T.P. Simon (eds.). 1995. Biological
assessment and criteria: tools for water resource
planning and decision making. Lewis Publ., Boca
Raton, FL.
Detenbeck, N.E., P.W. DeVore, G.J. Niemi, and A.
Lima. 1992. Recovery of temperate stream fish
communities from disturbance: a review of case
studies and synthesis of theory. Env. Man.
16:33-53.
Etneir, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of
Tennessee. Univ. TN Press, Knoxville, TN.
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. 1996. 1996
beneficial use reconnaissance project workplan.
IDHW-300-83270-05/96.
Izaak Walton League of America. 1994. Save our
streams stream quality survey. IWLA, 707 Conservation
Lane, Gaithersburg, MD.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant,
and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters: a method and its
rationale. IL Natl. Hist. Surv. Spec. Pub. 5,
Champaign, IL.
Minckley, W.L., and J.E. Deacon. 1991. Battle against
extinction. Univ. AZ Press, Tucson, AZ.
Mullan, J.W. 1986. Detriments of sockeye salmon
abundance in the Columbia River, 1880's-1982: a
review and synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 86(12).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
1987. Water watch field guide.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological
criteria for the protection of aquatic life:
volume III. Standardized biological field sampling
and laboratory methods for assessing fish
and invertebrate communities. Columbus, OH.
Omernick, J.M. 1995. Ecoregions: a spatial framework
for environmental management. In Biological
assessment and criteria: tools for water resource
planning and decision making, W.S.Davis and
T.P. Simon (eds.), Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL,
pp. 49-62.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland
Hydrol., Pagosa Springs, CO.
Terrell, J.W., T.E. McMahon, P.D. Inskip, R.F. Raleigh,
and K.L. Williamson. 1982. Habitat suitability
index models: appendix A. Guidelines for riverine
and lacustrine applications of fish HSI
models with the habitat evaluation procedures.
U.S. Dep. Int., Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/
10A.
University of Montana. 1997. Assessing health of a
riparian site (draft). School of Forestry, Univ.
MT, Missoula, MT.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
1997. R1/R4 Fish and fish habitat standard
inventory procedures handbook. INT-GTR-346.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1989. Water quality indicators
guide: surface waters. SCS-TP-161 (now available
from the Terrene Institute, Alexandria, VA).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service. 1997. National
handbook of water quality monitoring. Part 600
Natl. Water Quality Handb.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in steams
and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
EPA/440/4-89/001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990.
Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods
for evaluating the biological integrity of surface
waters. EPA/600/4-90/030.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
Volunteer stream monitoring: A Methods Manual.
EPA 841-B-97-003.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 25

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
Field and laboratory methods for macroinvertebrate
and habitat assessment of low gradient
nontidal streams. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams
Workgroup, Environ. Serv. Div., EPA Region 3,
Wheeling, WV.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. 1993. Riparian area management:
process for assessing proper functioning condition.
TR 1737-9.
United States Department of Interior, Geologic Survey.
1993. Methods for characterizing stream habitat
as part of the national water quality assessment
program. Open File Rep. 93-408.
Williams, J.D. 1981. Threatened warmwater stream
fishes and the Endangered Species Act: a review.
In L.A. Krumholz, ed. The Warmwater Streams
Symposium. Am. Fish. Soc. South Div., Bethesda,
MD.
26 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Glossary
Active channel width
Aggradation
Bankfull discharge
Bankfull stage
Baseflow
Benthos
Boulders
Channel
Channel roughness
Channelization
Cobbles
Confined channel
Degradation
Downcutting
Ecoregion
Embeddedness
Emergent plants
Flood plain
Forb
The width of the stream at the bankfull discharge. Permanent vegetation
generally does not become established in the active channel.
Geologic process by which a stream bottom or flood plain is raised in
elevation by the deposition of material.
The stream discharge (flow rate, such as cubic feet per second) that forms
and controls the shape and size of the active channel and creates the flood
plain. This discharge generally occurs once every 1.5 years on average.
The stage at which water starts to flow over the flood plain; the elevation
of the water surface at bankfull discharge.
The portion of streamflow that is derived from natural storage; average
stream discharge during low flow conditions.
Bottom-dwelling or substrate-oriented organisms.
Large rocks measuring more than 10 inches across.
A natural or artificial waterway of perceptible extent that periodically or
continuously contains moving water. It has a definite bed and banks that
serve to confine the water.
Physical elements of a stream channel upon which flow energy is expended
including coarseness and texture of bed material, the curvature of the
channel, and variation in the longitudinal profile.
Straightening of a stream channel to make water move faster.
Medium-sized rocks which measure 2.5 to 10 inches across.
A channel that does not have access to a flood plain.
Geologic process by which a stream bottom is lowered in elevation due to
the net loss of substrate material. Often called downcutting.
See Degradation.
A geographic area defined by similarity of climate, landform, soil, potential
natural vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variables.
The degree to which an object is buried in steam sediment.
Aquatic plants that extend out of the water.
The flat area of land adjacent to a stream that is formed by current flood
processes.
Any broad-leaved herbaceous plant other than those in the Gramineae
(Poceae), Cyperacea, and Juncaceae families (Society for Range Management,
1989).
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 27

Gabions
Geomorphology
Glide
Gradient
Grass
Gravel
Habitat
Herbaceous
Hydrology
Incised channel
Intermittent stream
Macrophyte bed
Meander
Macroinvertebrate
Nickpoint
Perennial stream
Point bar
Pool
Reach
Riffle
A wire basket filled with rocks; used to stabilize streambanks and to control
erosion.
The study of the evolution and configuration of landforms.
A fast water habitat type that has low to moderate velocities, no surface
agitation, no defined thalweg, and a U-shaped, smooth, wide bottom.
Slope calculated as the amount of vertical rise over horizontal run expressed
as ft/ft or as percent (ft/ft * 100).
An annual to perennial herb, generally with round erect stems and swollen
nodes; leaves are alternate and two-ranked; flowers are in spikelets each
subtended by two bracts.
Small rocks measuring 0.25 to 2.5 inches across.
The area or environment in which an organism lives.
Plants with nonwoody stems.
The study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on the Earth's
surface, soil, and atmosphere.
A channel with a streambed lower in elevation than its historic elevation in
relation to the flood plain.
A stream in contact with the ground water table that flows only certain
times of the year, such as when the ground water table is high or when it
receives water from surface sources.
A section of stream covered by a dense mat of aquatic plants.
A winding section of stream with many bends that is at least 1.2 times
longer, following the channel, than its straight-line distance. A single meander
generally comprises two complete opposing bends, starting from the
relatively straight section of the channel just before the first bend to the
relatively straight section just after the second bend.
A spineless animal visible to the naked eye or larger than 0.5 millimeters.
The point where a stream is actively eroding (downcutting) to a new base
elevation. Nickpoints migrate upstream (through a process called
headcutting).
A steam that flows continuously throughout the year.
A gravel or sand deposit on the inside of a meander; an actively mobile
river feature.
Deeper area of a stream with slow-moving water.
A section of stream (defined in a variety of ways, such as the section between
tributaries or a section with consistent characteristics).
A shallow section in a stream where water is breaking over rocks, wood, or
other partly submerged debris and producing surface agitation.
28 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Riparian
Riprap
Run
Scouring
Sedge
Substrate
Surface fines
Thalweg
Turbidity
Watershed
The zone adjacent to a stream or any other waterbody (from the Latin word
ripa, pertaining to the bank of a river, pond, or lake).
Rock material of varying size used to stabilize streambanks and other
slopes.
A fast-moving section of a stream with a defined thalweg and little surface
agitation.
The erosive removal of material from the stream bottom and banks.
A grasslike, fibrous-rooted herb with a triangular to round stem and leaves
that are mostly three-ranked and with close sheaths; flowers are in spikes
or spikelets, axillary to single bracts.
The mineral or organic material that forms the bed of the stream; the
surface on which aquatic organisms live.
That portion of streambed surface consisting of sand/silt (less than 6 mm).
The line followed by the majority of the streamflow. The line connecting
the lowest or deepest points along the streambed.
Murkiness or cloudiness of water caused by particles, such as fine sediment
(silts, clays) and algae.
A ridge of high land dividing two areas that are drained by different river
systems. The land area draining to a waterbody or point in a river system;
catchment area, drainage basin, drainage area.
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 29

30 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Appendix A—1997 and 1998 Field Trial Results
Purpose and methods
The purpose of the field trials was to evaluate the
accuracy, precision, and usability of the draft Steam
Visual Assessment Protocol. The draft protocols
evaluated were the third draft dated May 1997 and the
fourth draft dated October 1997. A field trial workplan
was developed with study guidelines and a survey
form to solicit feedback from users. Accuracy was
evaluated by comparison to other stream assessment
methods. Precision was evaluated by replicate assessments
conduced by different individuals at the same
sites. In all studies an attempt was made to utilize sites
ranging from high quality to degraded. Results consisted
of the scoring data and the user feedback form
for each site.
Results
Overall, 182 sites were assessed, and approximately 60
individuals participated in the field trials. The individual
studies are summarized in table A–1.
Precision could be evaluated using data from the
Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, and Georgia
studies. Results are summarized in table A–2. The New
Jersey sites had coefficients of variation of 9.0 (n=8),
14.4 (n=5), and 5.7 (n=4) percent. The Oregon site with
three replicates was part of a course and had a coefficient
of variation of 11.1 percent. One Georgia site was
assessed using the fourth draft during a pilot of the
training course. There were 11 replicates, and the
coefficient of variation was 8.8 percent. In May 1998
the workgroup conducted replicate assessments of
two sites in Virginia using the fifth draft of the protocol.
Coefficients of variation were 14.7 and 3.6 percent.
The average coefficient of variation of all studies in
table A–2 is 10.5 percent.
Variability within the individual elements of the SVAP
was evaluated using the Georgia site with 11 replicates.
The results of the individual element scores are
presented in figure A–1. It should be noted that two
individuals erroneously rated the "presence of manure"
element.
Accuracy was evaluated by comparing the SVAP rating
to other methods as noted in table A–1. Some of the
comparisons involved professional judgment. In others
the SVAP score could be compared with a quantitative
evaluation. Figures A–2 through A–5 present data from
the two studies that had larger numbers of sites. The
Pearson's Correlation Coefficient is presented for
these data. The results from other sites are presented
in table A–3.
Table A–1
Summary of studies in the field trial
Location Number of Number of SVAP compared to SVAP conducted by
sites
replicates
VA 56 3, 5 IBI (fish) and Ohio QHEI FO personnel
NC/SC 90 none IBI, EPT Soil scientists
MI 5 none professional judgment State biologist
NJ 3 4, 5, 8 NJDEP ratings FO personnel
OR 3 none IBI NWCC scientist
CO 1 3 professional judgment FO personnel
WA 3 none professional judgment State biologist
OR 2 3 no comparisons FO personnel
GA 8 4-5 macroinvertebrates FO personnel
GA 2 12, none IBI, macroinvertebrate FO personnel
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 31

Figure A–1
10
8
Scores
6
4
2
0
Means and standard deviations from the
Parker’s Mill Creek site in Americus, GA
(n=11) (mean plus and minus one standard
deviation is shown; SVAP version 4 used)
The SVAP version 3 scores correlated extremely well
with the Ohio Qualitative Habitat Index and reasonably
well with the fish community IBI in the Virginia
study (fig. A–2 and A–3). However, the SVAP version 3
scores in the Carolinas study did not correlate well
with either IBI or EPT Taxa (fig. A–4 and A–5). These
results may reflect the fact that the SVAP primarily
assesses physical habitat within the assessment reach
whereas IBI and EPT Taxa are influenced by both
physical habitat within the assessment reach and
conditions within the watershed. Onsite physical
habitat may have been a relatively more important
factor at the Virginia sites than at the Carolina sites.
-2
Channel
Hydrol
Riparian
Bank sta
Canopy
Watera
Nutrient
Manure
Fish bar
Fish cov
SVAP elements
Pools
Riffle
Inv hab
Macroin
Final
Overall, the field trial results for the third draft seemed
to indicate that SVAP scores reflected conditions for
sites in good to moderate condition. However, SVAP
scores tended to be too high for poor quality sites.
Both the user questionnaires and verbal feedback
indicated that users found the SVAP easy to use. Users
reported that they thought it would be an effective tool
to use with landowners. The majority indicated that
they would recommend it to landowners.
Table A–2
Summary of replication results (version refers to the SVAP draft used; mean for overall score reported)
Site SVAP No. Mean 1/ Standard Coefficient
version replicates deviation of variation
Alloway Cr. NJ 3 5 3.6 F 0.52 14.4
Manasquan R. NJ 3 4 5.1 G 0.29 5.7
S. Br. Raritan R. NJ 3 8 5.9 G 0.53 9.0
Gales Cr. OR 3 3 5.5 G 0.61 11.1
Clear Cr. CO 3 3 5.4 G 0.74 13.7
Piscola Cr. GA #1 4 5 9.2 E 0.77 8.4
Piscola Cr. GA #2 4 5 9.0 E 0.85 9.4
Piscola Cr. GA #3 4 4 4.7 F 1.10 23.4
Piscola Cr. GA #4 4 4 7.4 G 0.96 13.0
Little R. GA # 1 4 4 8.3 E 0.73 8.8
Little R. GA # 2 4 4 7.4 E 0.83 11.2
Little R. GA # 3 4 4 8.1 E 0.41 5.1
Little R. GA # 4 4 4 7.3 G 0.60 8.2
Parker’s Mill Cr. GA 4 11 5.7 F 0.50 8.8
Cedar Run (up), VA 5 5 7.7 G 1.1 14.7
Cedar R. (down), VA 5 5 6.6 F .2 3.6
1/ Includes SVAP narrative ratings (P = poor, F = fair, G = good, E = excellent)
32 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Table A–3
Accuracy comparison data from studies with too few sites to determine a correlation coefficient
Site SVAP SVAP score and rating Comparative rating Comparative method
version
Alloway Cr. NJ 3 3.6* — fair 12 — mod. impaired NJIS (macro.)
Manasquan R. NJ 3 5.1* — good 12 — mod. impaired NJIS (macro.)
S. Br. Raritan R. NJ 3 5.9* — good 30 — not impaired NJIS (macro.)
Site 1 OR 3 2.7 — fair 12 — very poor IBI (fish)
Site 2 OR 3 4.6 — good 22 — poor IBI (fish)
Site 3 OR 3 7.0 — excellent 44 — good IBI (fish)
Muckalee Cr. GA 4 8.6 — good good to excellent mussel taxa
* Mean value of replicates
Figure A–2
50
40
Correlation between SVAP and IBI values in
the Virginia study (n=56)
r=0.63, p=0.0001
Figure A–3
8
7
r=0.91, p=0.0001
Correlation between SVAP and Ohio Qualitative
Habitat Evaluation Index values in the
Virginia study (n=56)
IBI
30
20
NRCS, SVAP
6
5
4
0 0 4 5 6 7 8
NRCS, SVAP
0
40 50 60 70 80 90
Ohio, QHEI
Figure A–4
Correlation between SVAP and IBI values in
the Carolinas study (n=90)
Figure A–5
Correlation between SVAP and macroinvertebrate
index values in Carolinas study (n=90)
Fish community IBI
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
r=0.19, p=0.1
10
2 3
4 5 6 7
SVAP Version 3 score
Number EPT taxa
30
r=0.2584, p=0.02
25
20
15
10
5
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
SVAP Version 3 score
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 33

Discussion
Overall, the workgroup concluded from the first field
trial that the SVAP could be used by conservationists
in the field with reasonable reproducibility and a level
of accuracy commensurate with its objective of providing
a basic assessment of ecological condition
provided the poor response to degraded streams could
be corrected.
Several potential causes for the lack of accuracy with
degraded sites were identified by the workgroup as
follows:
• Because the overall score is an average of all assessed
elements, the effect of low scoring elements
can be damped out by averaging if the degradation
is not picked up by many of the other assessed
elements.
• Some of the elements needed to be adjusted to give
lower scores for problems.
• The numerical breakpoints for the narrative ratings
of poor/fair and fair/good were set too low.
To correct these problems the number of assessment
elements was reduced and the instructions were
modified so that certain elements are not scored if
they do not apply. For example, the "presence of
manure" element is not scored unless there are animal
operations present. These changes reduced the potential
for low scores to be damped out by the averaging
process.
Several elements were also rewritten to reduce ambiguity
at the low end of the rating scale. Additionally,
several elements were rewritten to have five narrative
descriptions instead of four to address a concern that
users might err on the high side. The scoring scale was
changed from a scale of 1 to 7 to a scale of 1 to 10
because it was felt that most people have a tendency
to think in terms of a decimal scale.
The revisions were incorporated into a fourth draft
and evaluated by the workgroup. Sites from the first
field trial were rescored using the new draft. Response
seemed to have improved as indicated by the greater
separation of sites at lower scores in figure A–6.
During pilot testing of the training materials in March
1998, the fourth draft was used by 12 students independently
at one site and collectively at another site.
The coefficient of variation at the replication site was
8.8 percent. One of the sites had been previously
assessed using other methods, and the SVAP rating
corresponded well to the previous assessments.
After the evaluation of the fourth draft, minor revisions
were made for the fifth draft. The breakpoints
for the narrative rating of excellent, good, fair, and
poor for the fifth draft were set using the Virginia data
set. These breakpoints may be adjusted by the NRCS
state office as explained in this document.
Figure A–6
Version 4 score
10
8
6
4
2
Version 4 scores for VA plotted against
version 3 scores (n=56)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Version 3 score
34 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
Owners name ___________________________________ Evaluator's name_______________________________ Date ________________
Stream name _______________________________________________ Waterbody ID number ____________________________________
Reach location _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ecoregion ___________________________________ Drainage area _______________________ Gradient__________________________
Applicable reference site _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Land use within drainage (%): row crop ______ hayland ______ grazing/pasture _______ forest ______ residential _______
confined animal feeding operations ______ Cons. Reserve ________ industrial _______ Other: _________________
Weather conditions-today ______________________________________ Past 2-5 days __________________________________________
Active channel width ______________________ Dominant substrate: boulder ______ gravel ______ sand ______ silt ______ mud ______
Site Diagram
(NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998) 35

Assessment Scores
Channel condition
Pools
Hydrologic alteration
Riparian zone
Bank stability
Water appearance
Nutrient enrichment
Barriers to fish movement
Instream fish cover
Invertebrate habitat
Canopy cover
Manure presence
Salinity
Score only if applicable
Riffle embeddedness
Marcroinvertebrates
Observed (optional)
Overall score
(Total divided by number scored)
9.0 Excellent
Suspected causes of observed problems_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Recommendations______________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
36 (NWCC Technical Note 99–1, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, December 1998)

TRC Omni Environmental Corporation
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
(Customized for Parvin Branch Stream Assessment)
Team:______________________Date:______________________Time:______________ Site #:_________________
Owners Name________________________ Evaluators Name_______________Phone______________
Stream Name_______________________________________ Waterbody ID_______________________
Reach Location_________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Applicable Reference Site_________________________________________________________________
GPS Coordinates:_______________________________________________________________________
Weather conditions today________________________________ Past 2-5 days______________________
Active channel width________ Dominant substrate: boulder____ cobble ______ gravel_____ sand____ silt___ mud____
Site Diagram: Note direction of flow
Photo Notes: 1.______________________________ 2.__________________________________
3.__________________________________________ 4.__________________________________
5.__________________________________________ 6.__________________________________
7.__________________________________________ 8.__________________________________
9.__________________________________________ 10._________________________________

TRC Omni Environmental Corporation
Assessment Scores (1-Poor to 10-Excellent)
Channel Condition
***(face upstream)***
Pools
Hydrologic Alteration
(Score only if Applicable)
Invertebrate habitat
Riparian Zone Left: Right: Score only if applicable
Bank Stability Left: Right: Canopy Cover
Water Appearance
Nutrient Enrichment
Barriers to fish movement
Instream fish cover
Manure presence
Salinity
Riffle embeddedness
(look in riffles)
Macroinvertebrates
Observed (optional
Streamside Land Use:
(within 50 ft. of top of bank)
Check all that apply
Overall Score 9.0 Excellent
Land Use
From Land Use Maps
Observed in the field
Category Left Bank Right Bank Left Bank Right Bank
Forest
Field/Pasture
Agriculture
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
Outfall Pipe 1: (Photograph #__ and mark on site diagram) GPS Coordinates________________N
Diameter ___________in
____________________W
Headwall? YES NO
Streambank at outfall eroded? YES NO
Pipe Material: concrete steel PVC Clay Other
Location: in stream, top of bank, behind bank, bridge, other______
Channel downstream eroded? YES NO Pipe comes from:_______________________________
Flow appearance: clear, turbid, oily, foamy, colored, other________
Outfall Pipe 2: (Photograph # __and mark on site diagram) GPS Coordinates___________________N
Diameter ___________in.
_____________________W
Headwall? YES NO
Streambank at outfall eroded? YES NO
Pipe Material: concrete steel PVC Clay Other:
Location: in stream, top of bank, behind bank, bridge, other______
Channel downstream eroded? YES NO Pipe comes from:_______________________________
Flow appearance: clear, turbid, oily, foamy, colored, other________

TRC Omni Environmental Corporation
Drainage Ditch: (Photograph #__ and mark on site diagram) GPS Coordinates ________________N
Width of ditch________ft
________________W
Begins at: __________________ Ditch lining: stone, vegetation, concrete, mud, other________
Ditch is: Stable, Eroding
Ditch Flow is: none, intermittent, Steady
Stream channel downstream is: stable, eroded, silted Flow is: clear, cloudy, oily, foamy, colored
Ditch comes from:
Drainage Ditch: (Photograph #__ and mark on site diagram) GPS Coordinates _________________N
Width of ditch________ft
_________________W
Begins at: __________________ Ditch lining: stone, vegetation, concrete, mud, other____________
Ditch is: Stable, Eroding
Ditch Flow is: none, intermittent, Steady
Stream channel downstream is: stable, eroded, silted Flow is: clear, cloudy, oily, foamy, colored
Ditch comes from:
Comments, Suggestions:
Suggestions for remediation along this reach?
Problems not otherwise noted on this form?
Access to this site…how far off of road is it?
Debris, Trash, Litter? Natural or Manmade?

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX I
Note: Please find this document on the data DVD. (90 pages, 4.5MB)

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX J
Parvin-Tarklin GIS
Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this project was the integration of data into a
Geographic Information System or GIS. With the information assembled in the GIS, project
partners were able to present and summarize the assembled information, provide analyses aimed at
identifying watershed restoration issues, and develop recommendations for implementation
initiatives to correct real problems.
The project partners identified and collected all available data for the watershed necessary
to clearly describe the region, prepared a comprehensive analysis, and identified issues related to
riparian areas. Specifically, we acquired existing data from various sources including GIS layers
from the NJDEP’s GIS database, NJDEP aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles, USGS water quality data, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soils information, AMNET data, and County GIS datasets. Using ESRI’s ArcView GIS, the
partners evaluated:
‣ Watershed boundaries, streams, flood plains, major wetland areas, municipal and county
borders, and major roads;
‣ Land use for the entire watershed;
‣ Key open space areas;
‣ Point source discharge locations;
‣ Point source water quality and flow data from the last five years;
‣ Available in-stream water quality and flow data collected over the last five years;
‣ Biological survey monitoring locations and results;
‣ Stream classifications; and
‣ Riparian corridor assessment data collected during the project.
A comprehensive and user-friendly mapping system utilizing ArcView GIS to characterize
the watershed has been developed. The GIS integrates mapping and various geographic data
together in easy-to-understand layers allowing for interpretation by the viewer.
Note: Please find this document on the data DVD. (Multiple documents, 1.5GB+)

Parvin Branch and Tarkiln Branch Watershed Restoration Master Plan
APPENDIX K
WMA 17 DATA GIS
To access all data files including the GIS project (WMA17_Final.apr), all folders on this CD should be
copied to a folder on a desktop computer and placed into the following folder.
C:\MyFiles\2711
From this location, the GIS project can be opened using Esri’s ArcView GIS and all links should be
retained including hotlinks to available MS Excel data tables.
This document was prepared by:
TRC Omni Environmental Corporation
Research Park, 321 Wall Street
Princeton, New Jersey, 08540
Phone: 609-924-8821
Fax: 609-924-8831
Email: rferrara@trcsolutions.com
Note: Please find this document on the data DVD. (Multiple documents, 680 MB)

3/7/2007
Appendix L
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA 17
CHARACTERIZATION & ASSESSMENT
README.DOC
The folder on this disc, named “WMA17finalppt” contains an interactive PowerPoint presentation.
These files will run directly from this cd-rom. The following are directions for preferred viewing of
the contents of this cd.
1. After inserting the disc, begin by opening PowerPoint.
2. Navigate to File: Open: D:\WMA17finalppt\INTRO.ppt.
3. Start the slide show.
4. The presentation will walk the viewer through the content. Further instruction is
located at the start of the presentation.
5. When finished viewing, the Esc key will close all open shows. This may take several
key punches to close everything.
Note: Please find this document on the data DVD. (Multiple documents, 53 MB)